On Wednesday 17 May 2006 21:44, Stephen Bennett wrote: > On Wed, 17 May 2006 21:17:55 +0200 > > Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, these packages are available to paludis, but not to portage. > > Basically making a case for the use of paludis. I don't think that > > the decision to replace portage should be made in that way. > > To reiterate here, we're not proposing introducing any paludis-specific > features into ebuilds. Only profiles, and those profiles wouldn't > provide anything that would provide users who wouldn't otherwise want > to use paludis with any incentive to switch.
I know. I wanted to make clear the requirements I have that must be met accomodation for a specific package manager can be made in the tree. This holds for paludis. If these requirements are not met, the profile should not be added. Up to now I have not been convinced that paludis meets those requirements, nor that my requirements are invalid. As such I don't think the profile should be added. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgp7TE1WSwGLV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
