From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FgV6M-0008BU-1D for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 23:06:46 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4HN5k2f026373; Wed, 17 May 2006 23:05:46 GMT Received: from out3.smtp.messagingengine.com (out3.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4HN368d026973 for ; Wed, 17 May 2006 23:03:06 GMT Received: from frontend3.internal (frontend3.internal [10.202.2.152]) by frontend1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 917C6D62864 for ; Wed, 17 May 2006 19:03:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by frontend3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 17 May 2006 19:03:05 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: Zgkaou93nl0+O9fdaA4S/q7noUk5MqZKwUFYQmlqlocZ 1147906985 Received: from [192.168.1.1] (82-71-33-97.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.71.33.97]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28AC41434 for ; Wed, 17 May 2006 19:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <446BABA7.3080603@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 00:03:03 +0100 From: Mike Auty User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060501) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Paludis and Profiles References: <20060516161549.442b4d8a@localhost> <20060517232642.4a5d19ea@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20060517232642.4a5d19ea@localhost> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 0cefdb99-3e7d-4e93-889c-65ee17ea421b X-Archives-Hash: 37268dac839ce10c58d199ccc0fd7786 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