Re: [gentoo-dev] Paludis and Profiles

[Patrick McLean]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 23:22 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
>
> This is the exact reason why I would disagree with having this profile
> in the tree.  It *is* going to cause more work for bug-wranglers, no
> matter how many places you put warnings and notices.  If the profile is
> *not* in the portage tree, people won't file bugs in our bugzilla.  If
> the profile *is* in the portage tree, then users will file bugs in our
> bugzilla.  Anything that we add to the tree, we are expected to provide
> a reasonable level of support for maintaining.
>

Last time I checked, we don't support *everything* in the tree, for
example everything in package.mask and/or keyworded -* is considered
unsupported (or are you trying to tell me that
sys-devel/gcc-4.2.0_alpha20060513 is officially supported).

> If there is a bug in Paludis, since the package *is* in our tree, users
> can file bugs in our bugzilla.  Now, you might mark them as INVALID
> (which is wrong, btw) or UPSTREAM (which is right), but *somebody* has
> to take the time to look at the bug, determine that it is a Paludis bug,
> then do the work to UPSTREAM it.  Proper usage of UPSTREAM means
> actually *filing* a bug upstream, not just pushing it off on the user,
> though this isn't used nearly as much in practice as it should be.
>
> A profile is an even more problematic affair, as it has an even
> longer-standing assumption that they are 100% supported by Gentoo.

Deprecated profiles are considered unsupported, as are most of the
gentoo-alt profiles. Also most arches have development profiles which
are considered unsupported (on amd64 we add a profile.bashrc that dies
unless something like I_WANT_TO_BREAK_MY_SYSTEM=1 is set).

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list