| 1 |
On 17/05/06, Stephen Bennett <spb@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:25:08 +0100 |
| 4 |
> "George Prowse" <cokehabit@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Why risk anything by changing the tree to suit the package? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> We're not risking anything, except upsetting a few people. We're not |
| 9 |
> changing anything either, just adding a few files. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Any adding is increasing the risk. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> It just |
| 15 |
> > seems like asking for trouble. The overlay ability is there for a |
| 16 |
> > reason. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Yes, to work around a lack of multiple repository support. It's not |
| 19 |
> there to try to mix profiles between repositories. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Surely then it would be better to work on a comprimise for the sake of |
| 23 |
Gentoo rather than paludis. Horse before the cart. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Paludis isn't being used and should be kept out of the sphere |
| 26 |
> > of users use until it is usable, wont break systems and is |
| 27 |
> > trustworthy enough to be near the tree |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> It is, it is, it won't unless the user screws up (as with, say, |
| 30 |
> Portage), and it is. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
So good working practice is to introduce a variable where breakages could |
| 34 |
come from two directions rather than stick with what works? Let the project |
| 35 |
mature before asking for changes from the Gentoo side. |
Archives