1 |
On 03/05/2010 11:54 AM, Peter Hjalmarsson wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> |
4 |
> I have start to question why should we care about overlays more then the |
5 |
> actual portage tree? |
6 |
|
7 |
My comments do not imply caring more about overlays than the actual |
8 |
portage tree. |
9 |
|
10 |
> |
11 |
> Take for example the kernel or Xorg. |
12 |
> They give themselves a period of time to clean up their own code (i.e. |
13 |
> kernel-modules, xorg-drivers) and then they release it as stable and |
14 |
> tell users/distributors to upgrade. |
15 |
> They do not wait for nVidia/AMD/other out-of-tree drivers/modules to |
16 |
> catch up. |
17 |
> |
18 |
|
19 |
This doesn't match the situation in question. This more closely matches |
20 |
changing for example libX11 ABI. |
21 |
|
22 |
> Now if we say we have someone managing an overlay, and this person do |
23 |
> miss this warning/die for half an year, then I would say they have nott |
24 |
> done their homework and they are on their own. I do not see why we |
25 |
> should wait unreasonable long periods of time because there may be |
26 |
> someone broken somewhere. |
27 |
> |
28 |
|
29 |
Because there is so little benefit from removing old functions. What is |
30 |
so bad about having them grouped at the bottom of the file inside a |
31 |
deprecated section? |
32 |
|
33 |
Regards, |
34 |
Petteri |