| 1 |
On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:17:16 -0400 |
| 2 |
Patrick McLean <chutzpah@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Last time I checked, we don't support *everything* in the tree, for |
| 5 |
> example everything in package.mask and/or keyworded -* is considered |
| 6 |
> unsupported (or are you trying to tell me that |
| 7 |
> sys-devel/gcc-4.2.0_alpha20060513 is officially supported). |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Where gcc-4.2.0_alpha is concerned, the important thing is that while |
| 10 |
it is not supported at the moment, it _will_ be supported in the |
| 11 |
future. The same is not being said for paludis at the moment - the |
| 12 |
paludis people are not claiming paludis will become official; I think |
| 13 |
everyone would agree it's too early to be thinking about that now. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Deprecated profiles are considered unsupported, |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The key point there is that they're deprecated - deprecated means "will |
| 18 |
be removed". That means anyone using them should be aware they will be |
| 19 |
removed at some point. Again, that's not what Paludis is about (if it |
| 20 |
was, the paludis team wouldn't be asking to put stuff in the tree!). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> as are most of the gentoo-alt profiles. |
| 23 |
(see Flameeyes response) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Also most arches have development profiles which |
| 26 |
> are considered unsupported (on amd64 we add a profile.bashrc that dies |
| 27 |
> unless something like I_WANT_TO_BREAK_MY_SYSTEM=1 is set). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
However these are development profiles for actual supported profiles - |
| 30 |
in other words the stuff in the development profiles is expected to |
| 31 |
become supported at some point (either by inclusion or rejection). |
| 32 |
Again, not the case with paludis as it is currently being proposed. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives