On Thursday 18 May 2006 14:14, Stephen Bennett wrote: > On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:18:41 +0200 > > Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you really really need to have a profile, it might be discussable > > to have no-portage profiles, that do not include portage or python in > > system. These however must still be portage compatible, and > > independent of a package manager. > > In the arch-specific subprofile case, we'd likely be dropping any > features that would cause Portage to choke, and simply changing the > system set and virtuals around.
I know you would do that. My problem is not with how it is done. But what is done. The problem is not about portage choking. The problem is that at this point there is no reason to make paludis specific changes to the tree. Making package manager specific changes to the tree/profiles is even more a dead end. This would mean that package managers are bound to a profile (making it impossible to use the package manager properly). It would also mean that every package manager would have its own profiles. A needless duplication that gets you nowhere. And these are only the technical points. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgppq3OWrcNzV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
