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 1FgL3V-0001l8-If for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 12:23:10 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4HCMCwD019994; Wed, 17 May 2006 12:22:12 GMT Received: from ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.137]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4HCHOPg030244 for ; Wed, 17 May 2006 12:17:24 GMT X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from spb42.christs.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.233.172]:22703 helo=localhost) by ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpsa (LOGIN:spb42) (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1FgKxm-0007hW-O5 (Exim 4.54) for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org (return-path ); Wed, 17 May 2006 13:17:14 +0100 Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:24:21 +0100 From: Stephen Bennett To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Paludis and Profiles Message-ID: <20060517132421.2cf908ea@localhost> In-Reply-To: <200605171340.18766.pauldv@gentoo.org> References: <20060516161549.442b4d8a@localhost> <200605171214.38540.pauldv@gentoo.org> <20060517121134.532bbd13@localhost> <200605171340.18766.pauldv@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.0.0-rc4 (GTK+ 2.8.12; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "S.P. Bennett" X-Archives-Salt: dd126a95-7785-4e13-bc36-26de7d1bb42e X-Archives-Hash: e9ecdc4804ea1cc103dbddc91dc2e827 On Wed, 17 May 2006 13:40:18 +0200 Paul de Vrieze wrote: > Is there a problem about both of them being there? You can't use both on the same ROOT. The VDB format is subtly different. > I don't see a problem in changing the profiles to include > virtual/portage though where portage is the default provider. It is a > change unrelated to paludis, and would allow easier development of > any alternative package manager. This could be a viable alternative if the paludis profile is shown to be a no-go. A seperate profile would make things easier from a bug-wrangling point of view, since it would be easier to determine when a bug may be caused by using paludis. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list