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 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FojJL-0000me-7G for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:54:11 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k59FptVO030822; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:51:55 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k59FiUKJ014822 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:44:31 GMT Received: from iglu.bnet.local (c190020.adsl.hansenet.de [213.39.190.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36E7365677 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:44:30 +0000 (UTC) From: Carsten Lohrke To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 17:44:26 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 References: <200606091329.43783.carlo@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: 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="nextPart1384691.oYC4eEK3CM"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200606091744.27131.carlo@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 62795569-2a88-422a-9d4f-96dd49fabb1a X-Archives-Hash: bb78cb07158cfcd7e559134a38535210 --nextPart1384691.oYC4eEK3CM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday 09 June 2006 14:04, Stefan Schweizer wrote: > Please, do not assume our users being stupid. They know that they are usi= ng > an ebuild from the sunrise overlay with zero support. They deliberately > typed You have said stupid, not me. Some won't care enough, I'm quite sure about= =20 that. We had such invalid bug reports occasionally in the past and I expect= =20 this to happen more often, the easier and more common dealing with overlays= =20 becomes. Regarding "zero support": Making this abslutely clear is what I mi= ss=20 looking at overlays.g.o. > "svn co http://overlays.gentoo.org/svn/proj/sunrise/category/application" > "emerge application" > > And also there are only applications from maintainer-wanted or > maintainer-needed allowed in the overlay. Because packages are not suppos= ed > to overwrite files from other ebuilds it is unlikely that they can cause > any damage to applications that have not been directly installed from the > overlay. maintainer-needed is imho not acceptable at all, as any dev trying to clean= up=20 bugs, won't know if a bug report comes from a user of the main tree ebuild = or =20 from your overlay. > > Also some warning that an overlay may > > break the tree or fubar the users system > > That is not the intention of the overlay. If it were intended, it would be malicious. Even if not intended, it doesn'= t=20 mean tree breakages won't happen. Some dev may change an eclass, without=20 taking overlay ebuilds into account (and he doesn't have to), but the chang= e=20 may break all ebuilds inheriting the eclass in an overlay, leaving all the= =20 users of the overlay with a broken tree. And to make that clear: Eclasses i= n=20 overlays are only "sort of" acceptable, when the same team handles the ecla= ss=20 in the the main tree, as eclasses in overlays hide the main tree eclasses. Carsten --nextPart1384691.oYC4eEK3CM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBEiZdbVwbzmvGLSW8RAtl6AJ9vbV8TikGbDiFkE407U22TWhjzdACgpnHb HaUIH8nXsaUomQj72telzdI= =0Bs4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1384691.oYC4eEK3CM-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list