From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Fgkh1-0001bA-Vy for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 18 May 2006 15:45:40 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4IFhocu023082; Thu, 18 May 2006 15:43:50 GMT Received: from ppsw-9.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-9.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.139]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4IFbVQv029389 for ; Thu, 18 May 2006 15:37:31 GMT X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from spb42.christs.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.233.172]:5626 helo=localhost) by ppsw-9.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpsa (LOGIN:spb42) (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1FgkYt-0007wA-U6 (Exim 4.54) for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org (return-path ); Thu, 18 May 2006 16:37:15 +0100 Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 16:44:24 +0100 From: Stephen Bennett To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Paludis and Profiles Message-ID: <20060518164424.05c25a07@localhost> In-Reply-To: <200605181651.00131.pauldv@gentoo.org> References: <20060516161549.442b4d8a@localhost> <200605181526.06635.pauldv@gentoo.org> <20060518145808.14d20da7@localhost> <200605181651.00131.pauldv@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.0.0-rc4 (GTK+ 2.8.12; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "S.P. Bennett" X-Archives-Salt: a4198780-5e5c-48f5-915b-aa88611e9f87 X-Archives-Hash: ef93d9a0d66985d7ca69c33f0b671d6d On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:50:59 +0200 Paul de Vrieze 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