| 1 |
On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:04:33 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| - Paludis must be able to handle a standard portage /var/db/pkg tree. |
| 4 |
| This means that paludis can read it, and write it. Enabling mixing |
| 5 |
| portage and paludis up to some degree. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Paludis can read a Portage-generated VDB. Portage can't read a |
| 8 |
Paludis-generated VDB, because Paludis has more features. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
| - Paludis must work with all current ebuilds, |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Portage does not work with all current ebuilds. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
| and support all features of portage. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
That's insane. Why should we support Portage-style 'candy' spinners? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
| This includes recognition of EAPI |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Funnily enough, unlike Portage, Paludis has full EAPI handling. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
| and no renaming of the variables used. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Why should Paludis emulate Portage internals that no-one uses? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
| - No part of the tree, except those that by nature are paludis |
| 27 |
| specific, may require the usage of paludis instead of portage. This |
| 28 |
| requirement can only be removed after a decision is made by the |
| 29 |
| council to retire portage in favour of paludis. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Again, insane. EAPI allows ebuilds using things that developers have |
| 32 |
been after for years (you know, slot and use deps) to be in the tree in |
| 33 |
such a way that they appear masked to Portage. That's a large part of |
| 34 |
the point of EAPI. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
| - It would be greatly beneficial if paludis would create and use .tbz2 |
| 37 |
| packages, but this is not essential. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Paludis will use its own binary format. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 43 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives