| 1 |
Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 2 |
> No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as |
| 3 |
> well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination. |
| 4 |
> If sunrise gets blocked with the argument "it's an overlay" then, by |
| 5 |
> logic, the Java overlay should get the same treatment, even if this is |
| 6 |
> stupid, unfair and stupid. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
Unless there's more discussions going on than I'm privy too... what I |
| 10 |
grokked out of the IRC log was that the argument was that it's an |
| 11 |
'unofficial overlay'. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I take it that an official overlay would be one that's hosted on |
| 14 |
overlays.g.o? If that's the case, our overlays have been around for at |
| 15 |
least a year (that's when I started using it as a user), and probably |
| 16 |
longer than that... which was before overlays.gentoo.org was even |
| 17 |
around. Additionally, the overlays are managed by the our team, and have |
| 18 |
been an integral part of our project, having been referenced for some |
| 19 |
time from our 'official' IRC channel and our project page. In my mind, |
| 20 |
this effectively make the overlays our 'official overlays'. |
| 21 |
> I agree with you there. While I'd prefer to get rid of Java I don't let |
| 22 |
> that influence my behaviour towards the project (or I'd have kicked them |
| 23 |
> off my server a long time ago!) |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
I'm sure you'll be happy to know we'll be moving to overlays.gentoo.org |
| 26 |
as soon as reasonably possible. Note: this was already planned, and it |
| 27 |
isn't me trying to be grumpy about the direction this discussion seems |
| 28 |
to be going. We would have moved sooner, but mostly we've been busy |
| 29 |
working on the migration stuff, so likely won't happen until we've moved |
| 30 |
that into the tree. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
- Josh |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives