Re: [gentoo-dev] Paludis and Profiles

[Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1248 bytes --]

On Wednesday 17 May 2006 13:11, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:14:37 +0200
>
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Using the normal profiles would also establish paludis as a possible
> > replacement of portage as primary package manager. Refraining from
> > doing so disqualifies paludis from becoming a replacement for
> > portage. As the only point in adding a secondary package manager is
> > the possible replacement of the current primary package manager, I
> > see no point to make any paludis directed changes to the tree.
>
> Using the normal profiles isn't an option unless they're changed to
> include virtual/portage in the system set instead of sys-apps/portage.
> That's the key change we're interested in here -- that the system set
> not pull in portage when paludis is being used instead.

Is there a problem about both of them being there?

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.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]