| 1 |
Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:50 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote: |
| 3 |
> Perhaps it is a few developers trying to actually enforce the council's |
| 4 |
> decision and make sure that the 100% unofficial project doesn't *look* |
| 5 |
> official. Using "InOverlay" as if Sunrise is some sort of Gentoo |
| 6 |
> official overlay is a prime example of this. Let's look at it this way. |
| 7 |
> If someone from Sunrise were to say "this ebuild is available in our |
| 8 |
> overlay" in a comment, nobody would really have a problem. Having |
| 9 |
> someone with an @gentoo.org address setting "InOverlay" makes it look |
| 10 |
> like Gentoo is endorsing the overlay. Remember that when you use your |
| 11 |
> @gentoo.org address, you're speaking for Gentoo in the user's eyes. |
| 12 |
> Using "InOverlay" would be the same as someone from BMG (that happened |
| 13 |
> to be a developer) doing it because it is in the BMG overlay. It's |
| 14 |
> simply not accurate. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It's exactly as accurate as the keyword description [1] is, i.e.: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
<snip> |
| 19 |
A case where someone is working on this maintained-needed ebuild in an |
| 20 |
overlay to test their fixes before including it in an ebuild in the tree. |
| 21 |
</snip> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
So, be it BMG or sunrise or whatever else, it's an appropriate use of |
| 24 |
that keyword, and there's nothing there suggesting that the overlay is |
| 25 |
an official one. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/describekeywords.cgi |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Best regards, |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Jakub Moc |
| 35 |
mailto:jakub@g.o |
| 36 |
GPG signature: |
| 37 |
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E |
| 38 |
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
... still no signature ;) |
Archives