| 1 |
On Thursday 18 May 2006 16:02, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:31:29 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > I know you would do that. My problem is not with how it is done. But |
| 6 |
> > what is done. The problem is not about portage choking. The problem |
| 7 |
> > is that at this point there is no reason to make paludis specific |
| 8 |
> > changes to the tree. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Changes are made to profiles all the time for the benefit of a package |
| 11 |
> in the tree. How is this different? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Paludis is not just a package, it is an alternative package manager. The |
| 14 |
proposed changes are also not just the setting of a default for a |
| 15 |
useflag. What you are requesting is adding a different version of gentoo. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
A package manager should not mean a different version at all. Whether I |
| 18 |
install subversion with portage or with paludis should not make any |
| 19 |
difference in the installed result. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> It would not be bound to a profile in any way. It can read and use any |
| 22 |
> profile that Portage can. The new profile(s) would be purely for the |
| 23 |
> convenience of those who want to use it and don't want Portage |
| 24 |
> installed. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I already stated that I would find a no-portage profile discussable. This |
| 27 |
profile would then mean that portage, pkg-core, and paludis would be able |
| 28 |
to handle it. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I am not sure though whether having a portage virtual would not be enough. |
| 31 |
As portage depends on python, it would be worthwhile to research whether |
| 32 |
removing python from the default package list works. In that case it is |
| 33 |
possible to remove the explicit portage dependency from the tree. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> > It would also mean that every package manager would have its own |
| 37 |
> > profiles. A needless duplication that gets you nowhere. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> And how is this any different from having seperate subprofiles for NPTL |
| 40 |
> or no-NPTL, for 2.4 or 2.6 kernels, or different compiler versions? |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Those profiles are not tied to the package manager. A package manager does |
| 43 |
not change anything to the installed system (except its own metadata). |
| 44 |
All these other profiles do. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 48 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 49 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 50 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives