| 1 |
Chris Bainbridge wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/06/06, Jon Portnoy <avenj@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I do very much object to using any gentoo.org infrastructure or |
| 4 |
>> subdomains to do so. If someone is going to tackle that, it should be |
| 5 |
>> done outside of Gentoo proper. We don't need to be stuck maintaining and |
| 6 |
>> supporting a semiofficial overlay. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> There are already loads of semi-official overlays. Besides the stuff |
| 9 |
> actually hosted by gentoo (random example |
| 10 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/bzr/overlay/) there are official |
| 11 |
> groups (again, not picking on anyone but exampes would be java, php, |
| 12 |
> webapps...) with semi-official overlays. I don't know if the overlays |
| 13 |
> are actually hosted on gentoo hardware, but when they're run by gentoo |
| 14 |
> devs, publically available, and referred to in forums, bugzilla, |
| 15 |
> mailing lists etc. then that at least makes them "semi-official". |
| 16 |
I don't agree with that "semi-official" term. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
We for example have an overlay for the Haskell project. Nevertheless, |
| 19 |
we consider it the official overlay for our group, but not for Gentoo. So |
| 20 |
that way we can use it as our sand-box, to play with it as much as we |
| 21 |
can, and giving commit access to even non-developers, the advantage |
| 22 |
with this model, is that at some degree we compromise ourselves as a |
| 23 |
group with the "little" base users who dare to test experimental stuff |
| 24 |
(that |
| 25 |
probably will *never* find its way into portage), but we keep Gentoo as |
| 26 |
project excluded from such a responsibility. And.. isn't that the real |
| 27 |
sense |
| 28 |
behind the "overlay" concept?, to have an "official" overlay wouldn't |
| 29 |
break the |
| 30 |
main goal of it?, and even more, an official maintainer-wanted overlay |
| 31 |
sounds |
| 32 |
more crazy to me. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Regards, |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives