Hi,
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:47:46 +0200
Thomas Rösner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Other things I want from Gentoo right now depend on factors other
than the package manager, too; prebuilt packages
A package manager that supports a better binary package format
(split out local metadata would be a good start) combined with a third
party binary provider could deliver that with no tree changes.
But then you'd need a tree of binary packages, which you'd only get with
many users of your package manager, which would depend on official
Gentoo adoption, which would depend on compelling other features, which
would depend on having a way to get them into the ebuild tree without
breaking portage. That's what I mean. I think you know that and that's
why you did work on PMS, but then you point out features paludis has and
portage hasn't repeatedly in a way that apparently builds up resistance
in people here.
Hm, perhaps you should let somebody else do the PR for paludis? :-)
Heck,
it's even doable with Portage's binaries, although according to a
Gentoo-based distribution that tried it, your 30 minutes would be
optimistic for -uDpv world...
Yes. Also it's quite easy to screw up using the current format, nothing
I'd recommend for heterogeneous environments.
binary-breakage protection
Funnily enough... That one can be done without tree changes too via
something we're calling reparenting. There're some vague suggestions of
roughly how to do it at [1].
[1]: http://paludis.pioto.org/trac/ticket/129
Now that'd be an interesting feature... *thinks about joining #paludis*
Regards,
Thomas
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
