1 |
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:51:25 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
First, let me say that I'm approaching this from a user's perspective. I |
4 |
have no insight or knowledge as to the history of the overlay project or |
5 |
any of the people involved. I _do_ know that since late 2004 when I first |
6 |
switched to Gentoo, each week there are more bugs opened than closed. |
7 |
There are also many open bugs that go back years. |
8 |
|
9 |
In my particular frame, I want ebuilds I need or have contributed to get |
10 |
into the tree. Having to download new ebuilds into local, and then have no |
11 |
way to emerge update them is frustrating. |
12 |
|
13 |
My point was about two things: 1) ebuilds that will never be committed to |
14 |
portage, and 2) ebuilds that have been orphaned due to lack of interest. |
15 |
|
16 |
As for breakmygentoo, here is my thought. As a user, I would prefer to do |
17 |
all my shopping in one place. Gentoo has portage and uses ebuilds as a |
18 |
package distribution mechanism. I would prefer to use gentoo's facilities |
19 |
to get additional off-tree ebuilds. I don't want to have to sync all over |
20 |
the place to get ebuilds of unknown origin. I would prefer to have a |
21 |
sanctioned alt-gentoo ebuild repository where I know some q/a is applied |
22 |
and standards adhered to. |
23 |
|
24 |
My inference of the sunshine project was that there would be oversight and |
25 |
control. That if _I_, for example wished to contribute, then I would have |
26 |
to meet standards. And, on the flip side, anyone who would care to |
27 |
download an ebuilt from o.g.o would be confident that the ebuild at least |
28 |
meets certain quality standards. o.g.o, of course would have to disclose |
29 |
that these packages are testing, and possibly experimental, but it's a |
30 |
terrific opportunity to find a home for many orphaned and ignored |
31 |
packages. |
32 |
|
33 |
Using the example I brought up, about the kernel-sources, o.g.o would be |
34 |
a perfect home for such a project. |
35 |
|
36 |
|
37 |
snip..... |
38 |
>> As I see it, there are really two main issues with bugzilla. One, is to |
39 |
>> resolve open ebuild enhancement bugs. Mark them somehow so it's clear |
40 |
>> the bug has been reviewed and an action determined. CANTFIX/WONTFIX is |
41 |
>> harsh, but if that's what it is, then mark it! The second issue is the |
42 |
>> orphaning of packages which have merit, but no maintainer. Again, the |
43 |
>> sunshine overlay would provide a home for those packages. It will also |
44 |
>> allow the user to take ownership of a project, get some experience, and |
45 |
>> maybe decide to become a dev. And, should that occur, then, lo, the |
46 |
>> orphaned package may have a maintainer someday. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> This is something that I do not get. Why exactly does everything have |
49 |
> to be resolved in some specific time frame? Is "when I get to it" not |
50 |
> good enough? I mean, it works for Linus, right? ;p |
51 |
|
52 |
Why? Because having two year old bugs is simply inexcusable. Especially |
53 |
when many have not had any activity for a long time. Having |
54 |
maintainer-wanted bugs for months on end is silly. Giving a user who files |
55 |
a ebuild request or submits an ebuild deserves the chance to take |
56 |
ownership of it. It's a good way to get a more experienced user, and |
57 |
hopefully one day, a future dev. |
58 |
|
59 |
> |
60 |
> As for packages that have merit, this is quite simple. If the package |
61 |
> has enough of a good following, it will get picked up. The likely |
62 |
> reason why many of the maintainer-wanted packages are in the state |
63 |
> they're in is simply because there isn't enough interest in the package. |
64 |
> In this particular instance, I can see an external overlay being useful. |
65 |
> However, there already is one. It is called "breakmygentoo". Do we |
66 |
> really need to duplicate their functionality? |
67 |
> |
68 |
|
69 |
Well as for packages getting picked up, this is not completely accurate. |
70 |
Some will never get picked up, either because they are inappropriate |
71 |
(hot-babe, for example), or too experimental (the kernel-source example I |
72 |
cited). As for bmg, which I have to admit I had never heard about before |
73 |
today, as a user, I would prefer to have everything genoo-sanctioned and |
74 |
controlled. |
75 |
|
76 |
|
77 |
>> So, hopefully, as the overlay project moves forward, it will help |
78 |
take |
79 |
>> some of the heat off bugzilla and allow for the offering of more |
80 |
>> ebuilds to userland. |
81 |
> |
82 |
> I sincerely hope it doesn't effect bugzilla in any way. I have no |
83 |
> problem with users getting access to ebuilds, but many of these ebuilds |
84 |
> simply are not ready for anyone to get them "automatically". Having an |
85 |
> ebuild on a bug makes it easily searchable. Having an ebuild on a bug |
86 |
> makes it easy to peer review. Having an ebuild on a bug means the user |
87 |
> needs to explicitly add the ebuild to their overlay. |
88 |
> |
89 |
Users would not be getting o.g.o ebuilds automatically. They would have to |
90 |
actively emerge layman, and then select the ebuilds they want. I agree |
91 |
with you that the o.g.o and the main portage tree should never be |
92 |
comingled. But, I do argue that bugzilla is inefficient in getting ebuilds |
93 |
resolved. And, just because o.g.o exists does not in any way mean a user |
94 |
would have to or be advised to skip bugzilla. Some ebuilds will get picked |
95 |
right up, others after some review. All I am suggesting is that o.g.o will |
96 |
help find a home for ebuilds that are wasting away on bugzilla. |
97 |
|
98 |
|
99 |
> The idea behind the overlays project, as it was presented, was |
100 |
to assist |
101 |
> projects in doing development by allowing outside contributors to more |
102 |
> easily interact with specific projects or teams. It was not designed to |
103 |
> bypass Gentoo's security or quality assurance policies, nor was it |
104 |
> designed to allow a mechanism to give our users substandard ebuilds. |
105 |
> |
106 |
> The idea isn't so bad, but the benefits definitely do not outweigh the |
107 |
> negatives. |
108 |
|
109 |
I did not read anything that implied o.g.o would bypass anything other |
110 |
than a lengthy wait in bugzilla land. Other distros have their |
111 |
experimental/testing branches, why can't gentoo? |
112 |
|
113 |
-- |
114 |
Peter |
115 |
|
116 |
|
117 |
-- |
118 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |