1 |
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 11:06 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote: |
2 |
> The thing has been sitting in bugzilla for ages, I've asked Flameeyes to |
3 |
> commit it and he said he's not going to put any mode pam stuff into the |
4 |
> tree unless he's using the modules himself. Nothing wrong w/ that. So, I |
5 |
> can either keep on maintaining it in my local overlay or let other |
6 |
> people use it if they find it useful. I prefer the latter. pam_abl and |
7 |
> pam_mount is also stuff that I'm testing/using myself. The only thing I |
8 |
> haven't tested beyond "it compiles and installs" is pam_pgsql, that one |
9 |
> doesn't touch system-auth at all, comes w/ commented-out .conf and so |
10 |
> has no effect until the user has configured it. |
11 |
|
12 |
Uhh... You're a developer. How about instead, you simply join the pam |
13 |
team with Flameeyes and add these packages and maintain them yourself? |
14 |
|
15 |
Do you really need an overlay with *countless* possibilities for other |
16 |
ebuilds to maintain 4 packages? |
17 |
|
18 |
> There are about 3 other bugs requesting pam stuff, but since that stuff |
19 |
> is essentially dead upstream, it won't be in the overlay. So, are you |
20 |
> asking to have a separate overlay project for 4 pam ebuilds? Heh, really |
21 |
> an overkill. |
22 |
|
23 |
No. It is called a repository that actually has an explicit purpose. I |
24 |
guess you've missed all of the other overlays out there that are limited |
25 |
to a specific scope. The funny thing is that I *know* that you use at |
26 |
least one of these external repositories, and I haven't heard you |
27 |
complaining that you need to move these packages to some free-for-all |
28 |
overlay such as this. I wonder why that is? |
29 |
|
30 |
> > Could be part of the policy to not touch existing ebuilds. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> IMHO the sunrice project is a good place for maintainer-wanted/needed |
33 |
> bugs. Shouldn't be a dumpspace for whatever experimental patches for |
34 |
> stuff that's actually being maintained in the main tree. |
35 |
|
36 |
It really is funny when you're arguing *for* something, yet you call it |
37 |
the "sunrice" project. Freudian slip, or an admission of truth? |
38 |
|
39 |
> >> This is a prime example of totally glossing over any discussion to make |
40 |
> >> it sound promising for you. |
41 |
> > If bugzilla wasn't so sucky people wouldn't try to use other methods of |
42 |
> > communication ;-) |
43 |
> |
44 |
> Erm, look at the vmware-server bug |
45 |
> (http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122500) . It's vastly useless |
46 |
> for grabbing any ebuilds, there are ~350 comments and tons of obsolete, |
47 |
> yet not marked as such ebuilds, that's why you switched to subversion, |
48 |
> right? And it boosted the effectivity by a huge margin. Also comes w/ a |
49 |
> nice side-effect of not bugspamming another 200 folks CCed on the bug |
50 |
> when someone screws w/ attachments for a couple of times. |
51 |
|
52 |
So you're going to try to use my own project as an example against me? |
53 |
Great. Bring it on. |
54 |
|
55 |
The vmware overlay is limited to only vmware products. When someone |
56 |
uses the overlay, they *know* that they are only getting ebuilds related |
57 |
to vmware. The project sunricer overlay is for any ebuilds of any kind. |
58 |
It is not focused on anything, what-so-ever, and has had many arguments |
59 |
against its use for many reasons. In the future, if you're going to try |
60 |
to use someone's project as an argument against them, at least try to |
61 |
come up with an argument that works. Using a focused overlay as an |
62 |
example of why a massive, bloated, free-for-all overlay should exist |
63 |
isn't exactly helping your argument, but instead helps mine. Thanks for |
64 |
making my work easier. =] |
65 |
|
66 |
-- |
67 |
Chris Gianelloni |
68 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
69 |
x86 Architecture Team |
70 |
Games - Developer |
71 |
Gentoo Linux |