| 1 |
On Tue January 06 2004 9:39 am, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:26:50 -0800 Robert Cole |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> <robert.cole@×××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> | > I'm sorry for that. It however can be a sign that the tree is not |
| 6 |
> | > ready for those ebuilds, or that they are in very low demand. |
| 7 |
> | |
| 8 |
> | If someone has gone their entire life using a rock to hammer nails and |
| 9 |
> | has never heard of a hammer before and thus doesn't have the demand |
| 10 |
> | for it does that mean that if they are told about the hammer they |
| 11 |
> | won't use it or have a demand for always having it? |
| 12 |
> | |
| 13 |
> | Sometimes you create demand where one doesn't currently exist by |
| 14 |
> | simply telling people about the hammer. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> *bzzzzt*, silly analogy detected. Putting something in portage is not |
| 17 |
> telling people about it. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Really? I find new software all the time in the portage tree I never even knew |
| 20 |
about and go to the referenced webpage to check it out. Now with the new |
| 21 |
online packages area that has the days ebuilds its even easier to see new |
| 22 |
stuff. I doubt I'm the only one but maybe I am. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> | If there is a way to make cvs ownership based that would be the |
| 25 |
> | easiest administration wise. As in the ebuild(s) I submit I have |
| 26 |
> | access to and nothing else. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Uh, that's still enough to screw up portage completely. One suitably |
| 29 |
> broken ebuild can still cause lots and lots of errors all over the |
| 30 |
> place. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Then portage is more fragile than it should be. If I make an ebuild for a game |
| 33 |
and submit it and it causes corruption then there is a deeper problem with |
| 34 |
the portage tree than there should be. Submitting a new app should in no way |
| 35 |
effect the integrity of the portage tree. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
If what you say is true portage is badly broken. From my view outside of the |
| 38 |
dev circle and cvs area portage seems fine and not broken. To me postage is |
| 39 |
the killer app of the linux world. Damn thing has me hooked to the point I |
| 40 |
can't stand other distros. :) |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> I still don't see what's wrong with having a seperate repositry (eg |
| 43 |
> "breakmygentoo") for things that don't make it into the "official" tree. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Or maybe this is the staging area that I've been pushing for. All that needs |
| 46 |
to be done is an easy and painless way for a person with cvs access to the |
| 47 |
gentoo tree to approve something in the breakmygentoo tree and move it over |
| 48 |
to the gentoo tree if there isn't already. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Robert |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
-- |
| 53 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives