On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:11:04 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Let me clarify my statement. I don't care about candy spinners. | Paludis (or any other package manager that is to be integrated into | gentoo) should basically be able to allow a level of mix and match. | This means that at the initial import, it can be run on any package | instead of portage, and the results still be usable for portage | (possibly after a conversion stage). | | This allows testing out the package manager.
Not realistic. It means that any new package manager can't do anything new. I'd also like to point out that you can't upgrade to a new Portage version, install some things, downgrade to an older Portage version and expect things to carry on working. | > | and no renaming of the variables used. | > | > Why should Paludis emulate Portage internals that no-one uses? | | If they are internals I don't care. If they are part of the API | exposed to ebuilds then these variables should still be provided. If | variables are not part of the public API, but still used regularly I | consider them still part of the API. This, funnily enough, is what we're doing. We're supporting things that are actually used, and things that people might reasonably use. | > | - No part of the tree, except those that by nature are paludis | > | specific, may require the usage of paludis instead of portage. | > | This requirement can only be removed after a decision is made by | > | the council to retire portage in favour of paludis. | > | > Again, insane. EAPI allows ebuilds using things that developers have | > been after for years (you know, slot and use deps) to be in the | > tree in such a way that they appear masked to Portage. That's a | > large part of the point of EAPI. | | Let's make clear why I put this in. Basically I am of the opinion | that until a decision is made to make (in this case) paludis the | primary package manager, all official packages should work with | portage. Package masked packages are not considered official. What of EAPI masked packages? The same situation will occur when newer Portage versions supporting newer EAPIs are released into p.mask or ~arch. Some packages will end up relying upon something that isn't the stable package manager. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
