Stefan Schweizer wrote: > On 3/24/06, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Thoughts on ideas on this somewhat more focussed idea? ( or at least I >>think it's more focused :P ) > > > IMO motivation b) is not taken into account enough. > > You are missing out a general-user-overlay, where the developer adding > a user to the access list would be responsible for him.
Hmmm that is not an intended goal at this time. "User-Contrib" sounds overly too large. The aim is to make the overlay rather small, to allow normal users to contribute to development of packages. > We really need a general user overlay for stuff that is abandoned in > the treee ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) or stuff that has not even > been added to the tree ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Those are > ebuilds that no developer is interested in, so a general way for users > needs to be present to be able to take care of those in a > policy-based-overlay instead of bugzilla. Also the overlay will be > easier to access and more bug-free as every person who is trusted by > gentoo-devs can just fix bugs that come up without spamming every CC: > on the list as it would be in bugzilla. This generally breaks the rule of "overlays.gentoo.org is not for end users." The support in portage isn't there, the debugging is a nightmare. The point of overlays is to expedite *development* where user A wants to help maintain package B because it's pragmatic for him to do so, but he doesn't want to be a full Gentoo developer. It is not meant to be a "User-Contrib" overlay. I think that should be a seperate ( if related ) project with different semantics. > > Regards, > Stefan > -Alec Warner -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
