Re: [gentoo-dev] Paludis and Profiles

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2887 bytes --]

On Wednesday 17 May 2006 18:05, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:48:32 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org>
>
> wrote:
> | This is basically to protect the official package manager. This is
> | not because I like portage that much, but to provide some kind of
> | unified direction. I am afraid that allowing various competing
> | package managers would cause a wildfire of incompatible elements in
> | the tree. Therefore there must be one official package manager that
> | the tree works with.
>
> You're saying "we must never move forward" here. There is no
> requirement that users use packages that are EAPI masked, any more than
> there is a requirement that users use packages that are package masked.
> We have had situations in the past where some ebuilds have relied upon a
> non-stable or hard-masked Portage version.

Currently we do not have any separation between core and non-core packages, 
but what would you say about this being the case for expat, and what about 
glibc? Every package that is not available to the official package manager 
hampers its credibility as the official package manager. In the case of a 
non-stable or hard-masked portage, this fact by itself limits the application 
of such packages. In case of an alternative package manager it is a lot 
easier to say "just install pkgcore (other contentor, to not mention paludis 
all the time), and it works". At that point this package manager takes over 
the role of primary package manager by the back door.

What I say is that we can move forward, but in conscious steps. There are many 
things that can be done without introducing packages to the tree that do not 
work with a current or planned version of the official package manager.

Please know that I don't mind portage being replaced. I don't think any of its 
developers are particularly in love with its spaghetti code. I do however 
think that a conscious decision should be made on whether and which package 
manager replaces portage.

> | > The same situation will occur when newer Portage versions supporting
> | > newer EAPIs are released into p.mask or ~arch. Some packages will
> | > end up relying upon something that isn't the stable package manager.
> |
> | Portage is however the official package manager. This means that
> | these packages do not hamper the position of the official package
> | manager.
>
> The "official package manager" isn't something that's in package.mask.

It is however certain that portage will be replaced at some point by a new 
portage that is either the package masked version, or that the package masked 
version is obsoleted.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.ru.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]