On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 23:22 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote: > > 1) Is bugsy ready for this, with appropriate categories in place? > > Paludis-related bugs can be marked as invalid and the user directed to > Paludis' bug tracker on berlios.de. Alternatively, if our friendly > Bugzilla admins want to create categories I won't complain. I don't see > a need for it though.
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. 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. Paludis supports multiple repositories correctly, right? So why is it a big deal to provide the profiles in their own overlay/repository? I haven't heard a good reason why the profiles need to be in the portage tree. I'm not saying I am against it being added so much as I haven't heard a single compelling reason for doing it, and quite a few compelling reasons why *not* to do it, mainly support-related. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
