From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1FMZVN-00008b-N5 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:46:14 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.5) with SMTP id k2NNcxkG023855; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:38:59 GMT Received: from palrel12.hp.com (palrel12.hp.com [156.153.255.237]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k2NNYIvI011161 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:34:19 GMT Received: from cacrelint01.ptp.hp.com (cacrelint01.ptp.hp.com [15.1.29.21]) by palrel12.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B0BA360F5 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:34:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from vino.zko.hp.com (vino.zko.hp.com [16.116.97.1]) by cacrelint01.ptp.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9E70340AA for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:34:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by vino.zko.hp.com (Postfix, from userid 10208) id 6F2E66C032; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:34:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:34:17 -0500 From: Aron Griffis To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Official overlay support Message-ID: <20060323233416.GD28473@vino.zko.hp.com> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <441F35B9.8000406@gentoo.org> <4421836A.8040000@gentoo.org> <200603230910.00496.kugelfang@gentoo.org> <623652d50603230209i1f915562v@mail.gmail.com> <1143124885.14434.25.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GPJrCs/72TxItFYR" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1143124885.14434.25.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> X-Mailer: Mutt http://www.mutt.org/ X-Editor: Vim http://www.vim.org/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Archives-Salt: 44c56817-0bf5-4b05-b3ed-a589d1a8961a X-Archives-Hash: f807192433373bd491740762526c7eb8 --GPJrCs/72TxItFYR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Thu Mar 23 2006, 09:41:25AM EST] > On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 10:09 +0000, Chris Bainbridge wrote: > > Reduced responsibility for package QA (I expect "we don't care about > > overlays" to become a standard response on bugs.g.o) >=20 > You will *definitely* get this from developers that won't be using the > overlays. >=20 > Let's just say you decide to use a toolchain overlay and it exposes some > problem in random app foo because you're using gcc 5.1.99 and we only > have 4.0 in the tree. You file a bug against package foo without a > patch. I'm the maintainer. You've now made me spend my time supporting > something that isn't even in the tree, and could be an artifact of the > overlay itself and something that will *never* end up in the tree. Why > should I do this? What we have done here is actually *reduced* the > amount of productive work that I can do by forcing me to deal with these > overlays, even if I choose not to participate. Some of this could be mitigated with some additional or modified tools. For example, emerge --info could be augmented to take a package argument and list the installed dependency tree for that package. The list could also include *where* the package and deps came from, PORTDIR or an overlay. The result would be required information in a bug report, similar to the existing emerge --info requirement. So if I were submitting a report about keychain, I would be required to include the result of emerge --info keychain It becomes a lot easier for devs to determine that a problem might be due to an overlay, then take whatever action they prefer based on that information. For some devs, the fact that gcc-5.1.99 breaks their package might be a welcome early warning. Another possible enhancement would be to include a checkbox in the bug report to indicate whether overlays are in use. Hopefully checked by the reporter, but alternatively auto-detected by emerge --info in comment #1, or checked by our ever-vigilant wranglers. This would make winnowing of overlay-caused bugs easier. Just some thoughts... Aron --GPJrCs/72TxItFYR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEIzB4JrHF4yAQTrARAuXbAKClppNKZfzqo+yUZJYoNWTj/cPtSQCgkNQe vRhXcdMbDMXYbTrEyK37i7w= =ewzR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --GPJrCs/72TxItFYR-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list