| 1 |
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 10:16 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote: |
| 2 |
> As this should be a separate thread, just one reason or example - I'm |
| 3 |
> really uncomfortable e.g. w/ QA intervening in overlays stuff, |
| 4 |
> considering the current way QA is being done in Gentoo... Current |
| 5 |
> non-interactivity policy has clearly influenced multiple ebuilds in |
| 6 |
> portage to the extent that forced me to read the ebuilds very carefully |
| 7 |
> multiple times to be sure what the outcome will be with my particular |
| 8 |
> USE flags. This is a bad thing (TM) for me and I clearly oppose to |
| 9 |
> having such stuff forced in overlays. I could see a place for QA |
| 10 |
> volunteers in this overlay stuff, but that would require a fundamentally |
| 11 |
> different approach from what QA takes now. (If you wish to discuss this |
| 12 |
> further, move it to a separate thread, please). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Except nobody says that QA needs to intervene in an overlay. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
My request is *simple*. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
If the overlay is accessible to the general public, then it *cannot* |
| 19 |
break other packages in the tree via its use. If the overlay is |
| 20 |
"private" (meaning it has a restricted access list, developers and users |
| 21 |
are both welcome) then it can break whatever policy that it wants. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> Common sense always applies, but generally - overlays are not a place |
| 24 |
> for bureaucracy... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Nor are they a place to allow a free-for-all where people can commit |
| 27 |
anything that can cause any amount of damage to the tree, while still |
| 28 |
being "official" and hosted on Gentoo infrastructure. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 32 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 33 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 34 |
Games - Developer |
| 35 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives