1 |
On 06/13/2013 12:56 AM, Alexander V Vershilov wrote: |
2 |
>> The main reason it isn't is because nobody wants to use CVS. For |
3 |
>> good |
4 |
examples, see sunrise or |
5 |
>> gentoo-haskell. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> As a part of gentoo-haskell team, I'd like to say that CVS issue is |
8 |
> not strongest one, there are much more meaningful reasons for having |
9 |
> much stuff in overlays at least for haskell. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> IMHO: |
12 |
> |
13 |
> The main point that haskell ecosystem is very breaky and only latest |
14 |
> version is supported, so the safest path is to be on a bleeding edge |
15 |
> and patch inconsistent applications. So if one package gets updated |
16 |
> then commonly we need to fix its reversed deps, if it were in tree |
17 |
> than we would be involved into stabilization process and in the end |
18 |
> will delay updating deps, and the difficulty of tracking all version |
19 |
> variant will be much higher than no, at the end the quality of the |
20 |
> packages in tree will fall. Really we can _guarantee_ that everything |
21 |
> work in overlay but there is either no technical or bureaucracy |
22 |
> reasons that prevent from fixing as soon as possible. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> All above is applicable because in overlay we work on programmers |
25 |
> libraries, with enduser |
26 |
> applications (that are synchronized with portage tree) situation is |
27 |
> slightly different. |
28 |
> |
29 |
|
30 |
To be clear, I meant that sunrise and gentoo-haskell were good examples |
31 |
of overlays where e.g. subversion and git have made user contributions |
32 |
much easier. |
33 |
|
34 |
I don't agree that up-to-date libraries need to be in an overlay -- why |
35 |
not ~arch or package.mask instead, and leave the platform to stable? -- |
36 |
but I benefit greatly from (and appreciate) the fact that you guys are |
37 |
able to merge my pull requests into the overlay quickly so I can't |
38 |
complain too much. |