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 1Fg4XF-0000CE-IY for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 18:44:45 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4GIeIdS008508; Tue, 16 May 2006 18:40:18 GMT Received: from ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.131]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4GITZjY025094 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 18:29:35 GMT X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from cpc5-cmbg1-0-0-cust453.cmbg.cable.ntl.com ([86.6.1.198]:1058 helo=[192.168.10.10]) by ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.151]:465) with esmtpsa (PLAIN:spb42) (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1Fg4IW-0003pW-5P (Exim 4.54) for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org (return-path ); Tue, 16 May 2006 19:29:32 +0100 Message-ID: <448F03FE.5030200@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:29:18 +0100 From: Stephen Bennett User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en 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> <20060516161618.GB28745@nightcrawler> <448EF5C9.6040900@gentoo.org> <20060516173913.GD28745@nightcrawler> In-Reply-To: <20060516173913.GD28745@nightcrawler> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "S.P. Bennett" X-Archives-Salt: d3eb31f0-3d59-4a2e-8c08-7d735000f9a2 X-Archives-Hash: 8257173601aafbddb03d4b8371ee2995 Brian Harring wrote: > Bluntly, why should the tree be modified for a minority? Being > generous, lets pretend y'all have 300 users- why should incompatible > changes be added to the tree (say 300k users) that can bite 299,700 > users in the ass for the benefit of 300 users? N parent inherited > profiles *is* a change that can bite users in the ass, and it's not an > obvious incompatibility unless you know it exists. By this logic, let's remove all the default-bsd, default-darwin, embedded, arm, and sh profiles. They're only used by a tiny minority, and switching an x86/linux system's profile to one of them will hork things majorly. I'm really not seeing your argument here. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list