Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Josh Saddler <nightmorph@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:49:59
Message-Id: 44885286.2060300@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay by Carsten Lohrke
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA1
3
4 Carsten Lohrke wrote:
5 > On Thursday 08 June 2006 02:42, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
6 >> Initially jokey and myself will be working on this. The current focus is to
7 >> migrate ebuilds from bugzilla into the overlay and to get contributors to
8 >> commit their changes to the overlay instead of updating the bugzilla every
9 >> time.
10 >
11 > Can't agree with that. Users should a) post their ebuilds at bugzilla, since
12 > it is the place, we track request and b) get them from there, forced to
13 > maintain their own overlay (and actually look at each ebuild), than trust
14 > some arbitrary overlay, that is neither supported security wise, nor is
15 > ensured that the ebuilds have a minimal quality (do not fubar a users
16 > system).
17 >
18 > Overlays make sense to perform changes how a whole range of packages are
19 > handled, to be merged with the official Portage tree, later.
20
21 Agreed. While this is in theory an excellent idea, it won't help right now. In
22 my opinion, what we really need is for some community members to step up and
23 create "the world's <lauditory adjective> Gentoo-ebuild-related "clearinghouse",
24 better than BMG etc., that could be used as a better means of submitting ebuilds
25 to bugzie. That way there's much more outside testing and widespread use before
26 (hopefully) very high quality ebuilds and/or overlays are submitted to bugzilla
27 for official Gentoo review.
28
29 So the workload on the Gentoo devs would be greatly reduced, instead of having
30 to (now) police ebuilds in at least two different locations. Overlays are a pain
31 to manage as it is. I understand that Sunrise is trying to solve the central
32 problem of maintainers, but right now it sounds like it's doing it in a very
33 roundabout, ineffective manner.
34 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
35 Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
36
37 iD8DBQFEiFKFrsJQqN81j74RAu9XAKCOuXMRWIKQqlVXpAzA9s2DvGA03QCfaGjp
38 f2zhH9DNu9dLONvnh1ACtK4=
39 =kuou
40 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
41 --
42 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list