| 1 |
On 06/07/2016 10:31 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> > Your thoughts? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Sunrise |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Sunrise was a great way to learn packaging for Gentoo. Reviews were |
| 8 |
> *very* |
| 9 |
> strict in the past, resulting in better QA standards than the Gentoo |
| 10 |
> main tree |
| 11 |
But here's the funny thing: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
While there was a syntactical review that made these ebuilds wonderfully |
| 14 |
strict no one seems to have compile-tested them. So when I ran a |
| 15 |
test-build over all of sunrise about half the packages had invalid |
| 16 |
SRC_URI, didn't compile, patches didn't apply, etc. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
So from my perspective it was *useless* enforcement of arbitrary rules |
| 19 |
with little to show for it. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> - and a definite frustration threshold that one had to overcome. With |
| 22 |
> a couple |
| 23 |
> of packages in Sunrise, doing the quizzes was a piece of cake though. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> That said... |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> If there's no activity anymore, we definitely should remove the |
| 28 |
> overlay from |
| 29 |
> Layman and (important!) remove the mentions of Sunrise from our web pages |
| 30 |
> (e.g., "contributing to Gentoo"). |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> We now have functioning and active alternatives, see proxy-maintainers. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> |
Archives