Re: [gentoo-dev] Paludis and Profiles

[Mike Auty <ikelos@gentoo.org>]

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
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
reviewing it.
	Secondly, is that what's already being done by asking individual arch
devs to add individual paludis profiles?  Surely paludis would
eventually require all archs to be there, or have I missed something
(which I may have)?  Having already added a file to the profiles
directory, which caused a few posts on here earlier, and then having
asked the question of all the devs so as to avoid a similar incident,
and then received a mixed response, now specific people have been asked
if individually they'll help get paludis in the tree.  Doesn't that seem
a little improper, perhaps?
	Thirdly has anything like this ever happened to Debian or the Sourcery
group?  If so how did they cope with it, and if not, how have they
avoided it?
	As you may have guessed I'm of the, "You can do the same thing with an
overlay, so why must it be in the tree".  I am however willing to wait
and see what the council says, why can't the changes to the tree wait
until then, what is so urgent?  I'm especially intrigued since all this
is simply to no longer require portage as a dependency of system.  Can't
paludis peacefully co-exist with a portage installation for a little
longer, until it's mature?
	Thanks,
	Mike  5:\
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list