| 1 |
Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 12:46 +0100, Andres Loeh wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> As I've said, my only request is a single policy that before an overlay |
| 5 |
> can become publicly readable on overlays.gentoo.org (which is Gentoo |
| 6 |
> infrastructure) that it does not break packages in the main tree that |
| 7 |
> are not in the overlay. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> If this single policy were in place, then I would fully support |
| 10 |
> overlays.gentoo.org being created. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
How are you going to enforce that policy? Heh, you can't do that |
| 13 |
preemptively even in the main tree. :) Every day there are bugs about |
| 14 |
package A upgrade breaking packages B, C and D. I can also create an |
| 15 |
overlay with two completely innocent ebuilds, get it opened and then |
| 16 |
keep filing it w/ ricer food like patched-to-hell toolchain stuff? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
How are you going to verify that ebuild X in overlay doesn't break |
| 19 |
anything in the tree? And that its next revision won't do it. You |
| 20 |
volunteer for such job? Great. Or not? Well, then there's no point in |
| 21 |
suggesting a policy that can just never work... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
So - what you are telling us is that you *assume* that people are going |
| 24 |
to publish ebuilds *known* to break in-portage stuff on overlays.g.o.? |
| 25 |
Weird assumption really... :/ |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Best regards, |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Jakub Moc |
| 32 |
mailto:jakub@g.o |
| 33 |
GPG signature: |
| 34 |
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E |
| 35 |
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
... still no signature ;) |
Archives