1 |
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 12:26 -0400, Peter wrote: |
2 |
> I think this answers an important shortcoming of the bugzilla approach: |
3 |
> vis, some bugs will never make it to the tree -- for any number of |
4 |
> reasons. Take, for example, http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103354, |
5 |
> which has an enhancement request for what is now called beyond-sources. A |
6 |
> amalgamation of the arch, ck, tiger, nitro, and suspend2 sources. While on |
7 |
> the kernel, IRC, I enquired about it, since I had just updated an ebuild |
8 |
> for it, and was told unequivocally that there was no interest on the |
9 |
> kernel team's part for adding this source tree to sys-kernel. Not maybe, |
10 |
> not let's have a look at it, not come back in a month after testing. Just |
11 |
> NO. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> And, I'm fine with that. That's their job -- to protect the quality of |
14 |
> their project, and to keep things relatively safe and manageable. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Nonetheless, the bug is active, with a good number of people subscribing |
17 |
> to it and contributing to it. The sunshine overlay would be an ideal place |
18 |
> to store a kernel source tree or any project which would never find a home |
19 |
> in portage. |
20 |
|
21 |
See, that's the misconception. An overlay for this set of sources, and |
22 |
possibly other sources, would be what "fits" in better with the original |
23 |
idea of overlays.gentoo.org, as it was presented before it was approved. |
24 |
|
25 |
Here's the problem, as I see it. If you're filing a bug and you have |
26 |
this "sunshine" overlay in your overlay list, I have exactly 0 clue what |
27 |
you might be using from this overlay, since it covers *everything*. |
28 |
This means that I, as a package maintainer, have no idea if you've used |
29 |
some modified kernel/glibc/gcc/whatever that could be affecting my |
30 |
package inadvertently. This means I have exactly 2 choices, spend time |
31 |
researching what is and isn't in this overlay and determine if any of it |
32 |
could possibly effect my package and *then* start to try to troubleshoot |
33 |
the bug, or mark it as RESOLVED-INVALID (or whatever) and ask you to try |
34 |
again without the overlay. |
35 |
|
36 |
It is a *huge* amount of overhead. |
37 |
|
38 |
On the other hand, if you had a "kernel-sources" overlay, and are having |
39 |
a problem compiling a non-kernel package, it is not very likely that the |
40 |
kernel is the source of the problem, so the overhead is minimal to none. |
41 |
The name of the overlay matches what the "project" would be, and |
42 |
everything is transparent to both the user and also to the developer. |
43 |
|
44 |
Were there a rule that said that *nothing* from the tree could be |
45 |
present in this overlay, then it wouldn't be nearly as much of a |
46 |
problem. It would still have the problem presented above, but it would |
47 |
be slightly less of a problem, since I now don't have to worry about if |
48 |
your version of knights is the one from the tree or from the overlay. |
49 |
|
50 |
> As I see it, there are really two main issues with bugzilla. One, is to |
51 |
> resolve open ebuild enhancement bugs. Mark them somehow so it's clear the |
52 |
> bug has been reviewed and an action determined. CANTFIX/WONTFIX is harsh, |
53 |
> but if that's what it is, then mark it! The second issue is the orphaning |
54 |
> of packages which have merit, but no maintainer. Again, the sunshine |
55 |
> overlay would provide a home for those packages. It will also allow the |
56 |
> user to take ownership of a project, get some experience, and maybe decide |
57 |
> to become a dev. And, should that occur, then, lo, the orphaned package |
58 |
> may have a maintainer someday. |
59 |
|
60 |
This is something that I do not get. Why exactly does everything have |
61 |
to be resolved in some specific time frame? Is "when I get to it" not |
62 |
good enough? I mean, it works for Linus, right? ;p |
63 |
|
64 |
As for packages that have merit, this is quite simple. If the package |
65 |
has enough of a good following, it will get picked up. The likely |
66 |
reason why many of the maintainer-wanted packages are in the state |
67 |
they're in is simply because there isn't enough interest in the package. |
68 |
In this particular instance, I can see an external overlay being useful. |
69 |
However, there already is one. It is called "breakmygentoo". Do we |
70 |
really need to duplicate their functionality? |
71 |
|
72 |
> So, hopefully, as the overlay project moves forward, it will help take |
73 |
> some of the heat off bugzilla and allow for the offering of more ebuilds |
74 |
> to userland. |
75 |
|
76 |
I sincerely hope it doesn't effect bugzilla in any way. I have no |
77 |
problem with users getting access to ebuilds, but many of these ebuilds |
78 |
simply are not ready for anyone to get them "automatically". Having an |
79 |
ebuild on a bug makes it easily searchable. Having an ebuild on a bug |
80 |
makes it easy to peer review. Having an ebuild on a bug means the user |
81 |
needs to explicitly add the ebuild to their overlay. |
82 |
|
83 |
The idea behind the overlays project, as it was presented, was to assist |
84 |
projects in doing development by allowing outside contributors to more |
85 |
easily interact with specific projects or teams. It was not designed to |
86 |
bypass Gentoo's security or quality assurance policies, nor was it |
87 |
designed to allow a mechanism to give our users substandard ebuilds. |
88 |
|
89 |
The idea isn't so bad, but the benefits definitely do not outweigh the |
90 |
negatives. |
91 |
|
92 |
-- |
93 |
Chris Gianelloni |
94 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
95 |
x86 Architecture Team |
96 |
Games - Developer |
97 |
Gentoo Linux |