| 1 |
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:07:20 -0500 |
| 2 |
Jacob Godserv <jacobgodserv@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:10, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > How about playing nicely with overlays where the moves didn't happen |
| 7 |
> > (yet)? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> I'm not sure you have to worry about overlays. The developers of the |
| 10 |
> overlays will worry about them. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Now, for the educated: is this fair or accurate? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I maintain just the one overlay, which is my own, non-public playpen. |
| 15 |
On bugs.gentoo.org, we generally deal with invalid bugs filed because |
| 16 |
of out of date / moved / broken overlays, or the maintainers of the now |
| 17 |
broken packages in the main tree will, by marking them as invalid, or |
| 18 |
perhaps by assigning the bugs to the overlay's maintainer, if [1] |
| 19 |
lists the overlay, thereby making it official. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Generally, fixing the main tree because of problems in overlays isn't |
| 22 |
desirable, and shouldn't be done, provided it actually could be done at |
| 23 |
all. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
jer |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/overlays/layman-global.txt |
Archives