| 1 |
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 08:38 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:19:51 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Stuart Herbert <stuart@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 6 |
> > Hash: SHA1 |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Michael Cummings wrote: |
| 9 |
> > | Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 10 |
> > |>> Using your example, if it will *never* make it into the tree, |
| 11 |
> > then what |>> is it doing on *.gentoo.org infrastructure? |
| 12 |
> > | |
| 13 |
> > | OK, I'll speak up. I plan on using overlay.gentoo.org for the perl |
| 14 |
> > team | overlay repository. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > [snip] |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > You're not alone. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > The webapps overlay contains ebuilds that may never make it into the |
| 21 |
> > tree. We have a lot of packages that we maintain, but which don't |
| 22 |
> > pass our upstream requirements [1] at this time. We're doing our |
| 23 |
> > best to work with $upstream on resolving such issues, but we're never |
| 24 |
> > going to achieve a 100% success rate. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> No-one is objecting to these project-local overlays. The objection is |
| 27 |
> to a system-wide overlay. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Correct. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I would have *no problem* with an opt-in system. Instead of using |
| 32 |
"InOverlay" (which is a poor choice anyway... which overlay?) as some |
| 33 |
sort of tag, instead, assign the package to the project which maintains |
| 34 |
the herd the package belongs to. If the project does not want it, then |
| 35 |
they can add "SUNRISE" to Keywords (in bugzilla). The Sunrise project |
| 36 |
then has permission to do with the package as they see fit. At *this* |
| 37 |
point, you could use "InOverlay", since it would be pretty obvious which |
| 38 |
overlay it means. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
The real root of the problem is that packages that were once assigned to |
| 41 |
teams/projects are now being assigned into a generic dumping ground and |
| 42 |
being forgotten. You're trying to resolve this problem by moving them |
| 43 |
to another dumping ground, which I completely disagree with. A better |
| 44 |
solution would be to revert the broken behavior, and start assigning |
| 45 |
packages back to the projects, as it used to be done. Let the project |
| 46 |
decide if they want the package or not. If they don't, then they can |
| 47 |
simply add a single keyword and Sunrise can have at it. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
This pleases everyone, as packages can be maintained in Sunrise, and the |
| 50 |
projects still get to decide about packages that would likely affect |
| 51 |
them. It changes the project to an opt-in project, rather than having |
| 52 |
to track down things and opt-out. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 56 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 57 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 58 |
Games - Developer |
| 59 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives