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 1FgP1O-0000ue-8w for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 16:37:14 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4HGZBYd028476; Wed, 17 May 2006 16:35:11 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4HGT914001278 for ; Wed, 17 May 2006 16:29:10 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D1B64411 for ; Wed, 17 May 2006 16:29:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19487-06-5 for ; Wed, 17 May 2006 16:29:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A44D64443 for ; Wed, 17 May 2006 16:29:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1FgOt8-0008Sc-6x for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 18:28:42 +0200 Received: from ip68-230-97-182.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.230.97.182]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 17 May 2006 18:28:42 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-230-97-182.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 17 May 2006 18:28:42 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: "Duncan" <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Paludis and Profiles Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 16:28:21 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Organization? Me? Message-ID: References: <20060516161549.442b4d8a@localhost> <20060516161618.GB28745@nightcrawler> <20060516174742.66cf8f04@snowdrop.home> <446A06E8.4010703@gentoo.org> <448EF724.8010709@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-230-97-182.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: pan 0.97 (Atoz and Tanda) Sender: news X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.556 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, TW_KG=0.077] X-Spam-Score: -2.556 X-Spam-Level: X-Archives-Salt: a6ffcfe0-a4a7-4537-b83d-c46860927e66 X-Archives-Hash: 72e9062c56389bf390d689eecd58f3cf Stephen Bennett posted 448EF724.8010709@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on Tue, 16 May 2006 17:41:24 +0000: > Alec Warner wrote: >> I would prefer to see the profile you are commiting then; do you have a >> link? > > I haven't written it yet. Herein lies the crux of the problem, IMO. Regardless of all the other arguments made, I simply cannot believe it is reasonable to ask that Gentoo devs give their blessing to add to the tree something that hasn't yet even been written, let alone tested not to break anything with existing portage. I /am/ a bit skeptical that the solution as proposed would cause the sorts of breakage some people seem to think it will. I /am/ cautiously supportive of the proposal as outlined, provided it has been reasonably tested as as an overlay or locally imposed tree structure, and that there is a way for devs to independently test it themselves, but this? It's not written yet, yet devs are being asked to support its addition live tree, sight unseen, upon some description of a proposal of what it /might/ look like? Someone requested a patch, here worded as an overlay request, that devs (and users who want to risk their necks I'd strongly suggest verifying the backups are updated and testing them previous to trying it) could try, before a yeah or nay is given to the act of actually adding it to the tree. I believe that to be a reasonable request. Meanwhile, and possibly eliminating the need for the separate profiles, the virtual/portage idea seems worthy of consideration, as others have pointed out, quite independent of what other choices are eventually offered. pkgcore or something else could find it equally helpful, and it won't hurt to build in that flexibility now. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list