| 1 |
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:54 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 11/19/2014 06:27 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 11/19/2014 03:36 PM, hasufell wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> |
| 5 |
>>> In the end, I'm not sure if this is actually such a big problem. You can |
| 6 |
>>> still use random ebuilds from random overlays and commit them straight |
| 7 |
>>> to your own overlay. |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> A bad idea. Bad because of the same reason why copy-past in your code |
| 11 |
>> would be bad. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Depends. If a third-party overlay dependency regularly breaks my |
| 15 |
> packages, I am going to copy paste it into my own to have more control |
| 16 |
> over it. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> At that point it is forked. I don't see what's wrong with forking. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
What happens when 3 overlays all fork the same dependency, and you |
| 22 |
want to use all three? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The distributed repository works well for release-based distros since |
| 25 |
the core of the OS is fixed. A repository for Ubuntu x.y will always |
| 26 |
work with Ubuntu x.y, since Ubuntu x.y isn't going to upgrade from |
| 27 |
libfoo-2 to incompatible libfoo-2.3. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
On the other hand, libraries on Gentoo can change without warning, and |
| 30 |
the only quality standard we impose is that the main repo still works |
| 31 |
(with no forced testing of distributed repos). |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
If we want to truly support first-class distributed repos, then we'll |
| 34 |
need to impose a number of standards on the main tree that we do not |
| 35 |
impose today. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Rich |
Archives