| 1 |
Caleb Cushing wrote: |
| 2 |
>> Are we to say that we shouldn't allow tools to have support for this. I |
| 3 |
>> think that it is a nature progression that if we are to allow overlays to |
| 4 |
>> extend the portage tree that we should allow overlays to extend other |
| 5 |
>> overlays. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I probably shouldn't butt in... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> first, no I don't want you to merge java-overlay and |
| 10 |
> java-experimental, that's a bad idea (well at least for me) |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> second. I generally think anything beyond a personal overlay is crap. |
| 13 |
> All these overlays like sunrise, java-overlay, and on and on... |
| 14 |
> basically official, overlays that have qa and are pretty stable. are |
| 15 |
> crap. they should be in the tree. an overlay for developers is fine, |
| 16 |
> you know. where you are working on stuff... stuff that someone who |
| 17 |
> wouldn't want to hack on it wouldn't want, because it's too broken. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Please point me to the people willing and having the time to maintain |
| 21 |
those >100 new ebuilds in the main tree. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Regards, |
| 24 |
Petteri |
Archives