| 1 |
Am 13.06.2013 07:44, schrieb Michał Górny: |
| 2 |
> Dnia 2013-06-12, o godz. 13:23:04 |
| 3 |
> Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> napisał(a): |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> We need worse support for overlays, i.e. no. Having to use >3 overlays |
| 6 |
>> defeats the purpose of a QA'd tree. Everything in an (official) |
| 7 |
>> overlay should be in package.mask instead. The main reason it isn't is |
| 8 |
>> because nobody wants to use CVS. For good examples, see sunrise or |
| 9 |
>> gentoo-haskell. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Sunrise is not that good example. I liked to use it as an example but |
| 12 |
> over time you start to see how degenerated it becomes. It seems that |
| 13 |
> the bond between people is pretty poor there, and many of the packages |
| 14 |
> lack proper maintenance. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Some of them simply don't build at all and wait for a random Sunrise |
| 17 |
> user to fix them. Then they lay unmaintained once again, and the story |
| 18 |
> repeats. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Then the policies in sunrise need to be more strict: If it is mentioned |
| 21 |
in the bug, that the version in sunrise does not build anymore, it |
| 22 |
should be dropped from sunrise if there is no fix in some timeframe [1]. |
| 23 |
Of course this puts more workload on the sunrise-team as they have to |
| 24 |
monitor the bugs and respond accordingly. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
- René |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
[1] Dunno, perhaps two weeks if noone responds "will fix it", four weeks |
| 29 |
else. |
Archives