| 1 |
On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:50:59 +0200 |
| 2 |
Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> This is not a reason. It is just repeating what I just said. Which |
| 5 |
> features does paludis have for its VDB format. And (per feature) why |
| 6 |
> can't this be done in a compatible way. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
We store more information than Portage in VDB, to remove the reliance |
| 9 |
that current Portage has on certain parts of the tree being immutable |
| 10 |
and in order to support multiple repositories properly (there is no |
| 11 |
longer a single place to look for, say, eclass data at uninstall time). |
| 12 |
We also construct VDB entries for old-style virtuals, which will |
| 13 |
confuse Portage. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> What do you want then? Paludis does not aim to be compatible with |
| 16 |
> portage, so this disqualifies paludis as a secondary package manager. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
It aims to be compatible with the tree. As far as I know, it succeeds |
| 19 |
as things currently stand. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Two primary package managers is nonsensical. You ask for support in |
| 22 |
> the tree for paludis, meaning that you don't want to be unsupported |
| 23 |
> third party either. This leaves that you aim at paludis possibly |
| 24 |
> becomming a portage replacement. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
At present I ask not for support, but for a minor addition for |
| 27 |
convenience purposes. |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives