| 1 |
> > Here is an excellent interview with Ciaran McCreesh about Paludis: |
| 2 |
> > |
| 3 |
> > http://lab.obsethryl.eu/content/paludis-gentoo-and-ciaran-mccreesh-uncensored |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> Thanks for the link. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
It really got the meta-wheels turning for me. I found especially |
| 8 |
interesting the fact that Paludis's use on Gentoo is crippled due to |
| 9 |
incompatibilities between it and Portage. This is, of course, brought |
| 10 |
about by the "Portage" tree. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Also: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
"What are your plans regarding the future of Paludis as a Gentoo |
| 15 |
related technology should Paludis for various reason reach the event |
| 16 |
horizon of being able to provide a completely new GNU/Linux |
| 17 |
Distribution both in the technical and social framework meaning of the |
| 18 |
term?" |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
"I don't have a problem with supporting multiple distributions with |
| 21 |
Paludis. I know that a couple of people are using Paludis for small, |
| 22 |
internal-use-only distributions where they need things that Gentoo |
| 23 |
can't deliver. Supporting other distributions or formats doesn't mean |
| 24 |
dropping Gentoo or ebuilds." |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
And: |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
"Or is there interest in creating from scratch a distribution based |
| 29 |
entirely on Paludis?" |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
"I've heard a rumour that some people are experimenting with a |
| 32 |
replacement tree that uses functionality offered by Paludis but not |
| 33 |
Portage (not so much to create a Paludis-based distribution as to |
| 34 |
create a better tree that Portage could theoretically support at some |
| 35 |
point). But there's nothing open to the public just now." |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
- Grant |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives