From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 362C31381F3 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 19:14:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 773D4E0A68; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 19:14:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from juliette.telenet-ops.be (juliette.telenet-ops.be [195.130.137.74]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65A3CE09FC for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 19:14:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TOMWIJ-GENTOO ([94.226.55.127]) by juliette.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id AKEk1m00T2khLEN06KEkS2; Thu, 08 Aug 2013 21:14:44 +0200 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 21:11:03 +0200 From: Tom Wijsman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: alonbl@gentoo.org Subject: Re: Multiple implementations shouldn't block Gentoo's progress. Stabilize package combinations? (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8) Message-ID: <20130808211103.4069d7ff@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: References: <5202416C.5@gentoo.org> <1375881254.7753.41.camel@rook> <5202DD20.8050906@gentoo.org> <5203A880.1050306@gentoo.org> <5203B190.80306@gentoo.org> <20130808172340.7d2424af@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <5203C908.1000304@gentoo.org> <20130808185357.4208db83@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <5203DEA5.30004@gentoo.org> <20130808204701.3b419e58@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/3IebIDaVekee13+eZj_dh6F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 50cc49a8-3250-468b-aa9e-0eb4c26d2a8a X-Archives-Hash: c605dfe3020f4100fe18bb6ea583f8a7 --Sig_/3IebIDaVekee13+eZj_dh6F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 21:57:37 +0300 Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > Multiple implementations shouldn't block Gentoo going forward. > > > > We need to come up with a solution similar to the above to avoid > > this... >=20 > This is called a 'profile'. >=20 > You can have systemd and openrc profiles, and then able to mask > specific packages... That's an interesting solution. Though, I wonder if it constitutes as use or as misuse of profiles as we haven't thought this out; also, I wonder how different people's stance is over having profiles like this. There are probably other solutions as well, let's see what comes... > It is a technical solution, but won't make lives much easier in this > regard. Why not? What risk or disadvantageous implication do you foresee? --=20 With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D --Sig_/3IebIDaVekee13+eZj_dh6F Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSA+1HAAoJEJWyH81tNOV9EJcIAKivhWoeTqWIs+1jsk/PAjrL dKrTQ81TJdVgTXBin40O29bB5hXnm7QsTariTCM9dSC3cmWEIKdD+M08/FYH+5U0 cKhAJNO8YMUrK3zfabCNlpeQboA0TzLG6dJeBd+X6WkFiThpxeo21fyKd3jxQCH7 me6qVFNdxXAmbaF1VTHUNgyWXiJztrHx7jYep+fzAFdmJDgkgKWlZwXsAfvISJs2 uDcr/l/01YCiGjIdDOjdpgXLf9KFa9aa695e6aIy0chkAcsxz/ntLUA4VXZkHmOk 8G+Y4mMq9818c7S6GyosmbW8eEOfkl6qc+yWS75cA1UKRAMHKbITtb6ac+DELz0= =iBil -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/3IebIDaVekee13+eZj_dh6F--