On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:39:20 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > Except that by that definition, Paludis *is* a primary package | > manager. | | It is capable of being a primary package manager. On gentoo it is not | the primary package manager as that requires a council decision. Such | a decision would amount to deprecating portage.
No, it's a choice best left up to the users. Ignoring Paludis and pretending it doesn't exist won't make it go away. | > | What he is driving it at is that either paludis is an alternative | > | (yet on disk compatible) primary, or it's a secondary- you keep | > | debating the compatibility angle, thus the logical conclussion is | > | that it's a secondary. | > | > We're an alternative, not entirely on disc compatible primary. | | This means that you could choose to meet the requirements that I am | currently writing down in GLEP shape for package managers that desire | to replace portage as the primary package manager. Those requirements | can be met, but would limit the freedom choise of implementation of | the package manager. GLEPs are to *Enhance*, not to hold back. | > Design choice. We chose not to continue with previous design | > mistakes that exist only because of limitations in Portage's dep | > resolver where we can do so without requiring ebuild changes. | | This is a valid design choise. It does however mean that paludis | perhaps can not meet the requirements for being a replacement for | portage as gentoo primary package manager. You could come up with a requirement saying that "any replacement for Portage must have an 'o' in its name". Wouldn't make it a valid requirement. Fact is, Paludis can be used as and is being used as a primary package manager. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
