Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Paludis and Profiles
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:33:24
Message-Id: 200605181227.35314.pauldv@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Paludis and Profiles by Ryan Phillips
1 On Thursday 18 May 2006 01:23, Ryan Phillips wrote:
2 > Mike Auty <ikelos@g.o> said:
3 > > Forgive me,
4 > > I'm a little new at this and I really don't want to get involved,
5 > > but since my inbox has seen nothing but this for the past day or two,
6 > > I'm going to ask a few questions I'm interested in the answers to...
7 > > First and foremost is, will adding this to the tree be used for
8 > > function creep, whereby the next request to add to/alter the portage
9 > > tree is backed up by "Well, the profile change was already added to
10 > > the tree"? I wouldn't want a precedent like this set without the
11 > > council reviewing it.
12 >
13 > I really don't see much of an issue of feature creep. Gentoo/ALT
14 > already has a profile. It isn't like there are changes to the actual
15 > ebuilds themselves.
16
17 This is my main point. I believe that adding the profile now will lead to
18 function creep. Given the stated direction of paludis to be INCOMPATTIBLE
19 with portage, this will eventually lead to either replacing portage or
20 forcing portage into directions that gentoo does not wish to go.
21
22 >
23 > > Thirdly has anything like this ever happened to Debian or the
24 > > Sourcery group? If so how did they cope with it, and if not, how
25 > > have they avoided it?
26 >
27 > SMGL has voting and things get done.
28
29 Wrong answer. It does not answer the question. SOURCERY!=SMGL
30
31 >
32 > > As you may have guessed I'm of the, "You can do the same thing with
33 > > an overlay, so why must it be in the tree". I am however willing to
34 > > wait and see what the council says, why can't the changes to the tree
35 > > wait until then, what is so urgent? I'm especially intrigued since
36 > > all this is simply to no longer require portage as a dependency of
37 > > system. Can't paludis peacefully co-exist with a portage
38 > > installation for a little longer, until it's mature?
39 >
40 > The question is when is it mature? I've tried it and Paludis does
41 > work. There will always be bugs and feature requests. Its part of
42 > the development process.
43
44 It is mature when I can install it in my gentoo system. Try it out on some
45 ebuilds. Check whether my ebuild is compatible with paludis and portage
46 (in the same system), and not break my system horibly. If only
47 undocumented tricks will allow this this means that paludis is not yet
48 mature.
49
50 Yes, any package manager that claims to work with ebuilds is only mature
51 when it cooperates in a portage environment. This means that either you
52 cooperate with portage, or you get the portage developers to introduce
53 the things you need into a stable portage.
54
55 Paul
56
57 --
58 Paul de Vrieze
59 Gentoo Developer
60 Mail: pauldv@g.o
61 Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net