On Wednesday 17 May 2006 18:25, Stephen Bennett wrote: > On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:29:11 +0200 > > Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The problem that I see with this is that it would tend to reinforce > > > the view that Paludis is becoming an officially supported package > > > manager, which at the moment at least it isn't. If people are > > > amenable to the idea though, I'm quite willing to set it up. > > > > In my opinion if paludis is not aiming to become an officially > > supported package manager there is no point in changing the tree to > > that in the first place. > > Note "at the moment". We want paludis to be a viable alternative to > Portage for most users, and part of that aim requires having an > available profile that doesn't bring Portage into the system set. An > "officially supported" package manager is a pretty vague term > anyway ... there's a group within Gentoo that will support it, and > groups that won't, as with any other part of the tree.
Officially supported means that package maintainers must take it into account. Repoman (or another QA tool) checks for compatibility on it, etc. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpptaBoSY6i1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
