1 |
Brian Harring wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:05:15PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
>> Local overlays are fine as the user exactly knows what he does in his private |
5 |
>> overlay (and hopefully follows eclass changes), development overlays are fine |
6 |
>> (assuming the group of people controls the releavant overlays as well), |
7 |
>> overlays like Sunrise are problematic, not to use such anal words as you do. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Why are they problematic? Because of your assumption that they won't |
10 |
> maintain it? |
11 |
> |
12 |
> It's the same thing as gentoo-x86 (I will keep stating that till it's |
13 |
> grilled into peoples heads also), this is _not_ a new issue so why are |
14 |
> people leveling issues of gentoo-x86 as new issues of sunrise? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> So someone goes and breaks something in gentoo-x86 that breaks |
17 |
> something for sunrise. Fine, it's sunrises' mess to clean up; they've |
18 |
> volunteered to do this work, I don't see how you can claim it as a |
19 |
> negative when they've accepted it as part of _their_ work. |
20 |
|
21 |
I think the point a lot of people are concerned about are packages that |
22 |
contain libraries or other dependencies that reside in the sunrise tree. |
23 |
There's a good chance that a package in the regular tree will link |
24 |
against a package from sunrise, the user will have no idea or forget |
25 |
that they installed that app from sunrise (and the dep exists), and a |
26 |
bug arises. Who's fault is it? Is it the package maintainer in the |
27 |
regular tree, or sunrise? How do you stop excessive bug traffic for |
28 |
issues like this? |
29 |
|
30 |
Another issue I think people are ignoring here is the fact that sunrise |
31 |
isn't focused on a particular part of the tree. I think Ciaran made a |
32 |
point earlier (that was probably ignored) about the fact of why we have |
33 |
herds in the regular tree. They aren't perfect, but they still do a |
34 |
decent job of gathering people who have a good understand about a |
35 |
certain group of packages. I have a hard time believing that the same |
36 |
type of quality exists with the number of devs working on it. The |
37 |
difference between sunrise and say the php overlay is the fact that |
38 |
sunrise isn't focused on a set of packages (just ones that people want |
39 |
that aren't in the tree) compared to a focused set for a specific |
40 |
purpose (php). |
41 |
|
42 |
The more I think about it, I think there needs to be a separation |
43 |
between "a sandbox for users to hone their ebuild skills" and "these |
44 |
packages aren't in the tree yet, lets make the available somewhere |
45 |
else". Perhaps the better solution is to have the herds manage their own |
46 |
set of overlays must like php does. I imagine many herds won't have a |
47 |
need for it, while others would (and probably already using it). What's |
48 |
the real purpose of sunrise then? The sandbox/learning ground? Or a |
49 |
place for ebuilds that are stuck in bugs? The sunrise project has been |
50 |
fighting on the grounds of learning aspect, but most of the people are |
51 |
having issues with the ebuild stomping ground side. If I remember right, |
52 |
the primary reason the council voted to re-enact sunrise was because of |
53 |
the learning side of it. I don't doubt that (if done right) would be a |
54 |
great thing, but I have concerns on the implementation of the latter. |
55 |
|
56 |
For an example: |
57 |
|
58 |
To me, it would work better if the netmon herd brought on a user to help |
59 |
with the netmon overlay. They would get specific 'training' on working |
60 |
on netmon ebuilds. They could have done the 'bootcamp' at sunrise |
61 |
initially, then moved onto the herd overlay for something a bit more |
62 |
organized and better maintained. This would produce a part of the QA |
63 |
that some people are in a fuss about, and some better organization. |
64 |
Heck, maybe even some interaction with the sunrise group and netmon herd |
65 |
would be great so that the education continues, but on other watchful eyes. |
66 |
|
67 |
Basically, it boils down to organization of ebuilds and how they are |
68 |
being watched. A group that watches all isn't a good idea to me, my idea |
69 |
above makes more sense. |
70 |
|
71 |
Anyways, I've been trying to keep quiet on this issue and decided I |
72 |
could interject here :) |
73 |
|
74 |
Cheers- |
75 |
|
76 |
-- |
77 |
Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o> |
78 |
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager |
79 |
|
80 |
--- |
81 |
GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> |
82 |
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 |
83 |
|
84 |
ramereth/irc.freenode.net |