| 1 |
Richard Freeman schrieb: |
| 2 |
> Jesús Guerrero wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> Most Gentoo users will have no problem to use overlays as they need |
| 5 |
>> them. If we had more developers we could as maintain more packages, |
| 6 |
>> as simple as that. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I actually tend to agree with this position, however to use overlays as |
| 10 |
> a valid solution for end-users we need to do more to support them. Right |
| 11 |
> now it is at least a little painful to get set up with an overlay. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I dont see any problem with "emerge layman; layman -L; layman -a <your preferred overlay>" |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Sure, overlays.g.o has tons of overlays - but which ones are |
| 16 |
> mostly-stable, and which ones are intended to break systems? What is |
| 17 |
> the QA policy for each overlay? If I'm an end-user not interested in |
| 18 |
> breaking my system, what overlays are safe for me to use? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If developers create safe-to-use overlays, then i think, there is something wrong. Those ebuilds |
| 21 |
shouldnt be hidden in any overlay, but instead be added and maintained in the main tree. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> If we really want overlays to be an outlet to allow more non-devs to |
| 24 |
> contribute, then there needs to be some way to standardize them. Maybe |
| 25 |
> a simple ratings system - an overlay needs to comply with one set of |
| 26 |
> rules just to get listed on o.g.o. If you want to be marked as stable, |
| 27 |
> then you obey some additional rules. And so on... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
If you want to use overlays to allow users to contribute and want to check the rules, you need devs, |
| 30 |
who at least do basic QA checks on the overlay and all ebuilds. If this is done anyway, those devs |
| 31 |
could also be proxy-maintainers. So those ebuilds, which comply to a set of rules could also go into |
| 32 |
the main tree. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Then we can have overlays of various types for various purposes, and |
| 36 |
> users can pick which ones they want to follow. We could also have |
| 37 |
> things like overlay groups - like "stable" or "desktop" or "KDE" / etc. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> Maybe a fancy GUI to allow users to configure all of this. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Of course, for this to work somebody needs to develop it. If somebody |
| 42 |
> were willing to do the work I doubt anybody would get in their way. It |
| 43 |
> isn't like any of this would interfere with anybody who just wanted to |
| 44 |
> make their own overlay without rules and not have it listed on some |
| 45 |
> official site. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
I think, this is the wrong direction. Instead of moving more and more things into overlays, we |
| 48 |
should keep as much as possible in our main tree. With those two sets above removed, overlays would |
| 49 |
either contain breaking stuff (playground for devs) or not checked ebuilds from users. For both |
| 50 |
sets, the above ussage with layman should be easy enough. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
Thomas Sachau |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives