On Wednesday 17 May 2006 13:11, Stephen Bennett wrote: > 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.
Is there a problem about both of them being there? I don't see a problem in changing the profiles to include virtual/portage though where portage is the default provider. It is a change unrelated to paludis, and would allow easier development of any alternative package manager. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgp1zN9GAe98K.pgp
Description: PGP signature
