| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Caleb Cushing wrote: |
| 5 |
> I'd like to start with, I'm not trying to stir up trouble but since |
| 6 |
> questions were asked i'll answer them. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> If you think neither should exist why do you have an opinion about this at all? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I merged the java-overlay into regen2 a couple of weeks ago. as of |
| 11 |
> right now I've no plans to support java-experimental. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I'm fine with overlays so long as working ebuilds spend no more than a |
| 14 |
> few weeks in them. I have my own development branch and half the stuff |
| 15 |
> that's in there that isn't in the main tree doesn't work. Things like |
| 16 |
> perl 5.10 have been rotting in an overlay for a year. Funtoo ( under |
| 17 |
> my direction ) and Regen2 have had it ~arch for over a month now. We |
| 18 |
> found one bug post release thus far. I filed a bug on xorg-server |
| 19 |
> 1.6.0 not being in tree. It was resolved fixed (in overlay) (which |
| 20 |
> another bug clearly states it has amd64 build issues). since when has |
| 21 |
> (in overlay) been an acceptable solution to a missing package? I said |
| 22 |
> it before, the reason I like gentoo* distro's is I don't have to find |
| 23 |
> the repository to get the latest package, that's just a pain, in |
| 24 |
> ubuntu, in opensuse, in fedora... etc. But no more... officially |
| 25 |
> supported huge overlays have ruined this. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The single tree model is not the only one, nor necessarily the best one. |
| 28 |
I understand your concern, but as ciaranm argued in another thread, the |
| 29 |
issues many people seem to have with overlays are caused by the current |
| 30 |
level of support by Portage. What we need is better support for multiple |
| 31 |
repositories, not to drop them. |
| 32 |
As it has been discussed before, multiple repositories could even foster |
| 33 |
the development in Gentoo, instead of halting it down - as quite a few |
| 34 |
people seem to be affraid of. If we can have some repositories focusing |
| 35 |
in certain areas or relaxing access rules to a few repos, some devs |
| 36 |
might get more focused and some packages might find new maintainers and |
| 37 |
or their way into "mainline" Gentoo. |
| 38 |
One issue that has been raised is about having testing ebuilds in |
| 39 |
overlays instead of the tree. In a few cases, we have ebuilds in |
| 40 |
overlays, not because of the lack of QA of the ebuilds, but because of |
| 41 |
the experimental nature of the packages or because of the difficulty in |
| 42 |
making packages comply to Gentoo rules. One example of a package that |
| 43 |
was never in the tree, but instead on an overlay was XGL. It was never |
| 44 |
considered to be stable enough to get into the tree. KDE-4 work started |
| 45 |
in overlays and was kept there until 4.0 because it was more flexible to |
| 46 |
work in the overlay than it would have been to do it in the tree. By the |
| 47 |
way, KDE-4 is a good example of how work in overlays can help the tree - |
| 48 |
what we had for 4.0 and have now in the tree was mostly done by people |
| 49 |
that weren't Gentoo devs. Work in these overlays has lead to an |
| 50 |
injection of many new devs. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
... |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
> users don't know how to hack. the very definition of user says that, |
| 55 |
> imo. There are developers, admins, and users. admins don't want |
| 56 |
> overlays, they are supposed to be unstable. users can't hack, so what |
| 57 |
> do they care. the problem is, an overlay has become a repo, I'm not |
| 58 |
> sure that it was originally intended for that. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Fortunately, Gentoo users are not like some other distributions users. |
| 61 |
I've seen many Gentoo users working in ebuilds and quite a few working |
| 62 |
with devs to improve the Gentoo tree. |
| 63 |
Most admins don't like unstable packages. Unfortunately quite a few of |
| 64 |
them have to support new (testing) packages whether they like them or not. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
... |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
>> Further, overlays are good places to put ebuilds for software that is more |
| 69 |
>> experimental than what's expected for ~arch. That includes live ebuilds. In the |
| 70 |
>> end, overlays have a (far) lower level of guaranteed quality than the main tree, |
| 71 |
>> for their ebuilds |
| 72 |
> |
| 73 |
> because ~arch is supposed to work? take open bug on wine-1.1.16 it |
| 74 |
> doesn't build on amd64 and yet it's ~amd64. how about that nam ebuild |
| 75 |
> that has invalid bash that I mentioned? that's some quality work |
| 76 |
> there. The point is the tree is no better or worse than the overlays |
| 77 |
> in many cases. |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
If anything, I've been hearing lately complaints about the testing |
| 80 |
branch having become the new stable branch, not that it's terribly broken. |
| 81 |
|
| 82 |
... |
| 83 |
|
| 84 |
> I've probably already offended a large share of people on this list, |
| 85 |
> now lets see if I can offend a few more by soliciting. |
| 86 |
|
| 87 |
I think you'll find a reasonable "tolerance level" in this ml about |
| 88 |
technical issues and development models. |
| 89 |
|
| 90 |
- -- |
| 91 |
Regards, |
| 92 |
|
| 93 |
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org |
| 94 |
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE |
| 95 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 96 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux) |
| 97 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 98 |
|
| 99 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkmvJroACgkQcAWygvVEyAJtEwCfYNY1EuJ4/ZEKOGBtKDX7VtOm |
| 100 |
mtYAniAof1AWL5GMVtpbpZ1g6LCKf7GS |
| 101 |
=i3Gl |
| 102 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives