Re: [gentoo-dev] Paludis and Profiles

[Stephen Bennett <spb@gentoo.org>]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:31:29 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I know you would do that. My problem is not with how it is done. But
> what is done. The problem is not about portage choking. The problem
> is that at this point there is no reason to make paludis specific
> changes to the tree.

Changes are made to profiles all the time for the benefit of a package
in the tree. How is this different?

> Making package manager specific changes to the tree/profiles is even
> more a dead end. This would mean that package managers are bound to a
> profile (making it impossible to use the package manager properly).

It would not be bound to a profile in any way. It can read and use any
profile that Portage can. The new profile(s) would be purely for the
convenience of those who want to use it and don't want Portage
installed.

> It would also mean that every package manager would have its own
> profiles. A needless duplication that gets you nowhere.

And how is this any different from having seperate subprofiles for NPTL
or no-NPTL, for 2.4 or 2.6 kernels, or different compiler versions?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list