| 1 |
On (19/12/07 20:05) b.n. wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dirk Heinrichs ha scritto: |
| 3 |
> > On Wednesday 19 December 2007 17:43:41 Grant wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> >> Has anyone here switched from Portage to Paludis? |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Yes, I did it long time ago :-) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I'd like to try Paludis, looks very promising. |
| 10 |
> I think I've read that Portage and Paludis can coexist happily. Can |
| 11 |
> someone confirm it? It would be useful for a transition. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> m. |
| 14 |
> -- |
| 15 |
> gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
Hi, |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Yes, they *can* coexist well, but i've some remarks. |
| 20 |
The config is rather different but concepts remain the same. |
| 21 |
The paludis vdb-entries have more info but are(were) compatible. |
| 22 |
Watch out for some scripts (perl-cleaner, claw-mail, etc.) in which the |
| 23 |
use of portage/emerge is embedded. Put 'paludis' as USE-flag. |
| 24 |
Have gone to paludis then went back to portage w/o major problems. |
| 25 |
No support for binary packages yet, some warning/downgrades from the tree. |
| 26 |
Now using mainly paludis. |
| 27 |
Please don't consider this 'anti-portage', but just as my choice. |
| 28 |
For me both are good, only paludis has more features (even now). |
| 29 |
HTH. Rumen |
Archives