On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 12:11:34PM +0100, 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.

Override the virtuals via user side configuration (capabilities 
existant in portage) is one solution to that issue.
~harring