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 1FgpvR-0005N1-Ta for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 18 May 2006 21:20:54 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4ILIJtQ017649; Thu, 18 May 2006 21:18:19 GMT Received: from rwcrmhc14.comcast.net (rwcrmhc14.comcast.net [204.127.192.84]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4ILAXwX016033 for ; Thu, 18 May 2006 21:10:34 GMT Received: from nightcrawler (c-24-21-135-117.hsd1.or.comcast.net[24.21.135.117]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc14) with SMTP id <20060518211033m1400kka8fe>; Thu, 18 May 2006 21:10:33 +0000 Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 14:10:03 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Paludis and Profiles Message-ID: <20060518211003.GD3858@nightcrawler> References: <20060516161549.442b4d8a@localhost> <20060518194147.GC3858@nightcrawler> <20060518211908.022c95b4@snowdrop.home> <200605182239.20490.pauldv@gentoo.org> <20060518215802.1a635ce2@snowdrop.home> 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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="lc9FT7cWel8HagAv" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060518215802.1a635ce2@snowdrop.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Archives-Salt: 6af80be4-f0c2-4623-8c0c-318765511574 X-Archives-Hash: 4dccbeb63a7931571aac5567bf058604 --lc9FT7cWel8HagAv Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 09:58:02PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:39:20 +0200 Paul de Vrieze > | > | What he is driving it at is that either paludis is an alternative > | > | (yet on disk compatible) primary, or it's a secondary- you keep > | > | debating the compatibility angle, thus the logical conclussion is > | > | that it's a secondary. > | > > | > We're an alternative, not entirely on disc compatible primary. > |=20 > | This means that you could choose to meet the requirements that I am > | currently writing down in GLEP shape for package managers that desire > | to replace portage as the primary package manager. Those requirements > | can be met, but would limit the freedom choise of implementation of > | the package manager. >=20 > GLEPs are to *Enhance*, not to hold back. Several of your gleps restrict the tree (rhetoric not withstanding)-=20 this is fundamentally no different, it's a restriction on what the is=20 required of a pkg manager for it to be a primary available in the=20 tree- this includes whatever profiles/mods it requires/wants. > | > Design choice. We chose not to continue with previous design > | > mistakes that exist only because of limitations in Portage's dep > | > resolver where we can do so without requiring ebuild changes. > |=20 > | This is a valid design choise. It does however mean that paludis > | perhaps can not meet the requirements for being a replacement for > | portage as gentoo primary package manager. >=20 > You could come up with a requirement saying that "any replacement for > Portage must have an 'o' in its name". Wouldn't make it a valid > requirement. Fact is, Paludis can be used as and is being used as a > primary package manager. No one is disputing that. What they are disputing is whether paludis=20 has any place in the tree if it's not going to be ondisk (whether=20 profile, ebuild, or vdb) compatible with portage. Say paludis *did* get into the tree, and the changes you've coded into=20 paludis already took hold- we would have a tree that is part paludis,=20 and part portage. If it's not going to be compatible under guidelines council/approved=20 glep dictates, then it has no place in the tree. Aside from that, lay off the smart ass "any replacement for portage=20 must have an 'o' in its name" crap- folks aren't going to budge on=20 this one, so just address the points they're raising rather then=20 dodging it (thus requiring another email from 'em dragging the answer=20 out of you). ~harring --lc9FT7cWel8HagAv Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEbOKrvdBxRoA3VU0RArLDAKCEFA8IqqJHk4RO3TO8LTS7u0ZJ0ACdEsNi uIPRqeG9KHyK67tzhALS05c= =Jej2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lc9FT7cWel8HagAv-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list