Stephen Bennett wrote: > Many things were discussed in the last round of this thread (Paludis > and Profiles, in case anyone missed it), and many useful points raised. > One of these, which seems to have been largely missed in amongst the > other noise, forms the basis of this proposal. It is in some ways more > and in some ways less intrusive than the previous proposal, > and is also completely package-manager-agnostic. > > In short, I would like to suggest replacing sys-apps/portage atoms in > the base and default-linux profiles with virtual/portage, and removing > the python dependencies from them. For most users this would have an > effective zero change, since the default provider for virtual/portage > is sys-apps/portage, and the python dependency will be pulled in by > Portage when calculating system deps. According to my understanding, > this should also produce no change when building release media, due to > both Portage and Python being in packages.build. > > The only change introduced by this is that it becomes possible to > bootstrap a system with a different package manager simply by > installing it before 'system'. There are a couple more changes needed > to allow this -- namely that a few system packages have old > dependencies on >=portage-2.0.49, but these can be resolved seperately. > Any problems caused by packages depending implicitly upon Python will > show up only on systems not using Portage, and can be easily fixed with > the cooperation of package maintainers. > > I would like to think that this proposal addresses most of the concerns > raised in the last thread -- it implies nothing about support for any > other package manager, and introduces nothing that could cause problems > for Portage users, while still allowing alternative package managers to > use the tree without needing Portage installed. > > I am also aware that this falls roughly under what the Council was > asked to discuss in its June meeting, but since that seems to have not > happened, I'm bringing it up anyway, since I would like to get > something done here. > > Comments?
If you can spot those issues and fix them w/out rush on package mantainers, no problems at all. Just make sure nobody will ask to "fix" something working with portage in 0time because of paludis changes. lu PS: there is a formal spec about ebuilds now? -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
