| 1 |
Krzysztof Pawlik wrote: |
| 2 |
> Alistair Bush wrote: |
| 3 |
> So.. maybe it's time to re-think the way java-* overlays are used? I'd opt for |
| 4 |
> "staging" approach: let java-experimental be well, experimental - you don't know |
| 5 |
> whenever something will work, is a good idea, you're still working on it, etc. |
| 6 |
> java-overlay would become a staging ground: after some time (to be defined) |
| 7 |
> ebuilds would end in main tree. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> So the ebuild migration would look like: |
| 10 |
> * experimental: fresh stuff |
| 11 |
> * overlay: checked by somebody else (peer reviewed) |
| 12 |
> * main tree: after some time in overlay (like a month) |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> That would enforce from where one can have dependencies in particular overlay, |
| 15 |
> would (hopefully) reduce the size of overlays. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Yes that would be good. Half the problem is that java-overlay became a |
| 18 |
huge playground of experimental packages. Just look at all the maven |
| 19 |
packages. Ive never been able to get maven to work from java-overlay |
| 20 |
and had to hack and slash my way thru them to get them to install in the |
| 21 |
first place. My guess is that everyone is guilty of this in some way. |
| 22 |
(I known I am). Whether it is packages that did work but now don't to |
| 23 |
the ones that never worked in the first place it doesn't matter. From |
| 24 |
what I understand java-overlay was meant to help reduce the amount of |
| 25 |
maintenance we had to do within the gentoo tree. It has been very |
| 26 |
successful at that, now we just have overlays full..... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Here are also things ppl should think about. and implement. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
1) If you bump a package, with more than trivial changes (aka you don't |
| 31 |
finish making them, removing bundled jars, etc, etc) commit it to |
| 32 |
java-experimental, never java-overlay. I don't care what keywords you |
| 33 |
give it, if it ain't ready it ain't java-overlay. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
2) If you delete (even an outdated ebuild) ensure that there are no |
| 36 |
reverse dependencies. If you are deleting from java-overlay ensure |
| 37 |
there are no reverse dependencies within java-overlay and |
| 38 |
java-experimental. (this seems to have occurred a bit. packages |
| 39 |
depending on =dev-java/package-1.1.1. only to have 1.1.1 replaced by |
| 40 |
1.1.2). |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
I could run on but i've run out of time. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> Something similar was done: |
| 46 |
> http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/java/wiki/March_2007_Summary#Changesinoverlays |
| 47 |
> |
Archives