Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Eric Edgar <rocket@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Official overlay support
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:56:45
Message-Id: 20060323145415.GA24313@toucan.gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Official overlay support by Stuart Herbert
1 I personally think this is a bad idea. I can understand and support
2 links to different overlay repositories, however I do not think that
3 gentoo should host or support overlays on its own infrastructure. For
4 one thing supporting overlays on our infrastructure looks like we are
5 supporting broken ebuilds. This will also lead to more confusion with
6 users who find these official overlays and then the overlays conflict
7 with each other and cause problems that leads to comments like well
8 gentoo should just know how to fix it and make it all work. I also
9 think that this overlay structure will not provide incentives for people
10 to commit to the main tree. They will get their ebuild in an overlay
11 and its hosted on gentoo and distributed to the mirrors. At that point
12 its easy for them to continue to use the overlay. Over time the overlay
13 will diverge more and more from other overlays and even the main tree.
14
15 If this still goes forward I think we should look at the debian layout
16 where there is the core product and then the security branches etc.
17
18 Personally I think this is going to cause more bug reports and less
19 updates to the main tree.
20
21 I also agree that a hostile fork is unlikely, however it is more
22 possible with the overlay layout as anyone can get an ebuild mirrored on
23 our infrastructure at this point.
24
25 Another thing to concider is how would people be able to contribute to
26 the overlays? Is there a review process? Is there a checkin process?
27 If no then anyone can post a malicious ebuild that would be a security
28 nightmare. I think this security viewpoint alone is enough to
29 re-evaluate this plan of action.
30
31 Eric
32
33 On 14:41 Thu 23 Mar , Stuart Herbert wrote:
34 > Hi Chris,
35 >
36 > On 3/23/06, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote:
37 > > If some random developer goes out there and creates his own fork of
38 > > catalyst in his overlay, I sure don't want to receive a *single* bug on
39 > > it. Ever.
40 >
41 > Your nightmare scenario seems unavoidable. Enabling per-overlay bug
42 > tracking doesn't stop users posting bugs in bugzilla. It just causes
43 > confusion for users, because they're not sure where to go. Normally,
44 > it's not a problem - because the overlay contributors are normally the
45 > owners of the real package.
46 >
47 > A hostile fork of Catalyst is very much a special case.
48 >
49 > What we could do is say that overlays are for package trees only; ie
50 > they are not general-purpose repositories for holding source trees.
51 > That would ensure that your nightmare scenario is even less likely to
52 > happen, and that if it does, it's through no fault of the overlays
53 > project :)
54 >
55 > Best regards,
56 > Stu
57 >
58 > --
59 > gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
60 >
61 >

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Official overlay support Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o>