| 1 |
On Monday 05 September 2005 21:15, pclouds wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 9/5/05, Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list would be better for this type |
| 4 |
> > of query... |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Ok. I'll stop by gentoo-portage-dev next time :) |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> > Actually, there is a use. Presently, if your overlay has foo/bar-1.0 |
| 9 |
> > and the main tree as foo/bar-1.1 you'll get the main tree's later |
| 10 |
> > version installed even if you installed foo/bar-1.0 from your overlay. |
| 11 |
> > In my experience, this is almost never what is actually wanted. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> There is another use. When report bugs to b.g.o, gentoo devs only take |
| 14 |
> care of bugs that all dependencies are come from the main tree. Users |
| 15 |
> mixed their environment with other overlays should check all |
| 16 |
> dependencies before submitting to b.g.o or bugs will be resolved as |
| 17 |
> wontfix. In case users use overlays, users would know what overlay |
| 18 |
> ebuilds come from and contact overlays' authors instead of b.g.o. Not |
| 19 |
> a big advantage though. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
It is in automation. :) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Automated bug reports has been an idea that's been thrown around a bit. This |
| 24 |
would help prevent "spam" from getting through too. I'm beginning to like |
| 25 |
the idea more and more. ;) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Jason Stubbs |
Archives