On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:14:37 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using the normal profiles would also establish paludis as a possible > replacement of portage as primary package manager. Refraining from > doing so disqualifies paludis from becoming a replacement for > portage. As the only point in adding a secondary package manager is > the possible replacement of the current primary package manager, I > see no point to make any paludis directed changes to the tree. Using the normal profiles isn't an option unless they're changed to include virtual/portage in the system set instead of sys-apps/portage. That's the key change we're interested in here -- that the system set not pull in portage when paludis is being used instead. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
