Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Regen2 ( was QA Overlay Layout support )
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 07:32:17
Message-Id: 81bfc67a0903032332g6ab9d278q733cb514338b0bb4@mail.gmail.com
1 I'd like to start with, I'm not trying to stir up trouble but since
2 questions were asked i'll answer them.
3
4 > If you think neither should exist why do you have an opinion about this at all?
5
6 I merged the java-overlay into regen2 a couple of weeks ago. as of
7 right now I've no plans to support java-experimental.
8
9 I'm fine with overlays so long as working ebuilds spend no more than a
10 few weeks in them. I have my own development branch and half the stuff
11 that's in there that isn't in the main tree doesn't work. Things like
12 perl 5.10 have been rotting in an overlay for a year. Funtoo ( under
13 my direction ) and Regen2 have had it ~arch for over a month now. We
14 found one bug post release thus far. I filed a bug on xorg-server
15 1.6.0 not being in tree. It was resolved fixed (in overlay) (which
16 another bug clearly states it has amd64 build issues). since when has
17 (in overlay) been an acceptable solution to a missing package? I said
18 it before, the reason I like gentoo* distro's is I don't have to find
19 the repository to get the latest package, that's just a pain, in
20 ubuntu, in opensuse, in fedora... etc. But no more... officially
21 supported huge overlays have ruined this.
22
23 on the topic of sunrise, I approve of sunrise to a degree. I like the
24 non-reviewed half, but once they're reviewed they should be put in
25 tree. Isn't it true that some of those packages never get maintainers?
26
27 > What makes you think that overlays aren't for developers, aspiring developers
28 > and interested users where they are working on stuff?
29
30 users don't know how to hack. the very definition of user says that,
31 imo. There are developers, admins, and users. admins don't want
32 overlays, they are supposed to be unstable. users can't hack, so what
33 do they care. the problem is, an overlay has become a repo, I'm not
34 sure that it was originally intended for that.
35
36 > It is desirable IMO that
37 > all such people can easily be given full access to muck around and learn.
38
39 this does not mean officially supported overlays. You obviously won't
40 commit just anything to an officially supported overlay which suggests
41 that you don't allow 'mucking around'.
42
43 > Further, overlays are good places to put ebuilds for software that is more
44 > experimental than what's expected for ~arch. That includes live ebuilds. In the
45 > end, overlays have a (far) lower level of guaranteed quality than the main tree,
46 > for their ebuilds
47
48 because ~arch is supposed to work? take open bug on wine-1.1.16 it
49 doesn't build on amd64 and yet it's ~amd64. how about that nam ebuild
50 that has invalid bash that I mentioned? that's some quality work
51 there. The point is the tree is no better or worse than the overlays
52 in many cases.
53
54 > might even argue that Funtoo is one big overlay. When your own ability to
55 > contribute directly depends on an overlay, then why are you arguing against
56 > other people's overlays?
57
58 perhaps this is the real problem gentoo's primary way to accept user
59 contributions is via overlays. I disagree with the calling of Funtoo
60 as one big overlay, it's a replacement tree, and it provides
61 everything needed within that tree, as does regen2. overlays however
62 rely on an external tree, and now you've been discussing making them
63 rely on other overlays.
64
65 > Please point me to the people willing and having the time to maintain
66 > those >100 new ebuilds in the main tree.
67
68 given all the problems with the in tree ebuilds that aren't properly
69 maintained, I see no difference.
70
71 Regen2, is attempting to fix these problems, and more. I do try to get
72 my fixes back upstream here, but more often than not the bug
73 languishes. I don't think Gentoo is bad, but I do think it's taken a
74 wrong turn. But I suppose that these things are problems are simply my
75 opinion.
76
77 I've probably already offended a large share of people on this list,
78 now lets see if I can offend a few more by soliciting.
79
80 I consider Regen2 ready for use, but pre-release since I have yet to
81 roll ISO's and tarballs. Anyone who wants to help is welcome, be you
82 current, former or aspiring developer. More info at http://regen2.org
83
84 I will not discuss regen2 further on this list as I feel this is not
85 really the place, but I was asked. I am willing to discuss overlays
86 further, but I'm not sure I really have more to say. I suppose the
87 last thing would be back in the day I got everything from the tree, if
88 I wanted, needed something else I downloaded an individual ebuild, and
89 put it in /my/ local overlay. I didn't download a bunch of incomplete
90 mini-trees using a tool.
91 --
92 Caleb Cushing
93
94 http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Regen2 ( was QA Overlay Layout support ) Peter Alfredsen <loki_val@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Regen2 ( was QA Overlay Layout support ) Thomas Anderson <gentoofan23@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Regen2 ( was QA Overlay Layout support ) "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Regen2 ( was QA Overlay Layout support ) Alistair Bush <ali_bush@g.o>