On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:17:16 -0400
Patrick McLean <chutzpah@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Last time I checked, we don't support *everything* in the tree, for
> example everything in package.mask and/or keyworded -* is considered
> unsupported (or are you trying to tell me that
> sys-devel/gcc-4.2.0_alpha20060513 is officially supported).

Where gcc-4.2.0_alpha is concerned, the important thing is that while
it is not supported at the moment, it _will_ be supported in the
future.  The same is not being said for paludis at the moment - the
paludis people are not claiming paludis will become official; I think
everyone would agree it's too early to be thinking about that now.

> Deprecated profiles are considered unsupported,

The key point there is that they're deprecated - deprecated means "will
be removed". That means anyone using them should be aware they will be
removed at some point.  Again, that's not what Paludis is about (if it
was, the paludis team wouldn't be asking to put stuff in the tree!).

> as are most of the gentoo-alt profiles.
(see Flameeyes response)

> Also most arches have development profiles which
> are considered unsupported (on amd64 we add a profile.bashrc that dies
> unless something like I_WANT_TO_BREAK_MY_SYSTEM=1 is set).

However these are development profiles for actual supported profiles -
in other words the stuff in the development profiles is expected to
become supported at some point (either by inclusion or rejection).
Again, not the case with paludis as it is currently being proposed.

-- 
Kevin F. Quinn