1 |
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 17:29 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: |
2 |
> Jon Portnoy wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:32:13AM -0400, Thomas Cort wrote: |
5 |
> >> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0400 |
6 |
> >> Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> >> > Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this change is a direct |
8 |
> >> > change in games team policy without any prior notice to the games team |
9 |
> >> > and without our permission. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> We have good instructions on our trac wiki page[1] for how to work with the |
12 |
> overlay. The bottom of the page, point 6) adresses your problem. |
13 |
|
14 |
Not really. You've taken what was a simple and open way of addressing |
15 |
ebuild requests, and turned it into a closed forum. With a bug, anyone |
16 |
with a bugzilla account can *contribute* anything that they want, and it |
17 |
is all peer-reviewed. With this overlay, only people that are given |
18 |
access will be allowed to contribute anything. Also, who is going to |
19 |
control access to this resource? Why *is* there access controls? I |
20 |
know that I'm going to hear "security" as a response, but it is a false |
21 |
one. We already had a completely open resource where any of our users |
22 |
can contribute any ebuilds that they want. You've created a more |
23 |
restrictive and less useful version of this and increased the workload |
24 |
on any developers whose packages are affected, such as the games team |
25 |
with the inclusion of xmoto, which has been rejected in its current |
26 |
state, and knights, which is currently in the tree *and* maintained. |
27 |
|
28 |
> > I do not object to the concept of ebuilds in overlays. |
29 |
> > |
30 |
> > I do very much object to using any gentoo.org infrastructure or |
31 |
> > subdomains to do so. If someone is going to tackle that, it should be |
32 |
> > done outside of Gentoo proper. We don't need to be stuck maintaining and |
33 |
> > supporting a semiofficial overlay. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> This is a problem, that we are working on, see [2] |
36 |
> It is obvioous to see if an ebuild comes from an overlay or not with that |
37 |
> change. Due to the good metastructure and project support in gentoo it is |
38 |
> possible to have most of the overlay-work done in the projects [3] and [4] |
39 |
> |
40 |
> [1] http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/sunrise |
41 |
> [2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/136031 |
42 |
> [PATCH] Display a warning when an overlay-ebuild fails |
43 |
> [3] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/overlays |
44 |
> [4] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/overlays/sunrise |
45 |
> |
46 |
> I am still against the idea of turning this into a flamewar. Better no |
47 |
> comments than flaming comments. Please - keep it constructive. |
48 |
|
49 |
Nobody has turned this into a flame war. We are trying to provide |
50 |
constructive comments. Just because a comment points out ways why this |
51 |
is a bad idea doesn't make it a flame. |
52 |
|
53 |
The only thing that bothers me is the fact that this was done and is |
54 |
something that was explicitly stated would not happen with the overlays |
55 |
project. We now have a semi-official secondary repository, run by a |
56 |
small group of developers, allowed to touch *any* package in the tree |
57 |
however they see fit, whether it goes against the policies of the |
58 |
package's maintainers or not. I'm sorry, but this is not in the spirit |
59 |
of cooperation and working together so much as it is in the spirit of |
60 |
doing what you want, policies be damned. |
61 |
|
62 |
Were this limited *solely* to packages that need maintainers, I would |
63 |
have less of a problem than it being used, as it is currently, to |
64 |
explicitly work outside of the policies of established projects. As I |
65 |
stated several times to you now when you brought up the idea of a games |
66 |
overlay just so you could maintain packages how you wanted, you're more |
67 |
than willing to keep packages that belong under the games herd in a |
68 |
personal *developer* overlay. However, what you've done here is said |
69 |
that you're more important than the established practices of another |
70 |
project, and blatantly disregarded their policies, establishing a |
71 |
"project" that gives you free reign to do whatever you wish. |
72 |
|
73 |
Does anyone else see this as a problem? |
74 |
|
75 |
-- |
76 |
Chris Gianelloni |
77 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
78 |
x86 Architecture Team |
79 |
Games - Developer |
80 |
Gentoo Linux |