1 |
On Friday 24 March 2006 20:18, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> I really can't think of much besides kernel + toolchain that can have |
4 |
> such devastating effects to the rest of the tree. The only other |
5 |
> massive breakages would be via eclasses, which was my main target. |
6 |
|
7 |
glibc is a good candidate. And portage a second one. |
8 |
|
9 |
> Does anyone have any ideas how we could resonably reduce problems |
10 |
> reported from things such as toolchain breakages in an overlay, yet |
11 |
> still not punish the people running the overlay by disallowing it? I |
12 |
> surely wouldn't want to limit the toolchain maintainers from being able |
13 |
> to enjoy the use of an overlay if they wished it. |
14 |
|
15 |
Perhaps we could ask people who run overlays with dangerous ebuilds, to have |
16 |
these ebuilds protected by some environment variables. (The var must be set |
17 |
for the ebuild to work.) |
18 |
|
19 |
Paul |
20 |
|
21 |
-- |
22 |
Paul de Vrieze |
23 |
Gentoo Developer |
24 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
25 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |