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 1FgNne-0004ty-Gd for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 15:18:58 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4HFHEHi000610; Wed, 17 May 2006 15:17:14 GMT Received: from callisto.cs.kun.nl ([131.174.33.75]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4HFBetI000847 for ; Wed, 17 May 2006 15:11:40 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by callisto.cs.kun.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94AC2E800D for ; Wed, 17 May 2006 17:11:10 +0200 (CEST) From: Paul de Vrieze To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Paludis and Profiles Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 17:11:04 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <20060516161549.442b4d8a@localhost> <200605171204.33647.pauldv@gentoo.org> <20060517145705.70b1f15a@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <20060517145705.70b1f15a@snowdrop.home> X-Face: #Lb+'V@sGJ;ptgo5}V"W+5OCoo{LZv;bh,s,`WKLi/J)ed1_$0;6X<=?utf-8?q?700LVV/=3BLqPhiDP=5E=0A=09=27f=5Dfnv?=@%6M8\'HR1t=aFx;ePfp{ZQoBe+e)JOQ8T5*(_;mHY+cltLGq<;@$Y,=?utf-8?q?O=5C=24=0A=09Tm=23G6M?=,g![Q62J{na*S9d;R[^8pc%u\aiLqU@`kJtYl"^6pxdW 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="nextPart1367773.1v0MLEmlYR"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200605171711.10418.pauldv@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 467caf3b-e807-4368-bd9d-677eb6de321a X-Archives-Hash: 3e76af6eee65e45ca7bb14f76475ee32 --nextPart1367773.1v0MLEmlYR Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Wednesday 17 May 2006 15:57, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:04:33 +0200 Paul de Vrieze > > wrote: > | - Paludis must be able to handle a standard portage /var/db/pkg tree. > | This means that paludis can read it, and write it. Enabling mixing > | portage and paludis up to some degree. > > Paludis can read a Portage-generated VDB. Portage can't read a > Paludis-generated VDB, because Paludis has more features. > > | - Paludis must work with all current ebuilds, > > Portage does not work with all current ebuilds. > > | and support all features of portage. > > That's insane. Why should we support Portage-style 'candy' spinners? Let me clarify my statement. I don't care about candy spinners. Paludis=20 (or any other package manager that is to be integrated into gentoo)=20 should basically be able to allow a level of mix and match. This means=20 that at the initial import, it can be run on any package instead of=20 portage, and the results still be usable for portage (possibly after a=20 conversion stage). This allows testing out the package manager. > | This includes recognition of EAPI > > Funnily enough, unlike Portage, Paludis has full EAPI handling. Great. And I agree that EAPI was not taken as far as it should within=20 portage. > | and no renaming of the variables used. > > Why should Paludis emulate Portage internals that no-one uses? If they are internals I don't care. If they are part of the API exposed to= =20 ebuilds then these variables should still be provided. If variables are=20 not part of the public API, but still used regularly I consider them=20 still part of the API. > | - No part of the tree, except those that by nature are paludis > | specific, may require the usage of paludis instead of portage. This > | requirement can only be removed after a decision is made by the > | council to retire portage in favour of paludis. > > Again, insane. EAPI allows ebuilds using things that developers have > been after for years (you know, slot and use deps) to be in the tree in > such a way that they appear masked to Portage. That's a large part of > the point of EAPI. Let's make clear why I put this in. Basically I am of the opinion that=20 until a decision is made to make (in this case) paludis the primary=20 package manager, all official packages should work with portage. Package=20 masked packages are not considered official. If this restriction is not applied, it would create the situation that a=20 decision is forced upon the council by (paludis) having features=20 available that the official primary package manager has not. Thus=20 requiring the use of a secondary package manager for certain=20 applications. This in fact makes that package manager primary. > | - It would be greatly beneficial if paludis would create and use > | .tbz2 packages, but this is not essential. > > Paludis will use its own binary format. I assume there are valid reasons. I agree that the binary support can be=20 improved. Paul =2D-=20 Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net --nextPart1367773.1v0MLEmlYR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBEaz0ObKx5DBjWFdsRAt+qAKCSGJpme7ph0PpJw3r2Kxn83PYTOgCg5/dz 6NrRY7l0QypkBkUPMAuVxGk= =wj7L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1367773.1v0MLEmlYR-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list