| 1 |
Hi Chris, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On 3/24/06, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> As I've said, my only request is a single policy that before an overlay |
| 5 |
> can become publicly readable on overlays.gentoo.org (which is Gentoo |
| 6 |
> infrastructure) that it does not break packages in the main tree that |
| 7 |
> are not in the overlay. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> If this single policy were in place, then I would fully support |
| 10 |
> overlays.gentoo.org being created. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I accept the principle. I've just one question about the practice. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Overlays will (probably more often than not) contain packages that |
| 15 |
have problems. For example, I'm thinking of when we developed the new |
| 16 |
PHP packages, the packages delivered PHP in a new way, with different |
| 17 |
USE flags. We deliberately added a blocker, so that dev-lang/php and |
| 18 |
dev-php/php (the version from the tree) couldn't be installed at the |
| 19 |
same time. This meant that, until the webapps had their DEPs updated, |
| 20 |
if you had PHP from the overlay installed, it would block webapps from |
| 21 |
the tree from installing (because they depended on dev-php/php). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Do you consider a practice like that to violate the policy you seek? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Best regards, |
| 26 |
Stu |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives