Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for February 26

[Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1656 bytes --]

On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:26:48PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd & 4th 
> Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @ 
> irc.freenode.net) !

Informal request, but it would be useful to get an idea of the 
councils views on portage overlay compatibility issues.

Specifically, when it comes to gentoo repositories, there is one, and 
only one definition of what that is- pms's repo spec.  The problem 
here is that the only repository truly conformant to that spec is 
gentoo-x86, for the rest of the repositories (overlays realistically) 
whatever portage supports seems to be the eventual standard they grow 
towards.

Problem with this is that there is *zero* way to spot these non-pms 
repositories as it stands.  Simplest example, under portage overlays 
can unmask pkgs globally (gnome overlay reverting masks in 
gentoo-x86), package.unmask exists/works, package.keywords 
exists/works, and package.mask can be a directory.

I've not traced through the mess of config's __init__ to verify 
*every* pms noncompliance there, but I'd assume there are definitely a 
couple more hanging around to blow up in alt managers faces.

At the very least I'm after having the non-pms repos marked in some 
fashion so that alt implementations don't have to assume the portage 
standard (rather then the *agreed to* pms standard) to avoid 
exploding, but that's a rather short sighted solution- something is 
needed long term.

Either way, I'd be curious about the councils *informal* opinion on 
the overlay issue.

thanks,
~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]