Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> So I think the question that
> we need to answer is *what* changes are necessary to the profiles and
> *why* -- or I suppose, why would paludis/pkgcore need to have its own
> profile?

The profile currently being proposed would change the default 
virtual/portage provider, and ensure that paludis gets pulled in instead 
of Portage in the system set. It would also serve as a proving ground, 
if you will, for some profile features that Paludis supports and Portage 
does not -- for example, profile level USE forcing (for example, the 
ip28 USE flag in relevant Mips profiles), USE combination restrictions 
(see the PHP ebuilds for where this could be useful), and potentially 
multiple profile inheritance. According to my understanding of Portage's 
profile handling, these will all be silently ignored by Portage, so 
nothing will break. Paludis' profile handling is, as far as I know, 
fully backwards compatible; the new profile is purely for the change in 
the system set and to provide a place where people can use the new 
features without stepping on anyone else's toes.
-- 
gentoo-qa@g.o mailing list