| 1 |
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 09:47 -0500, Aron Griffis wrote: |
| 2 |
> Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Fri Mar 24 2006, 08:55:30AM EST] |
| 3 |
> > As I've said, my only request is a single policy that before an overlay |
| 4 |
> > can become publicly readable on overlays.gentoo.org (which is Gentoo |
| 5 |
> > infrastructure) that it does not break packages in the main tree that |
| 6 |
> > are not in the overlay. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> This makes sense, but what's the content of such a policy? Take your |
| 9 |
> gcc-5.1.99 example: say it "breaks" lots of packages in portage. Is |
| 10 |
> it not allowed to be in a publicly accessible overlay in that case? |
| 11 |
> If that's not the policy, then what policy allows gcc-5.1.99 but still |
| 12 |
> covers the ground you want covered? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I see your point here and honestly do not have an answer. I don't want |
| 15 |
to limit what people can do in the overlays so much as reduce the |
| 16 |
"collateral damage" that can be done. Honestly stuff like the toolchain |
| 17 |
is a bit of an exception only because that information all shows up on |
| 18 |
an "emerge --info" already. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I really can't think of much besides kernel + toolchain that can have |
| 21 |
such devastating effects to the rest of the tree. The only other |
| 22 |
massive breakages would be via eclasses, which was my main target. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Does anyone have any ideas how we could resonably reduce problems |
| 25 |
reported from things such as toolchain breakages in an overlay, yet |
| 26 |
still not punish the people running the overlay by disallowing it? I |
| 27 |
surely wouldn't want to limit the toolchain maintainers from being able |
| 28 |
to enjoy the use of an overlay if they wished it. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 32 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 33 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 34 |
Games - Developer |
| 35 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives