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 1FMsdX-0007GR-QX for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:11:56 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.5) with SMTP id k2OKAVDa022777; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:10:31 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k2OK6f0t026501 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:06:42 GMT Received: from [65.115.53.39] (helo=[192.168.10.54]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.54) id 1FMsYT-0006pG-G4 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:06:41 +0000 From: Daniel Ostrow Organization: The Gentoo Foundation, Inc. To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] overlay support current proposal? Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:06:51 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9 References: <20060324193534.GA24818@dst.grantgoodyear.org> In-Reply-To: <20060324193534.GA24818@dst.grantgoodyear.org> 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; boundary="nextPart2938908.eJohf0DqiL"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200603241506.54915.dostrow@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: c8de8808-9e15-4332-8de2-721a5a073e13 X-Archives-Hash: d478100d3556b42bfb4ed8f6ad88c959 --nextPart2938908.eJohf0DqiL Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday 24 March 2006 14:35, Grant Goodyear wrote: > After reading through that fairly lengthy thread, I'm afraid that I can > no longer tell exactly what is being proposed. Who has read access? > Who has write access? Bugs are handled where, and by whom? Are we > considering a fairly tightly controlled system, or a wild free-for-all? > Exactly which problem are we proposing to solve here? > > If someone could succinctly summarize the current schools of thought, > I'd be quite indebted. > As I understand it... o.g.o would be used to host developer and team based overlays that are owne= d=20 an operated by existing Gentoo devs. Users would not be able to create thei= r=20 own overlays hosted on this system. The developer(s) who own the overlay=20 would be able to control the granularity of access ranging from developers= =20 only, to developers plus a few trusted users, to full public ro access. As far as I read it, who handles the bugs and by what means at this point i= s=20 still up in the air as there seem to be some groups that would rather handl= e=20 bugs through their own mechanisims, be that IRC, e-mail, trac whathaveyou a= nd=20 those that would like to be able to track bugs through bugs.g.o. There is also the question of limiting the number of 'false' bug reports ba= sed=20 uppon overlay usage, it seems that the best way to work through this is by= =20 augmenting the output of emerge --info. Things like a list of overridden=20 eclasses in the output and the capability to add a package as an arguement = to=20 emerge --info in order to see if it is coming from an overlay seem to be go= od=20 starting points. On a less technical note there is also the question of using the o.g.o=20 frontpage as a means to point to existing repositiories of user created=20 overlays in order to promote them. Hope that helps, =2D-=20 Daniel Ostrow Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel} dostrow@gentoo.org --nextPart2938908.eJohf0DqiL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBEJFFesb0gXCN8LgURApTkAJ4yjMUzOXCKUTpLVh5j7F0C76Y4lQCgpKan E/Y5gvcDlUeGD5w7TSGgp1E= =j67u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2938908.eJohf0DqiL-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list