Re: [gentoo-dev] Paludis and Profiles

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2565 bytes --]

On Thursday 18 May 2006 15:58, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:26:06 +0200
>
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Then copy the bloody profile, or temporarilly add some magic in
> > paludis that ignores portage and python deps. Not that hard to do.
> > While not so beautiful it can easilly be removed at a later stage.
>
> And if something really does require python?
>
> > How far does that spread? Is this only for packages merged by
> > paludis, or does it spread? And what reasons are there for paludis
> > not to have a vdb format that will not confuse portage.
>
> A VDB entry created by Paludis can't be read by Portage. A VDB entry
> created by Portage can.

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.

>
> > It is very important that package managers coexist with portage. This
> > allows testing of that package manager, but also the testing of a
> > package / eclass on different package managers. It would be
> > irrealistic to require devs to have a different installation just for
> > testing packages with paludis/pkgcore.
>
> Who's requiring devs to test anything?

If I am to be a responsible package manager I have to test my package 
before I commit it into the repository. At a point where paludis has a 
status different from totally unsupported, this includes testing it with 
paludis next to testing it with portage.

Besides this, to make an informed decision about granting paludis some 
more than totally unsupported status it is necessary to first test 
paludis. I, and I think many other devs with me, am reluctant to create a 
whole new tree to test out paludis. I also do not want to copy my whole 
tree to test it.

>
> > So you are asking to go towards replacing portage with a package
> > manager that is not under gentoo control?
>
> Nowhere are we asking for anything to replace Portage as the primary
> Gentoo package manager.

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

Paul

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]