| 1 |
Marcus D. Hanwell wrote: |
| 2 |
> I never tried to keep the overlay secret, but why should users have to |
| 3 |
> set up a myriad of overlays if they just want to run a system? May be you |
| 4 |
> would be better off becoming a developer and adding stuff to the tree? If we |
| 5 |
> follow a trend of keeping more and more stuff in various overlays then Gentoo |
| 6 |
> just becomes more of a pain to run IMHO. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I am hoping to get more proactive in moving suitable ebuilds from the overlay |
| 9 |
> to the main tree in the near future. I will also be encouraging other devs to |
| 10 |
> do the same if they are not already. So the overlay will get smaller as stuff |
| 11 |
> is moved. Hopefully some of our active herd testers will go on to become |
| 12 |
> developers and maintain some of this stuff themselves too. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> May be the aims of the overlay should be more clearly defined through debate |
| 15 |
> and documented on the overlay site. I am away for the week starting in about |
| 16 |
> one hour anyway... I will catch up on discussions when I get back. It would |
| 17 |
> be good to hear what more people think about this subject - may be I am on my |
| 18 |
> own with my opinions? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I think it would be a good thing if some interested users do some |
| 22 |
additionally testing of "in work" ebuilds, so that the applications are |
| 23 |
tested on a wider range of hardware and configurations. As a move to |
| 24 |
o.g.o would reduce maintainance as well, I'm in favour of this. |
| 25 |
gentooscience.org could then redirect there. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Jan |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-science@g.o mailing list |
Archives