Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 09:42:50 -0400
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> I would say it wouldn't hurt to start a project for ensuring Paludis
>> support in the Portage tree. It would give a bit more credibility to
>> your cause.
>>
>
> The problem th
On Friday 19 May 2006 15:52, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> There will be always someone who goes ahead. Fact is that every dev who
> maintains a package installing an init script is expecteted to do so for
> baselayout, but is free to say no, when someone requests an initng one, as
> long as it isn't the
On Friday 19 May 2006 16:17, Roy Marples wrote:
> I can show you bugs where existing packages have invalid init scripts that
> just don't work with any baselayout version in portage. You could argue
> that they shouldn't be in the tree - if so then our imap server is
> foo-bared as it uses courier
On Friday 19 May 2006 14:54, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Thursday 18 May 2006 22:15, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > | Sure baselayout is. An there're others in the tree, But that doesn't
> > | mean these variants are supported (special cases like embedded aside).
> >
> > Sure, some of them are supported
On Friday 19 May 2006 09:33, Roy Marples wrote:
> Maybe you haven't noticed, but baselayout is a virtual - which does make
> things harder as the main "forks" (vserver and fbsd) sometimes break when
> we add new things and they haven't synced up yet.
I have nothing against a virtual. I just don't
On Thursday 18 May 2006 22:15, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | Sure baselayout is. An there're others in the tree, But that doesn't
> | mean these variants are supported (special cases like embedded aside).
>
> Sure, some of them are supported.
By supported I mean all relevant packages in the tree inst
On Thursday 18 May 2006 22:43, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | You say that there is no such a thing as a primary package manager,
> | but fail to state any reason (here or in other mails) as to why this
> | is true. Instead of arguing why my support is false you just say that
> | I am saying things tha
On Friday 19 May 2006 08:25, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Thursday 18 May 2006 22:37, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 May 2006 21:35:01 +0200
> >
> > Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Sure baselayout is. An there're others in the tree, But that doesn't
> > > mean these variants ar
On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:35, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:43, Roy Marples wrote:
> > Yes, part of it. baselayout is another part - and yet it's possible to
> > run Gentoo on other variants like initng, daemontools and no doubt
> > others.
>
> Sure baselayout is. An there're
On Thursday 18 May 2006 22:37, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 21:35:01 +0200
>
> Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sure baselayout is. An there're others in the tree, But that doesn't
> > mean these variants are supported (special cases like embedded
> > aside).
>
> So the
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 Gento
I've read every mail thus far (even the mails sent from next month ).
There is no technical reason that the profile shouldn't go in. Past
precedent is set, most of the kinks regarding the profile have been
worked out, yet members of the community are dead set against the idea.
I think I was
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 09:58:02PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:39:20 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | > | What he is driving it at is that either paludis is an alternative
> | > | (yet on disk compatible) primary, or it's a secondary- you keep
> | > | debating
Ciaran McCreesh:
> And that's your argument? If you're just going to sink to accusing
> anyone who disagrees with you of trolling then please retire gracefully
> before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
That's indeed funny.
/me wrote:
> That actually was a serious question. But you and yo
On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:39:20 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > Except that by that definition, Paludis *is* a primary package
| > manager.
|
| It is capable of being a primary package manager. On gentoo it is not
| the primary package manager as that requires a council decision.
On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:27:59 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > Circular argument.
|
| Let me repeat it in primary school language.
|
| A supported statement is one which has the form:
|
| ... ...
|
| In short a supported statement has reasons that aim to argue why the
| s
On Thursday 18 May 2006 22:24, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> |
> | +1 troll
>
> And that's your argument? If you're just going to sink to accusing
> anyone who disagrees with you of trolling then please retire gracefully
> before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. I was hoping you could
> continu
On Thursday 18 May 2006 22:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:41:47 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | Please talk to the OSX folk- they would disagree, since
> | collision-protect was added to keep gentoo-osx from stomping on the
> | primary installation (iow,
On Thu, 18 May 2006 21:35:01 +0200
Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure baselayout is. An there're others in the tree, But that doesn't
> mean these variants are supported (special cases like embedded aside).
So they're unsupported alternatives to one of the core parts of gentoo,
whic
On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:42, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:33:05 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | > There is no such thing as a primary package manager and using such a
> | > term only serves to distract from what could otherwise be productive
> | > discus
On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:19:16 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > *You* are the one making baseless claims. There is no such thing as
| > a "primary package manager" that is in any way more meaningful than
| > "a package manager
On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:34:14 -0700 Josh Saddler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > The desired end result is installing a system. Paludis can do that
| > already, if you really want, and it will be able to do it much more
| > elegantly in the future.
|
| Aren't we looking (or
On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:41:47 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Please talk to the OSX folk- they would disagree, since
| collision-protect was added to keep gentoo-osx from stomping on the
| primary installation (iow, to keep the secondary from acting like it
| was primary). Sinc
On Thu, 18 May 2006 21:35:01 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:43, Roy Marples wrote:
| > Yes, part of it. baselayout is another part - and yet it's possible
| > to run Gentoo on other variants like initng, daemontools and no
| > doubt others.
|
| Sure ba
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:33:27PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:18:24 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | > * An alternative to Portage.
> | >
> | > Paludis itself is distribution agnostic. It can be used on a Gentoo
> | > system or on a non-Gentoo system
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The desired end result is installing a system. Paludis can do that
> already, if you really want, and it will be able to do it much more
> elegantly in the future.
Aren't we looking (or trying to look) a *little beyond* just a
On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:43, Roy Marples wrote:
> Yes, part of it. baselayout is another part - and yet it's possible to run
> Gentoo on other variants like initng, daemontools and no doubt others.
Sure baselayout is. An there're others in the tree, But that doesn't mean
these variants are supp
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:04:36PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 11:51:16 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:34:16PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:20:29 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | > wro
On Thu, 18 May 2006 11:51:16 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:34:16PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:20:29 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > | >It's
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> Stop making such odd and wrong comparisons. The package manager is part of
> what defines a distribution, choosing a shell is the users choice. If you
> want to make the package manager matter of choice, start your own
> distribution.
Just because it has historically bee
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:34:16PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:20:29 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | >It's kinda like this:
> |
> | Stop making such odd and wrong comparisons. The package man
On Thursday 18 May 2006 19:20, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >It's kinda like this:
>
> Stop making such odd and wrong comparisons. The package manager is part of
> what defines a distribution, choosing a shell is the users choice. If you
> want to
On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:33:05 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > There is no such thing as a primary package manager and using such a
| > term only serves to distract from what could otherwise be productive
| > discussion.
|
| Why so. Portage is the one and only (thus primary) pack
On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:20:29 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| >It's kinda like this:
|
| Stop making such odd and wrong comparisons. The package manager is
| part of what defines a distribution, choosing a shell is the users
Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Incidentally, in reading this thread it seems to me that a tendency to
> offer opinions (or predictions) as though they were facts has been a
> common theme. Please try to separate the two, whenever possible.
Just to clarify, I was not limiting that comment to pauldv.
-g2
On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:18:24 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > * An alternative to Portage.
| >
| > Paludis itself is distribution agnostic. It can be used on a Gentoo
| > system or on a non-Gentoo system as the user prefers.
|
| This would make it a third party packaging solutio
On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:03, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:47:55 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | On Thursday 18 May 2006 18:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > By that argument, future Portage versions aren't compatible with
> | > current Portage, and so are
On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:14:16 +0200 Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Bash is Gentoo's primary shell. ZSH cannot be included in the tree as
> the primary shell unless it can work with every bash shell script
> (including ebuilds) without a
On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>It's kinda like this:
Stop making such odd and wrong comparisons. The package manager is part of
what defines a distribution, choosing a shell is the users choice. If you
want to make the package manager matter of choice, start your own
dis
On Thu, 18 May 2006 11:44:40 -0500
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > | 4) Will Paludis ever become a Gentoo Project?
