| 1 |
On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:14:37 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| On Wednesday 17 May 2006 02:42, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 4 |
| > paludis/packages: |
| 5 |
| > -*>=sys-apps/portage-2.0.51.22 |
| 6 |
| > *sys-apps/paludis |
| 7 |
| |
| 8 |
| Is there any reason that portage and paludis can not live together. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Sure they can. That's not what that profile says. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
| With the contents of this profile I see no reason whatsoever to |
| 13 |
| include it in the tree. Paludis itself could easilly maintain a |
| 14 |
| blocker on portage. The rest is so boilerplate that it has no added |
| 15 |
| benefit of having paludis use the normal profiles. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Again, that's not what that profile says. You need to read up on how |
| 18 |
the packages file works. Basically, lines starting with a - are removed |
| 19 |
from the existing set. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
| If paludis does not aim at replacing portage |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I'm sorry, but the term "Portage replacement" has been banned by the |
| 24 |
Gentoo thought police. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 28 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives