From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Fg9WH-000604-MR for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 00:04:06 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4H03CHF014103; Wed, 17 May 2006 00:03:12 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4GNwVfT015432 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 23:58:31 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB2A264312 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 23:58:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09484-08 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 23:58:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from iglu.bnet.local (d070072.adsl.hansenet.de [80.171.70.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8CFD642F0 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 23:58:28 +0000 (UTC) From: Carsten Lohrke To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Paludis and Profiles Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 01:58:02 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <20060516161549.442b4d8a@localhost> <20060516231453.171002b9@epia.jeroenr-c2.orkz.net> <20060516232253.2c589768@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20060516232253.2c589768@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1836256.PI9usS5szd"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200605170158.26619.carlo@gentoo.org> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.683 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.845, BAYES_00=-2.599, FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.135, RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL=1.946, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=2.046] X-Spam-Score: 0.683 X-Spam-Level: X-Archives-Salt: 99fdba01-e14f-4690-a449-9497f353c6a5 X-Archives-Hash: 4fae62563608bceb9ee7359dc00214e4 --nextPart1836256.PI9usS5szd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Wednesday 17 May 2006 00:22, Stephen Bennett wrote: > > Does the Gentoo Project not support the > > entire tree all of a sudden? > > There are plenty of ebuilds in the tree marked as unsupported by > gentoo. Probably some profiles too, though I can't name them for > certain off the top of my head. That's not an argument, the share of both unsupported and unmaintaned packa= ges=20 is problematic enough. Unfortunately trying to find a way to change this=20 every time resulted in some devs starting a flame war. > 1) Is bugsy ready for this, with appropriate categories in place? > > Paludis-related bugs can be marked as invalid and the user directed to > Paludis' bug tracker on berlios.de. Alternatively, if our friendly > Bugzilla admins want to create categories I won't complain. I don't see > a need for it though. This costs someones time as well. I haven't had a look at Paludis (the name sucks as much as the name eselect= =20 had, before it was named eselect, btw.) yet, so I don't have an opinion on= =20 it, but if we (or some of us) start supporting arbitrary package managers,= =20 where do we end? Doesn't it cost time, that could be spent better!? If we d= o=20 it, wouldn't it be better to modularize a bit first? E.g. defining interfac= es=20 between=20 =2D tarball management (fetching via users tool of choice be it from the we= b or=20 according to a file list from a named media (e.g. DVD or a tape), mirror=20 handling etc.) =2D profile management (keeping the on disk representation apart from the w= ay=20 the dependency resolver gets the information) =2D package management (dependency resolver, ect.) =2D package installer (install files or create binary packages, may the tar= get=20 be .tbz2, .deb or .rpm) and implement them as independent tools, so we can easly exchange one for t= he=20 other, if there is a superior one, instead having to throw everything away?! I don't think it would be beneficial in the long run, if the outcome would = be=20 that Gentoo divides into groups using different package managers. Carsten --nextPart1836256.PI9usS5szd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBEamciVwbzmvGLSW8RAjdAAJwJFuMnUsJZwldkkNhcPFGNmOAjCgCgvrzU +/NDDdLJGB1IZlq6tGs5Rhw= =NScb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1836256.PI9usS5szd-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list