On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 20:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:22:35 -0600 "Daniel Robbins" > wrote: > | If some developers and managers don't see any purpose in GRP, make > | sure they have an answer for the thousands of users that they are > | supposed to be serving and who depend on it for a fast install. > > The main objection is not with GRP being used as part of the install, > but with GRP being used *after* the install, when base library versions > have been changed, USE flags have been modified and so on. GRP as it > stands does not work properly in these situations. True enough, I think (hope) that was what Kurt was referring to. The users *need* GRP for quick installs. About the non-install GRP. Many users do not care what USE flags they use or what cflags they compiled with. They install Gentoo, use it, and that is the end of the story (some users go on to using Gentoo for more advanced means, but not all users do). Having GRP that is built with the defaults presented in the system profile for critical packages is something that we should strive for. If we make it very explicit that we *will* not offer support for cases when this GRP was used on a non-default (default meaning they have not modfied the profile use settings, cflags, etc), then I do not see the problem. We have to keep in mind that users are NOT developers - they don't do to their systems what we do to ours. To most users, vanilla gentoo is just fine. If they decide that it is not, they discontinue use of the GRP and simply emerge everything from source. What we offer the users is a win-win situation, they have binary versions of critical packages for both ease of use and backup purposes (them: I fried my GCC!!!! Us: ok, grab the package from x mirror to fix it real quick). Of course, I will put this before -dev and -core, but please keep an open mind. Cheers, //zhen -- John Davis Gentoo Linux Developer ---- GnuPG Public Key: Fingerprint: 2364 71BD 4BC2 705D F338 FF70 6650 1235 1946 2D47