On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:55 AM, Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Lots of users ran into troubles, and like in the current situation they > were unable to get support as they ran an actively unsupported > configuration.
Since when was installing half the packages on your system a supported configuration (whatever exactly that means)? Also, I suspect the KDE team would be fairly eager to address issues in their own overlay. As far as running paludis goes, in my experience anything resembling a technical flaw tends to be addressed fairly eagerly when posted on their lists/etc, and anything else tends to be greeted with all the kinds of behavior that we're trying to get rid of around here but haven't quite managed (ie, I'm not really ready to go pointing fingers yet). > > (And I thought you were usually in favour of adhering to policies and > not doing ADHD-fuelled random let's break stuff I'm hungry hahaha) In an overlay? The whole point of overlays is allowing more ADHD-fuelled random breakage, from which we obtain new features that make the whole world better. I'm perfectly fine with PMS-compliant-only in the tree. Frankly many of the features we rely on in newer APIs derive from the cooperation of the Portage/Paludis maintainers and I think any of the Portage maintainers around here would be among the first to agree. I'm all for adhering to policy, but not to policies that aren't even written down. I'm also for getting rid of roadblocks to doing things that are new and useful. I'm all for reasonable QA, but that doesn't mean demoting non-traditional implementations to second-class citizens. As I stated in my Council manifesto I will not vote for policies that require maintainers to author systemd units, but I will sponsor policies to require maintainers cooperate with those who do. I think that is the right balance, at least until it causes a real problem (beyond theological differences like the one that keeps Debian off the FSF list of Free distros). Rich
