| 1 |
El dom, 10-02-2013 a las 19:47 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió: |
| 2 |
> On 02/10/2013 05:01 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 3 |
> > # Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> (10 Feb 2013) |
| 4 |
> > # Fails with gcc-4.7, crashes (#301946, #312073), problems with |
| 5 |
> > # boost (#319921), problems with python-2.7 (#338826), really old |
| 6 |
> > # version in the tree, people should move to sci overlay one (#424659). |
| 7 |
> > # Removal in a month. |
| 8 |
> > sci-visualization/paraview |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> So instead of moving things from random overlays to the tree we remove |
| 11 |
> packages now, remove features from other packages because of that |
| 12 |
> (openfoam) and then ... tell users to use an overlay? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Somehow this appears not well thought out to me. Would anyone be |
| 15 |
> terribly upset if I started pillaging this silly overlay? (And any other |
| 16 |
> overlays that look like they are fun) |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
That is because looks nobody from sci team has enough time to move |
| 20 |
things from sci overlay to the tree (probably because it's being |
| 21 |
maintained there by people without commit access). Ideally that people |
| 22 |
would become devs with commit rights but, until then, looks like some |
| 23 |
packages (usually sci maintained packages) are being maintained better |
| 24 |
in overlay than main tree :/ |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I guess wouldn't be problems on pillaging ebuilds from that overlay to |
| 27 |
the tree... but I guess you would be willing to become its maintainer to |
| 28 |
update ebuilds from overlay when needed :| |
Archives