| 1 |
On Thursday 18 May 2006 00:26, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> Given the sheer volume of impassioned response, regardless of any |
| 3 |
> technical arguments, I'm dropping the top-level profile idea for now. |
| 4 |
> Several architecture teams have expressed an interest in creating |
| 5 |
> sub-profiles under their own, however, and I'll be working with them to |
| 6 |
> get those implemented. Perhaps I'll revisit the top-level idea at a |
| 7 |
> later date when all the fuss has died down. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I seriously disagree with this action. Such profiles have the same |
| 10 |
problems as a toplevel profile, and as such are just as problematic as a |
| 11 |
toplevel paludis profile. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Since the profile does not actually add anything except making portage a |
| 14 |
virtual (which is independent of paludis, and a good idea in any case), |
| 15 |
there is also no use for doing so. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If you really really need to have a profile, it might be discussable to |
| 18 |
have no-portage profiles, that do not include portage or python in |
| 19 |
system. These however must still be portage compatible, and independent |
| 20 |
of a package manager. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Paul |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 26 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 27 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 28 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives