| 1 |
lxnay@××××××××××××.org wrote: |
| 2 |
> Adding "@overlay" atoms/deps postfix support could really make life |
| 3 |
> easier, especially because forcing specific atoms in *DEPEND hoping |
| 4 |
> that these will be always pulled in from the same overlay is not |
| 5 |
> something reliable, as you already know. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
No. This is a terrible idea. The solution is to *fix the overlays*, not |
| 8 |
force the user to intervene and fix things himself. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Conflicting overlay issues turn up on the Gentoo forums (check |
| 11 |
Unsupported Software), and in pretty much all cases, once the |
| 12 |
maintainer(s) of the overlay(s) are contacted about the issue, the |
| 13 |
overlays are quickly fixed so that the next update sorts out the user's |
| 14 |
tree. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Users should *not *have to take steps to fix overlay blocks and breaks |
| 17 |
ahead of time; that should be the overlay maintainer's job, not the poor |
| 18 |
end user. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Comments are welcome, flames are not. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
On that note, I'd like to offer a friendly word of caution, in the |
| 23 |
interests of us all talking together and working through the ideas |
| 24 |
presented in your threads. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
In your last visit to our mailing list |
| 27 |
(http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/55180), you stated |
| 28 |
that you'd like to make some sweeping changes to Gentoo, then you |
| 29 |
started telling the developers why they all sucked ahead of time for not |
| 30 |
implementing said ideas. And then you kept telling developers that they |
| 31 |
sucked throughout the rest of the replies. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
You expressed unwillingness to work with Gentoo developers through our |
| 34 |
admittedly long recruitment process, instead wanting to push your |
| 35 |
changes to our tree directly. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
There wasn't very much accomplished on either side at the end of that |
| 38 |
debacle, except some hurt feelings. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
It seems that the discussions you're having in the binary packages and |
| 41 |
overlay threads are already heading the same direction, and I for one |
| 42 |
don't want that to happen. Telling people they're not allowed to express |
| 43 |
disagreement is counterproductive.[1][2] |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/61555/focus=61568 |
| 46 |
[2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/61530/focus=61560 |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
So, folks, just take it easy. We don't have to accept every suggestion |
| 49 |
offered to the list, nor do we have to reject it out of hand. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Thanks. |
Archives