On Thursday 18 May 2006 17:44, Stephen Bennett wrote: > 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).
Is there any reason that this extra information can not be added in such a way that portage will just silently ignore it. Which changes to portage would be required to make it ignore it (but silently remove it when a package is removed). > We also construct VDB entries for old-style virtuals, which will > confuse Portage. Is there no way in which portage could be made to ignore this. Or to not create these entries (as portage can work without them). Being compatible with portage can mean extending portage such that compatibility is easier. > > 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. One that has more disadvantages than advantages as already pointed out. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgp3MqhGmG28j.pgp
Description: PGP signature
