On Wednesday 17 May 2006 17:55, Duncan wrote: > Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted > [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 17 May > > 2006 17:11:04 +0200: > > Let's make clear why I put this in. Basically I am of the opinion that > > until a decision is made to make (in this case) paludis the primary > > package manager, all official packages should work with portage. Package > > masked packages are not considered official. > > Wasn't it stated that the mechanism paludis uses to hide ebuilds that > won't work in portage from portage is to mask them to it? > > IOW, this is already the way it is being handled. If masked packages > aren't official, and ebuilds that require features only in paludis are > masked as far as portage is concerned, then that checkbox can be checked > off.
No, these packages are available to paludis, but not to portage. Basically making a case for the use of paludis. I don't think that the decision to replace portage should be made in that way. Please note that what I say is not specific to paludis. Paludis is here just a name for any package management contender. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpIcVvbNj7Al.pgp
Description: PGP signature
