| 1 |
Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> said: |
| 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 |
Just my two cents, |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I completely agree. There are going to be lots of things that Paludis |
| 13 |
supports that Portage doesn't, and maybe pkgcore doesn't either, so it |
| 14 |
seems to make the most sense to keep it separate. I don't think we |
| 15 |
should start making changes to the tree for another package manager, |
| 16 |
pkgcore or paludis. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
No offense to either project. If one of them one day replaces Portage, |
| 19 |
it will have my complete support, but until then, we should focus on |
| 20 |
keeping changes in the tree to a minimum for other package managers. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Mark Loeser - Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86) |
| 24 |
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org |
| 25 |
mark AT halcy0n DOT com |
| 26 |
web - http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/ |
| 27 |
http://www.halcy0n.com |
Archives