On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:19:51 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Michael Cummings wrote: > | Chris Gianelloni wrote: > |>> Using your example, if it will *never* make it into the tree, > then what |>> is it doing on *.gentoo.org infrastructure? > | > | OK, I'll speak up. I plan on using overlay.gentoo.org for the perl > team | overlay repository. > > [snip] > > You're not alone. > > The webapps overlay contains ebuilds that may never make it into the > tree. We have a lot of packages that we maintain, but which don't > pass our upstream requirements [1] at this time. We're doing our > best to work with $upstream on resolving such issues, but we're never > going to achieve a 100% success rate. No-one is objecting to these project-local overlays. The objection is to a system-wide overlay. To comment on the subject - as a system-wide overlay sunrise does look a lot like a fork of the man tree. This could be alleviated by banning several things from the overlay; eclasses are already listed, but I think it would be a good idea to include key system elements (e.g. kernel, toolchain, baselayout - perhaps the sys-* categories) in the ban for sunrise. Anything hacking around with such critical components should be in their own specific overlay. This is key to the objections; that sunrise is system-wide, not local to a particular area. -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
