[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.

[Duncan]

Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> posted
1150292057.16946.21.camel@×××××××××××××××××.net, excerpted below, on  Wed,
14 Jun 2006 09:34:16 -0400:

> Abusing loopholes in the rules doesn't make something "right".

Agreed.  However, it then points out the need for a rules change.

>> Meanwhile, the Project Sunrise overlay /is/ a project specific overlay,
>> and /is/ maintained by the project in question (Sunrise).  That has been
>> specifically stated in the Project Sunrise formulation.
>
> Correct.  However, it is attempting to work with ebuilds/packages that
> are owned by other projects currently.  *This* is my objection.

But if they aren't in the tree, they aren't part of a herd, and therefore
can't really be owned by a project, particularly if that project has had a
chance to put it in the tree and hasn't taken it (whether due to lack of
manpower or whatever).  Now, there's a difference between an active
rejection -- this is not fit for the tree nor can it be and here's why --
and a simple lack of manpower rejection, which is why giving the project
that  might normally take it over if it were to be in the tree dibs on
accepting/rejecting it is good, but a default to being available for
sunrise to sponsor if the project doesn't respond either way within a
reasonable time (which would indicate a lack of manpower  or interest in
doing so, thus leaving it available should others choose to do so) seems
reasonable within context.

Not that I have any immediate plans to use it at this time, but I could
conceivably use it for one or more single packages -- tho I expect I'll be
examining each individual ebuild as I merge and upgrade it if I do -- the
security issues are real to me too, and I'm not quite /that/ insane. =8^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list