> >
> > Pretty unlikely, past events considered. Personally I kind of like
> > having commit access to my own code...
>
> I thought we (Gentoo
On Thursday 18 May 2006 18:11, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:54:58 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | What is then the purpose of paludis. Is its purpose to create a
> | package manager for a new distro, and the paludis team would like to
> | use gentoo as a t
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
>> 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.
Many of your comments have been quite valuable, but I've noticed that
your recent posts fail to distinguish
On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:55:34 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Is there any reason that this extra information can not be added in
| such a way that portage will just silently ignore it.
Portage's handling of unrecognised data is not sufficiently clever to
allow this to be done in
On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:47:55 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Thursday 18 May 2006 18:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > By that argument, future Portage versions aren't compatible with
| > current Portage, and so are not a candidate for Portage replacement.
| >
| The primary packag
On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:14:16 +0200 Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 06:11:35PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Again, nonsense based upon some random arbitrary segregation you're
| > attempting to make that has no real world relevance.
|
| > Yes, carry on looki
On Thursday 18 May 2006 18:26, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:26:06 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | Then copy the bloody profile, or temporarilly add some magic in
> | paludis that ignores portage and python deps. Not that hard to do.
> | While not so beauti
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
On Thursday 18 May 2006 18:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> By that argument, future Portage versions aren't compatible with
> current Portage, and so are not a candidate for Portage replacement.
>
The primary package manager has different standards to adhere to as any other.
Paul
--
Paul de Vriez
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 06:11:35PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Again, nonsense based upon some random arbitrary segregation you're
> attempting to make that has no real world relevance.
> Yes, carry on looking at the small picture. It's really really
> interesting!
Please refrain from making
On Thu, 18 May 2006 11:44:40 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > | 4) Will Paludis ever become a Gentoo Project?
| >
| > Pretty unlikely, past events considered. Personally I kind of like
| > having commit access to my own code...
|
| I thought we (Gentoo)
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | 4) Will Paludis ever become a Gentoo Project?
>
> Pretty unlikely, past events considered. Personally I kind of like
> having commit access to my own code...
I thought we (Gentoo) already had SVN repositories with non-Gentoo-dev
committers? I'm pretty sure that was one
On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:26:06 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Then copy the bloody profile, or temporarilly add some magic in
| paludis that ignores portage and python deps. Not that hard to do.
| While not so beautiful it can easilly be removed at a later stage.
That removes vali
On Thu, 18 May 2006 09:19:58 +0200 Jochen Maes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| 1) If Paludis has no business in replacing portage on systems (shame,
| if it's better/faster it should) why are we having this discussion.
It's a goal towards which we're working. Just as we expect that, for
example, gcc
On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:15:07 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| - It says paludis is usable in gentoo. Which it isn't.
Why don't you try it? I think you might find that it is in fact rather
usable. Much more so than some GCC releases and kernels that have their
own profiles in the t
On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:03:23 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| There is only one case in which paludis should be supported by the
| tree. This is when paludis works towards being usable as a portage
| replacement. If the paludis authors do not aim at replacing portage,
| I suggest t
On Thu, 18 May 2006 11:52:49 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| This is not the standard, nor what portage does.
Portage has a bug that causes it to die a horrible death if ebuilds are
not source-compatible. We do not emulate this bug, because there is no
useful reason to do so and
On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:54:58 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| What is then the purpose of paludis. Is its purpose to create a
| package manager for a new distro, and the paludis team would like to
| use gentoo as a testing ground?
|
| Or is the purpose of the paludis team to have
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 Porta
On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:30:48 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paludis is not just a package, it is an alternative package manager.
> The proposed changes are also not just the setting of a default for a
> useflag.
So? It's a package in the tree, and I'd like a new profile to mak
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 23:34, Christian Birchinger wrote:
> I think at the moment there's no plan to replace anything.
> There was a simple request to add a profile to make it easier
> for some people to develop something. We can talk about
> replacing anything later, when there are more intrusiv
On Thursday 18 May 2006 15:58, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:26:06 +0200
>
> Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Then copy the bloody profile, or temporarilly add some magic in
> > paludis that ignores portage and python deps. Not that hard to do.
