| 1 |
On Thursday 18 May 2006 18:26, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:26:06 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> | Then copy the bloody profile, or temporarilly add some magic in |
| 6 |
> | paludis that ignores portage and python deps. Not that hard to do. |
| 7 |
> | While not so beautiful it can easilly be removed at a later stage. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> That removes valid dependencies. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Just remove it from the paludis system set. Is it that hard? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> | How far does that spread? Is this only for packages merged by |
| 14 |
> | paludis, or does it spread? And what reasons are there for paludis |
| 15 |
> | not to have a vdb format that will not confuse portage. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Anything merged by Paludis may have a VDB entry that will confuse |
| 18 |
> Portage. This is necessary for two reasons. Firstly, we have some |
| 19 |
> features that Portage doesn't. Secondly, the VDB entries generated by |
| 20 |
> Portage under certain circumstances (symlink/dir merge mismatches) are |
| 21 |
> incomplete and incorrect, and Portage's unmerge code will falsely |
| 22 |
> remove and falsely leave behind garbage when this happens, and we see |
| 23 |
> no reason to emulate this bug. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Then do it correct in a way that portage can still live with it. Otherwise |
| 26 |
write a portage patch so that it can live with it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> Can you install Portage 2.0 and Portage 2.1 in parallel? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
These are versions of the same official package manager. A different |
| 31 |
situation. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> | > > 4) Will Paludis ever become a Gentoo Project? |
| 35 |
> | > |
| 36 |
> | > Doubtful, barring some rather drastic changes in Gentoo and the way |
| 37 |
> | > its projects are handled. |
| 38 |
> | |
| 39 |
> | So you are asking to go towards replacing portage with a package |
| 40 |
> | manager that is not under gentoo control? |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> What about Portage is under Gentoo control? Were Portage under Gentoo |
| 43 |
> control, it would have the features that Gentoo developers require by |
| 44 |
> now. Like, say, :slot deps. Similarly, Gentoo has no problem with bash, |
| 45 |
> despite it not being a Gentoo project... |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Bash is not the gentoo package manager. If the council decided to tomorrow, it |
| 48 |
could revert portage releases, freeze portage releases, lock access to |
| 49 |
portage etc. It is under gentoo control. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Paul |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 55 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 56 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 57 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives