Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

[Luis Francisco Araujo]

Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On 09/06/06, Luis Francisco Araujo <araujo@g.o> wrote:
>> Chris Bainbridge wrote:
>> > There are already loads of semi-official overlays. Besides the stuff
>> > actually hosted by gentoo (random example
>> > http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/bzr/overlay/) there are official
>> > groups (again, not picking on anyone but exampes would be java, php,
>> > webapps...) with semi-official overlays. I don't know if the overlays
>> > are actually hosted on gentoo hardware, but when they're run by gentoo
>> > devs, publically available, and referred to in forums, bugzilla,
>> > mailing lists etc. then that at least makes them "semi-official".
>> I don't agree with that "semi-official" term.
>>
>> We for example have an overlay for the Haskell project. Nevertheless,
>> we consider it the official overlay for our group, but not for
>> Gentoo. So
>> that way we can use it as our sand-box, to play with it as much as we
>> can, and giving commit access to even non-developers, the advantage
>
> The Haskell overlay isn't publically available (at least, layman
> doesn't know about it). That makes it quite different from the
> "semi-official" overlays I gave as examples.
>
I really don't know what "semi-official" means.

And our overlay has always been publically available,
http://haskell.org/~gentoo/gentoo-haskell/

But we don't have it as a way to offer "extra" ebuilds. We have it
for testing, and experimental works and it has been used as playground 
for new
developers too.
> Whether something is "semi-official" or not is all about perception.
> If people see that a project is run by gentoo developers, possibly
> formed into a gentoo group, using gentoo resources (bugzilla, forums,
> mailing lists etc) to discuss and organise, then there will be a
> perception that the project has some semblance of officiality.
I am not against the overlay idea, i like it very much!, and we have been
using it successfully in our team.

I just don't see the point of having another official portage tree
with maintainer-wanted packages as an overlay. Don't you see that
what you are asking for is to have another portage tree, but now,
with bunch of unmaintained and orphaned stuff, plus the extra sugar
of *dangerous* consequences as some developers have already pointed out in
this thread?

I think we already have LOT of work with only one tree.
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list