Perhaps,
The problem here is that the paludis team appear to have a conflict of
interests due to their previous and/or current association with Gentoo.
I know they've mentioned personal grudges, so despite not knowing who
these people are, I'm going to assume they have a history with Gentoo.
However, were a new package manager (such as Conary) to request on the
Gentoo Developer list that the tree be changed to make their package
manager would work slightly better, I have no doubt that they would meet
a similarly mixed resistance. Whilst there may not be an easily
explained technical reason not to make the change, there is no
compelling reason *to* make the change either.
Most likely the response to this message will be that Paludis isn't the
same as Conary, and that it could eventually take over from portage.
However, other portage replacements (such as pkgcore and the seemingly
forgotten portage-C) have not required changes to the tree.
No promises were made to the Paludis team concerning changes to the
tree (as far as I'm aware), and I don't see how any external package
management system could build their software *assuming* that they could
eventually influence a distribution's package library. I am perfectly
happy for Paludis to innovate in whatever manner it deems necessary,
just as I am for Conary to develop, but (at the moment) as external
entities to Gentoo.
Hopefully the council meeting will clear all of this up, and I look
forward to reading their decision...
Mike 5:)
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