> > While not so beauti
On Thursday 18 May 2006 16:02, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:31:29 +0200
>
> Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 th
Christian Birchinger wrote:
>
> I honestly think people are just bringing up the wildest things
> just to find another reason to say "no". It Looks a bit like
> even good ideas and project have no chance when they come from
> "the wrong people".
>
Thank you, you just summed up what I have been th
On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:31:29 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:26:06 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then copy the bloody profile, or temporarilly add some magic in
> paludis that ignores portage and python deps. Not that hard to do.
> While not so beautiful it can easilly be removed at a later stage.
And if something
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. The
On Thursday 18 May 2006 14:11, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 09:19:58 +0200
>
> Jochen Maes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1) If Paludis has no business in replacing portage on systems (shame,
> > if it's better/faster it should) why are we having this discussion.
> > I understand th
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 o
On Thu, 18 May 2006 09:19:58 +0200
Jochen Maes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) If Paludis has no business in replacing portage on systems (shame,
> if it's better/faster it should) why are we having this discussion.
> I understand that you need a profile and with an overlay you need to
> copy the
On 2006.05.16 16:15, Stephen Bennett wrote:
If noone has any strong reasonable objections, I'd like to add a
Paludis profile to the tree. This would use Paludis as the default
provider for virtual/portage (which is a less than ideal name, but
that
is another discussion entirely), and provide ebui
On Thursday 18 May 2006 01:23, Ryan Phillips wrote:
> Mike Auty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Forgive me,
> > I'm a little new at this and I really don't want to get involved,
> > but since my inbox has seen nothing but this for the past day or two,
> > I'm going to ask a few questions I'm inte
On Thursday 18 May 2006 00:26, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> Given the sheer volume of impassioned response, regardless of any
> technical arguments, I'm dropping the top-level profile idea for now.
> Several architecture teams have expressed an interest in creating
> sub-profiles under their own, howev
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 23:30, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> Once again, this is going far beyond the scope of the initial
> discussion. I'm not saying that Paludis should replace Portage, nor
> that it should be an "officially supported package manager". The
> question is simply one of whether I can a
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 19:38, Thomas Cort wrote:
> Isn't discussing if paludis can build ISOs for a bunch of arches a
> level of indirection? This thread was originally about adding a
> profile. The profile doesn't affect anyone who doesn't use it, nor does
> it require any changes to existing e
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 23:30, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:00:10 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Paludis does not conform to the Release Engineering guidelines. It
> | is *incapable* of producing a Gentoo release. The authors have
> | expressed their
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 21:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 21:22:28 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | On Wednesday 17 May 2006 20:44, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > Portage still relies upon being able to source ebuilds, even if
> | > their EAPI isn't supported
** Dumb mode ** forgot to paste the exact size of the profiles dir in
my previous mail... woops :-)
First of all, keep up the work with Paludis.
Personally I think having a second package manager is a very good thing.
I do have some questions. Could someone of the Paludis crew please
answer th
First of all, keep up the work with Paludis.
Personally I think having a second package manager is a very good thing.
I do have some questions. Could someone of the Paludis crew please
answer them?
1) If Paludis has no business in replacing portage on systems (shame, if
it's better/faster it s
> > First and foremost is, will adding this to the tree be used for
> > function creep, whereby the next request to add to/alter the portage
> > tree is backed up by "Well, the profile change was already added to the
> > tree"? I wouldn't want a precedent like this set without the council
> >
Mike Auty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Forgive me,
> I'm a little new at this and I really don't want to get involved, but
> since my inbox has seen nothing but this for the past day or two, I'm
> going to ask a few questions I'm interested in the answers to...
> First and foremost is, w
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> The
> question is simply one of whether I can add a top-level paludis profile
> without people complaining overmuch, or whether I have to go through
> the arch teams and make sub-profiles in 4 different places under
> default-linux/.
