From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lc1Mp-0007bb-Ac for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:46:51 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 27876E05C1; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:46:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.175]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA8C2E05C1 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:46:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 29so2897816wff.10 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:46:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:date:from:to:cc :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=jgTZf6+0m3sIlg19o1qonm9O4IiqAynJnXVqfplW0VM=; b=yHwZOC5UaArYOIiKnEGAP7xDQnNbTKrKnWIMtsu/NsDCFODvXFm0wJ+oFE3AoFO7Xx Fo2Xy2P2eABxSx3zlTOzZGgauvXzzLu3ckoWkzou2wzPPg3Le2T8lE1UVg1E3UqIWUPU uhRSCx97LYcXl2bcX+Yrkpx1BL00imW7nGfxo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=gF/LJB8K2bFDxo9l4UjXtHRCX/aMpX0TfxCundPwymBSJGtokJbfhgsAISc0Uag6cM PHMK8gv0WxPlB4VEZJ23tGX7ddYGQABxRcZ3D0cHqEPge/SS0LxoNVyJ402G9Se6LnRI 5gm6BGOLzuB4T1NbffOjBP6zbRUmVR8ZcEV1Q= Received: by 10.142.156.2 with SMTP id d2mr2641035wfe.179.1235497609394; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:46:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.gmail.com (c-98-210-196-21.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.210.196.21]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 28sm14991298wfg.31.2009.02.24.09.46.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:46:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp.gmail.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:47:25 -0800 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:47:25 -0800 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: zmedico@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for February 26 Message-ID: <20090224174725.GC3506@hrair> References: <20090223072648.GK12339@hermes> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.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="dkEUBIird37B8yKS" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090223072648.GK12339@hermes> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-Archives-Salt: dc0f2049-be61-47d0-842d-51f6c181c323 X-Archives-Hash: ff836966ca945e75f666fcebc5ac4bfb --dkEUBIird37B8yKS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=20 > Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @=20 > irc.freenode.net) ! Informal request, but it would be useful to get an idea of the=20 councils views on portage overlay compatibility issues. Specifically, when it comes to gentoo repositories, there is one, and=20 only one definition of what that is- pms's repo spec. The problem=20 here is that the only repository truly conformant to that spec is=20 gentoo-x86, for the rest of the repositories (overlays realistically)=20 whatever portage supports seems to be the eventual standard they grow=20 towards. Problem with this is that there is *zero* way to spot these non-pms=20 repositories as it stands. Simplest example, under portage overlays=20 can unmask pkgs globally (gnome overlay reverting masks in=20 gentoo-x86), package.unmask exists/works, package.keywords=20 exists/works, and package.mask can be a directory. I've not traced through the mess of config's __init__ to verify=20 *every* pms noncompliance there, but I'd assume there are definitely a=20 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=20 fashion so that alt implementations don't have to assume the portage=20 standard (rather then the *agreed to* pms standard) to avoid=20 exploding, but that's a rather short sighted solution- something is=20 needed long term. Either way, I'd be curious about the councils *informal* opinion on=20 the overlay issue. thanks, ~harring --dkEUBIird37B8yKS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmkMq0ACgkQsiLx3HvNzgdciQCgzvZSBBEXYtTQ/POrkXv3u36b KR0AoISMaaoQZwOUBi9cMNZYrMPL6blm =Tjmm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dkEUBIird37B8yKS--