| 1 |
On 06/12/2013 06:31 PM, Greg Turner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 06/12/2013 01:13 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 19:05:29 +0200 hasufell <hasufell@g.o> |
| 5 |
>>> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> Isn't it more an indication that Gentoo needs better package |
| 7 |
>>>>> management support for overlays? |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> No. |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> We need worse support for overlays, i.e. no. Having to use >3 overlays |
| 13 |
>> defeats the purpose of a QA'd tree. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Disclaimer: I'm not a Gentoo developer -- actually, fuck that noise, I |
| 16 |
> am a Gentoo developer. But you know what I mean. My knowledge of the |
| 17 |
> gentoo QA process is limited to what I've been able to glean as a |
| 18 |
> beneficiary of the work and a limited participant via the bugzilla |
| 19 |
> system. The precise mechanisms and policies that drive Gentoo QA are |
| 20 |
> actually fairly opaque to me. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Anyhow... wrt overlays "defeating the purpose" of QA: overlays may or |
| 23 |
> may not prevent the QA process from pertaining to users of overlays, |
| 24 |
> depending on the nature of the overlays. But, in fact, far from |
| 25 |
> defeating the purpose and integrity of Gentoo QA, my belief is that by |
| 26 |
> providing a standard baseline that QA may rely upon, overlays serve to |
| 27 |
> enhance and protect Gentoo's quality. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
E.g. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=341807 |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Overlays aren't tested against one another. As you add more overlays, |
| 32 |
the probability of brokenness approaches unity. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
You're not allowed to commit broken shit to the tree, so adding your |
| 35 |
packages to gx86 implies that it works with the rest of the packages in |
| 36 |
gx86. |
Archives