| 1 |
Forgive me, |
| 2 |
I'm a little new at this and I really don't want to get involved, but |
| 3 |
since my inbox has seen nothing but this for the past day or two, I'm |
| 4 |
going to ask a few questions I'm interested in the answers to... |
| 5 |
First and foremost is, will adding this to the tree be used for |
| 6 |
function creep, whereby the next request to add to/alter the portage |
| 7 |
tree is backed up by "Well, the profile change was already added to the |
| 8 |
tree"? I wouldn't want a precedent like this set without the council |
| 9 |
reviewing it. |
| 10 |
Secondly, is that what's already being done by asking individual arch |
| 11 |
devs to add individual paludis profiles? Surely paludis would |
| 12 |
eventually require all archs to be there, or have I missed something |
| 13 |
(which I may have)? Having already added a file to the profiles |
| 14 |
directory, which caused a few posts on here earlier, and then having |
| 15 |
asked the question of all the devs so as to avoid a similar incident, |
| 16 |
and then received a mixed response, now specific people have been asked |
| 17 |
if individually they'll help get paludis in the tree. Doesn't that seem |
| 18 |
a little improper, perhaps? |
| 19 |
Thirdly has anything like this ever happened to Debian or the Sourcery |
| 20 |
group? If so how did they cope with it, and if not, how have they |
| 21 |
avoided it? |
| 22 |
As you may have guessed I'm of the, "You can do the same thing with an |
| 23 |
overlay, so why must it be in the tree". I am however willing to wait |
| 24 |
and see what the council says, why can't the changes to the tree wait |
| 25 |
until then, what is so urgent? I'm especially intrigued since all this |
| 26 |
is simply to no longer require portage as a dependency of system. Can't |
| 27 |
paludis peacefully co-exist with a portage installation for a little |
| 28 |
longer, until it's mature? |
| 29 |
Thanks, |
| 30 |
Mike 5:\ |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives