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 1FgOxF-0004RQ-5r for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 16:32:57 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4HGUd6x028723; Wed, 17 May 2006 16:30:39 GMT Received: from ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.130]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4HGIcDE021019 for ; Wed, 17 May 2006 16:18:38 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]:21313 helo=localhost) by ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.150]:25) with esmtpsa (LOGIN:spb42) (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1FgOjE-0002mf-2E (Exim 4.54) for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org (return-path ); Wed, 17 May 2006 17:18:28 +0100 Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 17:25:35 +0100 From: Stephen Bennett To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Paludis and Profiles Message-ID: <20060517172535.3ea245e3@localhost> In-Reply-To: <200605171729.11826.pauldv@gentoo.org> References: <20060516161549.442b4d8a@localhost> <1147873370.16876.5.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20060517150830.30a6160d@localhost> <200605171729.11826.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: 9ce1867c-efed-4a21-b880-a4f4d3f89b50 X-Archives-Hash: 8c89c08903e9484e6c02a43c4f202302 On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:29:11 +0200 Paul de Vrieze wrote: > > The problem that I see with this is that it would tend to reinforce > > the view that Paludis is becoming an officially supported package > > manager, which at the moment at least it isn't. If people are > > amenable to the idea though, I'm quite willing to set it up. > > In my opinion if paludis is not aiming to become an officially > supported package manager there is no point in changing the tree to > that in the first place. Note "at the moment". We want paludis to be a viable alternative to Portage for most users, and part of that aim requires having an available profile that doesn't bring Portage into the system set. An "officially supported" package manager is a pretty vague term anyway ... there's a group within Gentoo that will support it, and groups that won't, as with any other part of the tree. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list