That implies it's going to be added to
Forgive me,
I'm a little new at this and I really don't want to get involved, but
since my inbox has seen nothing but this for the past day or two, I'm
going to ask a few questions I'm interested in the answers to...
First and foremost is, will adding this to the tree be used for
fu
Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Given the sheer volume of impassioned response, regardless of any
> technical arguments, I'm dropping the top-level profile idea for now.
> Several architecture teams have expressed an interest in creating
> sub-profiles under their own, however, and I'll
Given the sheer volume of impassioned response, regardless of any
technical arguments, I'm dropping the top-level profile idea for now.
Several architecture teams have expressed an interest in creating
sub-profiles under their own, however, and I'll be working with them to
get those implemented. Pe
On Wed, 17 May 2006 21:32:47 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Yamin)
wrote:
| On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:30:10PM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
| > On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:56:14 +
| > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Yamin) wrote:
| >
| > > Well, if you're going to have a package manager that delivers the
| >
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 11:17:39PM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> Better to stick to reality than invent pink elephants to back up a
> completely baseless assertion.
Someone should rewrite Godwin's law to include pink elephants. This
subthread has gone beyond usefulness. Sorry everyone for the no
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:05:31 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do package managers that don't claim, in any way, to be
> portage-compatible have to do with *this* package manager that *does*?
I don't see paludis claiming that it is portage-compatible anywhere on their
websi
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:53:47PM +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 11:13:16PM +0200, Christian Birchinger wrote:
> > Then you remove the profile just like you would remove any piece
> > of software where the license is unacceptable.
>
> Please look a bit up in the thread, my
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:30:10PM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:56:14 +
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Yamin) wrote:
>
> > Well, if you're going to have a package manager that delivers the
> > same result as Portage it must therefore work with Catalyst...
>
> Paludis can p
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:01:44 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| This is a simple binary equation. Can paludis provide a
| portage-compatible binary package? No. This means it does not give
| the same end result. Period.
The desired end result is installing a system. Paludis ca
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:00:10 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Paludis does not conform to the Release Engineering guidelines. It is
| *incapable* of producing a Gentoo release. The authors have expressed
| their intentions to *never* perform any actions necessary to work
| towa
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:05:31 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Why do people *insist* on trying to add so many levels of indirection
| into their "discussions"?
Because some people insist upon trying to attack Paludis via FUD and
keep on trying to add in entirely irrelevant 'requ
On Wed, 17 May 2006 16:55:17 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 20:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > The plan, which may be full of holes, may change and may just be me
| > being crazy, is to replace using a stage with something like:
|
| OK. So not only
On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:56:14 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Yamin) wrote:
> Well, if you're going to have a package manager that delivers the
> same result as Portage it must therefore work with Catalyst...
Paludis can produce the same end result as Portage. The reason it won't
work with catalyst i
On Wed, 17 May 2006 13:43:04 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Instead of on the fly generation of the virtuals pkgs (as
| pkgcore/portage do), you've flattened them into an actual on disk vdb
| entry?
Not really. A fake package is generated for the virtual (rather than
just renam
On Wed, 17 May 2006 22:53:47 +0200
Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The arguments are getting more and more "creative". It's almost
> > like asking what we will do when gcc turns into a commercial
> > product.
>
> The package manager is a central piece, if we ever want to change our
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 16:26 +, Thomas Cort wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:48:04 -0400
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I also recommend that the package is masked in all
> > Gentoo profiles where a release is built against, since again, it is
> > 100% incompatible and upstream
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 21:22 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 16:12:09 -0400 Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Unfortunately in this case there is only one cat, he has only one skin
> | and there is only one knife with which to skin him. Chris asked if
> | paludis can
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 21:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:48:04 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | My recommendation, as Release Engineering Strategic Lead, is that no
> | profiles be added to the tree, nor any modifications be made to any
> | current p
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 20:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The plan, which may be full of holes, may change and may just be me
> being crazy, is to replace using a stage with something like:
OK. So not only are you planning on replacing portage, you're planning
on replacing Release Engineering.
1 - 100 of 262 matches
Mail list logo
