On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 16:09 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:57:55 -0400 Chris Gianelloni > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 12:04 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > | > - It would be greatly beneficial if paludis would create and > | > use .tbz2 packages, but this is not essential. > | > | It *is* essential if paludis were to ever be used for release > | building. Otherwise, it isn't required. > > No, support for *some* kind of binary package format is necessary. > Support for Portage .tbz2 packages is pointless.
I'm sorry, but please don't tell me how things work within my project when you either don't have a clue, which I know isn't the case, or are simply ignoring the facts to match what you want to believe. We ship .tbz2 files on our GRP release media. Until we either: a) stop shipping .tbz2 files -or- b) switch to paludis support only The Gentoo release media can *not* be built with Paludis, as it does not have support for *all* of the portions of the release media that we currently build. This is a simple fact that cannot be disputed. You can build *portions* of a release, but not the entire thing. Also, with an incompatible VDB, the point is moot, anyway, as all of the release building tools currently require a portage-compatible VDB. I've been only pointing out things that I consider from a technical or policy basis. Please don't go around trying to make it out like I'm wrong about a process that *I* determine, just to make your package manager look better. It can *not* be used to build a Gentoo release at this time. You will notice that *nowhere* did I say anything about this being any kind of blocker for paludis being in the tree, or any paludis profiles, only that it is a blocker for it ever being used for building our releases, without us deciding to change *what* we release. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
