On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:50:59 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is not a reason. It is just repeating what I just said. Which > features does paludis have for its VDB format. And (per feature) why > can't this be done in a compatible way. We store more information than Portage in VDB, to remove the reliance that current Portage has on certain parts of the tree being immutable and in order to support multiple repositories properly (there is no longer a single place to look for, say, eclass data at uninstall time). We also construct VDB entries for old-style virtuals, which will confuse Portage. > What do you want then? Paludis does not aim to be compatible with > portage, so this disqualifies paludis as a secondary package manager. It aims to be compatible with the tree. As far as I know, it succeeds as things currently stand. > Two primary package managers is nonsensical. You ask for support in > the tree for paludis, meaning that you don't want to be unsupported > third party either. This leaves that you aim at paludis possibly > becomming a portage replacement. At present I ask not for support, but for a minor addition for convenience purposes. -- [email protected] mailing list
