From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19359 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2004 11:33:33 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 10 Aug 2004 11:33:33 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BuUsn-0002Nm-Bk for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:33:33 +0000 Received: (qmail 8398 invoked by uid 89); 10 Aug 2004 11:33:32 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 9903 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2004 11:33:32 +0000 From: Paul de Vrieze To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 13:33:24 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <20040808185144.GB29077@mail.lieber.org> <200408091815.42260.absinthe@gentoo.org> <20040810000516.GY29077@mail.lieber.org> In-Reply-To: <20040810000516.GY29077@mail.lieber.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_LKLGByxkc73fPnY"; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200408101333.31687.pauldv@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 19, reloaded (again) X-Archives-Salt: 681bc85b-6cc6-47f5-9aa0-b0a0d29738d7 X-Archives-Hash: 2a17b6ddaa5807e518bd80429e1335da --Boundary-02=_LKLGByxkc73fPnY Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 10 August 2004 02:05, Kurt Lieber wrote: > On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 06:15:42PM -0400 or thereabouts, Dylan Carlson=20 wrote: > > I think it would be fine to allow people to do it this way, and some > > people already do, but I don't think it should be part of Enterprise > > Gentoo. Profiling isn't complex. Trying to support the millions of > > different ways people can set up overlays is. > > I agree with Dylan here. While a tarball approach is certainly one > possilbe approach, requiring security ebuilds to be housed in an overlay > adds an extra layer of complexity. The profiling solution is easier given > the way our tools (mainly portage) currently operate. While I don't care about tarball vs. rsync (both don't matter that much to = me)=20 I don't think a profile is a solution. It would contain too many packages.= =20 =46urther it would still need maintenance for new packages as packages that= are=20 not pinned in the profile are available freely Paul =2D-=20 Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net --Boundary-02=_LKLGByxkc73fPnY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBGLKLbKx5DBjWFdsRAr45AJ4rGfH3WnpTbe4Xq/4/1TwUzorNMgCcCnVq xnre78yOfyHSz1ECuMjgULk= =hKkz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_LKLGByxkc73fPnY--