On Wednesday 17 May 2006 14:24, Stephen Bennett wrote: > On Wed, 17 May 2006 13:40:18 +0200 > > Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there a problem about both of them being there? > > You can't use both on the same ROOT. The VDB format is subtly > different.
So this would be an effort to prevent users to shoot themselves in the foot. > > > 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. > > This could be a viable alternative if the paludis profile is shown to > be a no-go. A seperate profile would make things easier from a > bug-wrangling point of view, since it would be easier to determine when > a bug may be caused by using paludis. At this point I don't see that paludis is ready for such thing. In any case I think that optimally a package manager does not require its own profile. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpfnJoulVhoQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
