| 1 |
On Wed, 17 May 2006 09:58:41 -0400 Chris Gianelloni |
| 2 |
<wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
| Paludis supports multiple repositories correctly, right? So why is |
| 4 |
| it a big deal to provide the profiles in their own |
| 5 |
| overlay/repository? I haven't heard a good reason why the profiles |
| 6 |
| need to be in the portage tree. I'm not saying I am against it being |
| 7 |
| added so much as I haven't heard a single compelling reason for doing |
| 8 |
| it, and quite a few compelling reasons why *not* to do it, mainly |
| 9 |
| support-related. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
We'd have to extend the parent file to support something like: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
$(location_of_repository_named gentoo)/profiles/default-linux/etc |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
since a) profiles are per-repository and b) we don't want to copy the |
| 16 |
whole Gentoo profile structure. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Now, whilst this change could be useful, it's going to cause a huge |
| 19 |
incompatibility with Portage... So unless someone can come up with a |
| 20 |
solution that won't... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 24 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives