Re: [gentoo-dev] Paludis and Profiles

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 10:17 -0400, Patrick McLean wrote:
> 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).

Yes, it is supported.  Ask Halcy0n.  If you file a bug, he'll try to fix
it.  To me, that's a "reasable level of support".

Notice I said *nothing* about *how* something should be supported.
Please don't try to interject your own thoughts into my words.

> > 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).

Yeah, and amd64 doesn't do that anymore because it broke repoman and I
had it removed.  Also, even those profiles were still supported
in-so-far as you accepted bug reports (with patches) that resolved
issues with the profile.  I personally have worked with several amd64
team members to fix bugs in these "unsupported" profiles in the past.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux