Mike Auty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Forgive me, > I'm a little new at this and I really don't want to get involved, but > since my inbox has seen nothing but this for the past day or two, I'm > going to ask a few questions I'm interested in the answers to... > First and foremost is, will adding this to the tree be used for > function creep, whereby the next request to add to/alter the portage > tree is backed up by "Well, the profile change was already added to the > tree"? I wouldn't want a precedent like this set without the council > reviewing it.
I really don't see much of an issue of feature creep. Gentoo/ALT already has a profile. It isn't like there are changes to the actual ebuilds themselves. > Thirdly has anything like this ever happened to Debian or the Sourcery > group? If so how did they cope with it, and if not, how have they > avoided it? SMGL has voting and things get done. > As you may have guessed I'm of the, "You can do the same thing with an > overlay, so why must it be in the tree". I am however willing to wait > and see what the council says, why can't the changes to the tree wait > until then, what is so urgent? I'm especially intrigued since all this > is simply to no longer require portage as a dependency of system. Can't > paludis peacefully co-exist with a portage installation for a little > longer, until it's mature? The question is when is it mature? I've tried it and Paludis does work. There will always be bugs and feature requests. Its part of the development process. Ryan Phillips
pgphGkWfkoHSr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
