On Wednesday 17 May 2006 23:30, Stephen Bennett wrote: > Once again, this is going far beyond the scope of the initial > discussion. I'm not saying that Paludis should replace Portage, nor > that it should be an "officially supported package manager". The > question is simply one of whether I can add a top-level paludis profile > without people complaining overmuch, or whether I have to go through > the arch teams and make sub-profiles in 4 different places under > default-linux/.
Neither option. Making 4 subprofiles is even worse than one toplevel profile. The point is however that for a portage replacement there should not be any profile changes needed (Or do you think that when pkgcore comes about we should have current*3 profiles, just to support each package manager?) Requiring a specific profile change just for a package manager is bad design. Next to this technical argument, adding anything for paludis sends the wrong message: - It says paludis is usable in gentoo. Which it isn't. - It says that paludis will be at some point supported by gentoo. Which decision has not been made yet and can not be made yet as paludis is not ready yet. - It says that other changes to specifically accomodate paludis will be made at later points. - It says that paludis is currently useable. It however is not. An installed system can not be converted to or from paludis. Paludis is not tested nor testable (requires conversion abilities). Paludis does not provide compatibility with current portage, therefore disqualifying itself as candidate for portage replacement. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgp9TRLdVYL4w.pgp
Description: PGP signature
