On Friday 24 March 2006 11:32, Andrej Kacian wrote:
> Dňa Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:23:14 +
>
> "Stuart Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napísal:
> > On 3/24/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > so we're clear, users would be able to create their own overlays
> > > and publish their ebuild
Dňa Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:23:14 +
"Stuart Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napísal:
> On 3/24/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > so we're clear, users would be able to create their own overlays
> > and publish their ebuilds right ?
>
> Not on overlays.g.o, no.
>
FWIW, this is alrea
On Thursday 23 March 2006 19:54, Thomas Cort wrote:
> Will there be restrictions on what can go into these overlays?
common sense
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 3/24/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> so we're clear, users would be able to create their own overlays and publish
> their ebuilds right ?
Not on overlays.g.o, no.
Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 18:45 -0500, Alec Warner wrote:
> PROPOSAL:
>
> a) overlays.gentoo.org -> A sub-domain for hosting overlays or
> 'development sandboxes'. Developers want an area for sandboxed
> development of packages outside of the main tree. As stated in the
> previous thread this allows
Thomas Cort wrote:
>> Thoughts on ideas on this somewhat more focussed idea? ( or at least I
>> think it's more focused :P )
>
> Will there be restrictions on what can go into these overlays? There
> are some ebuilds that aren't allowed in the main portage tree. One
> example is winex-cvs (see
> a
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 09:52:30AM +0100, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> Things that are not suited for public consumption should not be made
> public in the first place. This is one reason that I don't think that
> users should be given the opportunity to create their own gentoo-hosed
> overlays. I be
On Friday 24 March 2006 01:54, Thomas Cort wrote:
> > Thoughts on ideas on this somewhat more focussed idea? ( or at least
> > I think it's more focused :P )
>
> Will there be restrictions on what can go into these overlays? There
> are some ebuilds that aren't allowed in the main portage tree. One
On Friday 24 March 2006 01:23, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> so we're clear, users would be able to create their own overlays and
> publish their ebuilds right ?
Not on gentoo servers though. They are able already and we can't prevent
it. What I think an overlays.gentoo.org could add is something like
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
> Thoughts on ideas on this somewhat more focussed idea? ( or at least I
> think it's more focused :P )
Will there be restrictions on what can go into these overlays? There
are some ebuilds that aren't allowed in the main portage tree. One
example is winex-cvs (see
app-emulation/winex-cvs/winex-cv
so we're clear, users would be able to create their own overlays and publish
their ebuilds right ?
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
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 acces
To hijack the overlay thread, I see a few things here:
MOTIVATION:
a) Developers don't like putting experimental stuff in the tree: This is
usually because Joe Ricer picks up the ebuild, 'tests' it, it breaks and
he files a bug. Joe Ricer has no clue what went wrong or what he is
doing and said
14 matches
Mail list logo
