On Thursday 18 May 2006 22:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:41:47 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > | Please talk to the OSX folk- they would disagree, since > | collision-protect was added to keep gentoo-osx from stomping on the > | primary installation (iow, to keep the secondary from acting like it > | was primary). Since you also spent a lot of time 'contributing' to > | prefix, I'd expect you'd understand the primary vs secondary role > | also (same with since you've ranted at autopackage). > > Except that by that definition, Paludis *is* a primary package manager.
It is capable of being a primary package manager. On gentoo it is not the primary package manager as that requires a council decision. Such a decision would amount to deprecating portage. > > | What he is driving it at is that either paludis is an alternative > | (yet on disk compatible) primary, or it's a secondary- you keep > | debating the compatibility angle, thus the logical conclussion is > | that it's a secondary. > > We're an alternative, not entirely on disc compatible primary. This means that you could choose to meet the requirements that I am currently writing down in GLEP shape for package managers that desire to replace portage as the primary package manager. Those requirements can be met, but would limit the freedom choise of implementation of the package manager. > Design choice. We chose not to continue with previous design mistakes > that exist only because of limitations in Portage's dep resolver where > we can do so without requiring ebuild changes. This is a valid design choise. It does however mean that paludis perhaps can not meet the requirements for being a replacement for portage as gentoo primary package manager. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpgJu2a0VttS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
