On Wednesday 17 May 2006 23:30, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> Once again, this is going far beyond the scope of the initial
> discussion. I'm not saying that Paludis should replace Portage, nor
> that it should be an "officially supported package manager". The
> question is simply one of whether I can add a top-level paludis profile
> without people complaining overmuch, or whether I have to go through
> the arch teams and make sub-profiles in 4 different places under
> default-linux/.

Neither option. Making 4 subprofiles is even worse than one toplevel 
profile. The point is however that for a portage replacement there should 
not be any profile changes needed (Or do you think that when pkgcore 
comes about we should have current*3 profiles, just to support each 
package manager?)

Requiring a specific profile change just for a package manager is bad 
design.

Next to this technical argument, adding anything for paludis sends the 
wrong message:
- It says paludis is usable in gentoo. Which it isn't.
- It says that paludis will be at some point supported by gentoo. Which
  decision has not been made yet and can not be made yet as paludis is not
  ready yet.
- It says that other changes to specifically accomodate paludis will be
  made at later points.
- It says that paludis is currently useable. It however is not. An
  installed system can not be converted to or from paludis. Paludis is not
  tested nor testable (requires conversion abilities). Paludis does not
  provide compatibility with current portage, therefore disqualifying
  itself as candidate for portage replacement.

Paul

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