On Wednesday 17 May 2006 18:39, Stephen Bennett wrote: > On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:39:02 +0200 > > Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wouldn't the introduction of the virtual not fix that. This > > introduction could be done independent of anything related to > > paludis. The introduction of such a virtual would also help other > > package managers like pkgcore. > > That would address some of the immediate concerns, but not any longer > term issues -- the default provider in all profiles would still be > portage, which requires nasty hackery at system install time, for a > start. I'd view changing the system dep to the virtual as a good thing > in itself, but not a substitute for a profile in the tree.
The virtual is by default provided by the installed version. As it is necessary to install paludis to use it (even for system install) I don't think this is actually a problem. At the point where paludis is in a later stage of its development and acceptance, paludis specific profiles can be created. As I have argued before, I think that there are various enhancements that should be made to paludis before this can happen. In short, I don't think that paludis is ready to become an official secondary package manager. Personally I would only endorse a secondary package manager if I can go to install it on my current system and use it without fear of losing things. Even if I decide to discontinue using it. Having to remerge (automatically) some packages for it would be acceptable, but I believe that it can be avoided. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpNOniJPr4eu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
