Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Blockers and package moves
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:45:13
Message-Id: 20110120204407.0f53aafc@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Blockers and package moves by Jacob Godserv
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16 of out of date / moved / broken overlays, or the maintainers of the now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