On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 02:57:05PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:04:33 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | - Paludis must be able to handle a standard portage /var/db/pkg tree. > | This means that paludis can read it, and write it. Enabling mixing > | portage and paludis up to some degree. > > Paludis can read a Portage-generated VDB. Portage can't read a > Paludis-generated VDB, because Paludis has more features.
What features? You're tracking CONFIG_PROTECT_*, and saving a copy of the eclass (icky solution, but we've discussed that in the past). Beyond that? > | - Paludis must work with all current ebuilds, > > Portage does not work with all current ebuilds. Name a few please, ones that are portage incompatibility rather then "ebuild no longer works against other ebuilds in the tree". Can't do anything about the latter, but the former without proof is fud. > | and support all features of portage. > > That's insane. Why should we support Portage-style 'candy' spinners? I'd expect he's talking more about stuff like having an ebuild binary/script for walking the phases of an ebuild for development. > | This includes recognition of EAPI > > Funnily enough, unlike Portage, Paludis has full EAPI handling. Please clarify on the "full"- since portage relies on EAPI protection already, any issues you see with it's implementation I'd love to know. > | and no renaming of the variables used. > > Why should Paludis emulate Portage internals that no-one uses? Moot issue, as I pointed out, dev-lang/perl (and others) are affected by it (so someone uses it). Additionally, you went and commited the vars into paludis (doing exactly what I said to do), thank you- lets avoid the 5 emails back and forth in the future however please... ~harring
pgpAX6eJmmglI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
