| 1 |
On 06/15/2013 11:43 AM, Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 06/15/2013 05:33 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> The other thing is that would put a mandatory system requirement on |
| 5 |
>>> layman which many of the devs would be opposed to. But, there is an open |
| 6 |
>>> bug calling for it to be merged with portage... |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Honestly, native support for overlays is something paludis gets right |
| 9 |
>> - the main tree is just another tree and you prioritize them. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Not sure it is a great idea in practice. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> lu |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
There was a period where Zorry and I were working on the hardened |
| 17 |
toolchain off the hardened-dev overlay. Migrating it back to the tree |
| 18 |
was a pita. Unless the stuff in the overlay is orthogonal to the main |
| 19 |
tree, you will effectively be creating forks which are not easily |
| 20 |
merged. Repositories in other distros (eg debian) normally just add new |
| 21 |
.debs. They don't override deeper structures such as toolchains and |
| 22 |
core utilities. We can overrride *anything* in the portage tree like |
| 23 |
eclasses making overlays a more serious matter. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 27 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 28 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 29 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 30 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives