Re: [gentoo-dev] Paludis and Profiles

[Stephen Bennett <spb@gentoo.org>]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:50:59 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> wrote:

> This is not a reason. It is just repeating what I just said. Which 
> features does paludis have for its VDB format. And (per feature) why 
> can't this be done in a compatible way.

We store more information than Portage in VDB, to remove the reliance
that current Portage has on certain parts of the tree being immutable
and in order to support multiple repositories properly (there is no
longer a single place to look for, say, eclass data at uninstall time).
We also construct VDB entries for old-style virtuals, which will
confuse Portage.

> What do you want then? Paludis does not aim to be compatible with
> portage, so this disqualifies paludis as a secondary package manager.

It aims to be compatible with the tree. As far as I know, it succeeds
as things currently stand.

> Two primary package managers is nonsensical. You ask for support in
> the tree for paludis, meaning that you don't want to be unsupported
> third party either. This leaves that you aim at paludis possibly
> becomming a portage replacement.

At present I ask not for support, but for a minor addition for
convenience purposes.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list