Am Dienstag, 16. Mai 2006 20:35 schrieb Gustavo Zacarias: > Stephen Bennett wrote: > > That's my proposal. The benefits I like to think are obvious. The > > drawbacks are, as far as I can see, in tree size, which should be > > minimal. Those concerned about local tree size can exclude it, and > > for size on the mirrors it's trivial compared to the rest of the > > tree. > > > > Comments? > > As long as it's outside the "stable" (200x.y) portage profiles i'm > fine with it for SPARC. I think Ferris was testing paludis so i'm > sure he can handle it. > With respect to the "hey support omg!" comments i say stick a big fat > README about being an experimental profile or something like that and > that's it. Usually bug reports require "emerge --info" so it'll be > easy to flag invalid ones anyway.
[Disclaimer: I'm involved in paludis development and may be biased] I talked with the other AMD64 leads about adding a paludis subprofile to default-linux/amd64. Blubb said he'd rather have a global profile, Kingtaco state to be neutral in regard to adding another amd64 subprofile. I'd rather have a global profile, too. Summary: amd64 team can live with a paludis profile, we prefer to have a global profile, though. PS: As a sidenote to people who test or play with paludis and find packages that don't compile/install: Please don't file bugs with gentoo. Come to #paludis and discuss with us. If we tell you to do so, file bugs with [EMAIL PROTECTED] We are really interested to know which packages don't work. Danny -- Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
