Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.

[Richard Fish]

On 6/13/06, Peter <pete4abw@×××××××.net> wrote:
> As an example, there is a kernel source build I've been playing with. I
> know, from the kernel team, it will never, repeat NEVER, get onto the
> portage tree. they want no part of it.

My guess is that alternative kernels are probably the strongest
argument there is _in favor_ of having a user-supported overlay area.
It represents very little risk of wasting developers time on chasing
down false bug reports, since the kernel version shows up in the
emerge --info output.  Any bug report from a user running an
unsupported (whether in-tree or out-of-tree) kernel can simply be
closed with a "try again with a supported kernel, reopen if
necessary".

It does risk some extra iterations of problem solving on -user, since
we don't have a policy of requiring everybody posting a question to
supply their --info.  But I think that would be acceptable.

But this is a very specific case, and if it really needs to be on
*.gentoo.org, it could be handled with a "ricer-kernels.o.g.o"
overlay.  I don't see any great reason why such an overlay would need
to be hosted on o.g.o however.

And this single case doesn't serve as an adequate counter-argument to
the concerns about the broad scope of sunrise.

>
> This kernel source will not cause Armageddon to arrive, cause smoke to
> issue from your power supply, nor interfere with other ebuilds.
>

So I take this to mean you are supplying a warranty for this kernel?
Because AFAIK even the people who *wrote* the kernel are quite
explicit in the "no warranty" provisions of the license.  Not even if
it spins your hard drive backwards causing your entire mp3 collection
to be converted to Britney Spears songs!

-Richard
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list