Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 23:22 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote: > > 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. >
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). > 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). -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
