Am Freitag, 28. März 2025, 09:23:42 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit schrieb Duncan: > Michał Górny posted on Fri, 28 Mar 2025 05:27:40 +0100 as excerpted: > > > Hello, > > > > I've looked at our repositories.xml and the quality/status attributes > > don't seem to be used very meaningfully. > > > > That is, by quality: > > > > core: gentoo [official] > > stable: opentransactions (?) [official (?!)] > > testing: hyprland-overlay, moexiami [both unofficial] > > experimental: everything else graveyard: unused > > > > By status: > > > > official: ago, alexxy, anarchy, andrey_utkin, cj-overlay, dilfridge, > > emacs, EmilienMottet, fordfrog, gentoo, gnome, gnustep, graaff, guru, > > haskell, java, jmbsvicetto, kde, libressl, maekke, masterlay, mschiff, > > multilib-portage, musl, mysql, opentransactions, pentoo, pinkbyte, > > qemu-init, qt, R_Overlay, rich0, riscv, rnp, ruby, science, sping, > > swegener, tex-overlay, toolchain, ukui, ulm, vGist, voyageur, x11 > > > > unofficial: everything else > > > > > > Which brings the significant question: are these attributes in any way > > meaningful? Is there a point in keeping them at all? Should we set > > some ground rules and make them used consistently? > > > > Of them all, only "core" makes sense right now. "stable" and "testing" > > are used only by random user overlays, with no apparent features. > > Similarly, "official" is used by a mix of developer and ex-developer > > repositories, developer and user project repositories, and a bunch of > > user repositories with no clearly distinct features. > > So what you didn't mention but I assume knew, thus making your question > more one of: "This seems to have changed, do we get stricter again or lose > the attributes which don't seem to mean anything any more"... > > My (user) understanding from "back in the day" when overlays were fairly > new and I first merged and configured layman (reading its config docs > where IIRC this came from to do so), keeping in mind that back then > overlays were a new concept and a major point from the detractors was fear > that actually providing official overlays management and documentation > would somehow implicate Gentoo if a user took advantage to distribute > overt malware: > > Status: > > * "Official" status meant managed by an official Gentoo project or > developer (who had gone thru the usual vetting process), thereby implying > the same security-trust level as the main Gentoo tree. That is, > regardless of quality (experimental, testing, etc), the contents should be > relatively trustworthy at minimum not to include deliberate ebuild/eclass > level malware. > > The implication of "official" was that any deliberate or "they went > through the vetting process and should have known better" security > violation (as opposed to quality/QA violation) in any "official" overlay > would be treated as if it had occurred in the main overlay, and would not > only trigger ejection of the dev in question but a reexamination of what > could be done to improve vetting to avoid it happening again in the > future, as well as possible prosecution as appropriate. > > * "Unofficial" status had rather less security-trust and was intended for > "ordinary users". Unvetted, "caveat emptor", "here be dragons" and "if it > breaks you get to keep the pieces". Security violations would of course > result in removal of the overlay from the list... after the fact. > > The implication was "If it's from an unofficial overlay, be sure you > either trust the author with effective root on your system or explicitly > examine the code before running it, because effective root on your system > is what you're giving them." > > ... > > I thus find it ... "unsettling"... to read that various user overlays have > apparently been marked "official" with no regard to that original policy. > While the original distinction may have arguably had alarmist motivations, > I definitely still find it useful, within a somewhat more limited context, > and consider "official" status among other factors when I consider adding > an overlay. > > Guru specifically, given its purpose and that I personally have it active > (but ATM unused), I wonder about having official status. I only "sort of" > use one ebuild from there, net-nntp/pan -- "sort of" because I used it as > a basis for my personal overlay's pan-9999 live-git ebuild, when upstream > switched autotools -> cmake. (FWIW I've been "going to" contact and > coordinate with the primary author and perhaps add the -9999 version to > guru as well once we do, but that's yet to happen...) Obviously I did the > appropriate "unofficial status level" security evaluation in the process > of converting it to live-git -9999. > > Quality: > > I /think/ the quality attribute /may/ have been introduced later as IDR > reading about it in the original layman docs, as I think back then the > /assumption/ was that "if it's only in an overlay, it's not up to main- > tree quality", thus "experimental" and possibly incomplete/under- > development, below ~arch-level quality. Either that or perhaps IDR it > simply because it didn't strike me as important enough to "underline in my > memory" like the status did (with the experimental assumption then being > on my part as seeming obvious). > > Graveyard would have been the sunset overlay, which I guess has fallen by > the wayside? (Of course I'm personally much more toward the live-git side > than sunset/graveyard, so I'd have never noticed sunset's disappearance.) > > > FWIW kde's the only overlay I'm currently actively using (for -9999s, sets > and package.accept_keywords), and it's (correctly) official status, > experimental quality. (Tho I only just removed qt days ago, after reading > that qt*-9999s are officially in-tree now -- kde of course having required > it at times for the -9999s in the :5 era due to upstream kde's sometime > dependency on unreleased qt.)
I directly use(d) it for my package mask: gentoo and official overlays are unmasked (default behavior) Every other overlay gets an entry in my package.mask: `*/*::obscure-overlay` I unmask packages from non official overlays only giving their specific version and try to look at the ebuild code before merging them. AFAIK, portage has no other functionality to prevent updates from overlays (e.g. a `sys-libs/glibc` package marked stable in a newer version than in the gentoo tree would be merged by portage without a further hint). OpenSUSE/zypper for example remembers the source/"overlay" of the currently installed package and perform an update only when its provided by the same source/"overlay". Best Gerion
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
