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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
