| 1 |
Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> So... short version, introduction of the profile allows for curious |
| 3 |
> users to get bit in the ass by intentional dropping of compatibility |
| 4 |
> (profile level changes are one thing, changing the ebuild standard is |
| 5 |
> another). In light of that, why should it be demoed in the tree where |
| 6 |
> the only use of it is to bootstrap a new installation? Just overlay |
| 7 |
> it, y'all should be maintaining an overlay fixing ebuild incompatibilities |
| 8 |
> anyways. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
This I see as a non-argument. We imitate enough of Portage's |
| 11 |
idiosyncracies to support every ebuild with which we've tested it, so |
| 12 |
the ebuild format is for all intents and purposes the same. Sure, a few |
| 13 |
internal variables have different names, but those are the ones that |
| 14 |
ebuilds generally shouldn't be using, and if there is a legitimate case |
| 15 |
where they are used, we emulate it. And it would have uses beyond |
| 16 |
bootstrapping a new installation-- for example, say, running a system |
| 17 |
exactly as any other profile is used. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> The gain of the profile is that you can do a few new tricks for folks |
| 20 |
> doing boostrapping experiments- why not just introduce an ebuild that |
| 21 |
> sets up the new profile in a temp overlay? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
No, the gain is that one could sanely run a Paludis-based system without |
| 24 |
needing an external overlay, and without having to update said overlay |
| 25 |
whenever the base profiles in the tree change. |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives