On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:26:06 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Then copy the bloody profile, or temporarilly add some magic in | paludis that ignores portage and python deps. Not that hard to do. | While not so beautiful it can easilly be removed at a later stage.
That removes valid dependencies. | How far does that spread? Is this only for packages merged by | paludis, or does it spread? And what reasons are there for paludis | not to have a vdb format that will not confuse portage. Anything merged by Paludis may have a VDB entry that will confuse Portage. This is necessary for two reasons. Firstly, we have some features that Portage doesn't. Secondly, the VDB entries generated by Portage under certain circumstances (symlink/dir merge mismatches) are incomplete and incorrect, and Portage's unmerge code will falsely remove and falsely leave behind garbage when this happens, and we see no reason to emulate this bug. | It is very important that package managers coexist with portage. This | allows testing of that package manager, but also the testing of a | package / eclass on different package managers. It would be | irrealistic to require devs to have a different installation just for | testing packages with paludis/pkgcore. Can you install Portage 2.0 and Portage 2.1 in parallel? | > > 4) Will Paludis ever become a Gentoo Project? | > | > Doubtful, barring some rather drastic changes in Gentoo and the way | > its projects are handled. | | So you are asking to go towards replacing portage with a package | manager that is not under gentoo control? What about Portage is under Gentoo control? Were Portage under Gentoo control, it would have the features that Gentoo developers require by now. Like, say, :slot deps. Similarly, Gentoo has no problem with bash, despite it not being a Gentoo project... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
