Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 16 May 2006 17:41:24 +0000:
> Alec Warner wrote: >> I would prefer to see the profile you are commiting then; do you have a >> link? > > I haven't written it yet. Herein lies the crux of the problem, IMO. Regardless of all the other arguments made, I simply cannot believe it is reasonable to ask that Gentoo devs give their blessing to add to the tree something that hasn't yet even been written, let alone tested not to break anything with existing portage. I /am/ a bit skeptical that the solution as proposed would cause the sorts of breakage some people seem to think it will. I /am/ cautiously supportive of the proposal as outlined, provided it has been reasonably tested as as an overlay or locally imposed tree structure, and that there is a way for devs to independently test it themselves, but this? It's not written yet, yet devs are being asked to support its addition live tree, sight unseen, upon some description of a proposal of what it /might/ look like? Someone requested a patch, here worded as an overlay request, that devs (and users who want to risk their necks <g> I'd strongly suggest verifying the backups are updated and testing them previous to trying it) could try, before a yeah or nay is given to the act of actually adding it to the tree. I believe that to be a reasonable request. Meanwhile, and possibly eliminating the need for the separate profiles, the virtual/portage idea seems worthy of consideration, as others have pointed out, quite independent of what other choices are eventually offered. pkgcore or something else could find it equally helpful, and it won't hurt to build in that flexibility now. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
