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 1Folt0-0004jX-Fv for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 18:39:10 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k59IYvVR011671; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 18:34:57 GMT Received: from rs26s12.datacenter.cha.cantv.net (rs26s12.datacenter.cha.cantv.net [200.44.33.31]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k59IRpd2016813 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 18:27:52 GMT Received: from localhost (dC9D13795.dslam-01-3-15-01-1-01.smg.dsl.cantv.net [201.209.55.149]) by rs26s12.datacenter.cha.cantv.net (8.13.4/8.13.0/3.0) with ESMTP id k59IRoff022990 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:27:51 -0400 X-Matched-Lists: [] Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FoljJ-0002b1-8T for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:29:09 -0400 Message-ID: <4489BDEF.6040306@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:29:03 -0400 From: Luis Francisco Araujo User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060530) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay References: <1149772819.19443.10.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20060608093213.e0ccb189.tcort@gentoo.org> <20060608144145.GA7696@cerberus.oppresses.us> <623652d50606080959s4c78080fm3780db3d5b5cee64@mail.gmail.com> <4488D188.4020703@gentoo.org> <623652d50606090301y2942c490oacba55cc9ffc0efb@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <623652d50606090301y2942c490oacba55cc9ffc0efb@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.2, clamav-milter version 0.88.2 on rs26s12.datacenter.cha.cantv.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Archives-Salt: ba8bf78a-6617-4c61-b173-23608ac0d170 X-Archives-Hash: dfadcb1ab25363d05822fd944d1efebc Chris Bainbridge wrote: > On 09/06/06, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote: >> Chris Bainbridge wrote: >> > There are already loads of semi-official overlays. Besides the stuff >> > actually hosted by gentoo (random example >> > http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/bzr/overlay/) there are official >> > groups (again, not picking on anyone but exampes would be java, php, >> > webapps...) with semi-official overlays. I don't know if the overlays >> > are actually hosted on gentoo hardware, but when they're run by gentoo >> > devs, publically available, and referred to in forums, bugzilla, >> > mailing lists etc. then that at least makes them "semi-official". >> I don't agree with that "semi-official" term. >> >> We for example have an overlay for the Haskell project. Nevertheless, >> we consider it the official overlay for our group, but not for >> Gentoo. So >> that way we can use it as our sand-box, to play with it as much as we >> can, and giving commit access to even non-developers, the advantage > > The Haskell overlay isn't publically available (at least, layman > doesn't know about it). That makes it quite different from the > "semi-official" overlays I gave as examples. > I really don't know what "semi-official" means. And our overlay has always been publically available, http://haskell.org/~gentoo/gentoo-haskell/ But we don't have it as a way to offer "extra" ebuilds. We have it for testing, and experimental works and it has been used as playground for new developers too. > Whether something is "semi-official" or not is all about perception. > If people see that a project is run by gentoo developers, possibly > formed into a gentoo group, using gentoo resources (bugzilla, forums, > mailing lists etc) to discuss and organise, then there will be a > perception that the project has some semblance of officiality. I am not against the overlay idea, i like it very much!, and we have been using it successfully in our team. I just don't see the point of having another official portage tree with maintainer-wanted packages as an overlay. Don't you see that what you are asking for is to have another portage tree, but now, with bunch of unmaintained and orphaned stuff, plus the extra sugar of *dangerous* consequences as some developers have already pointed out in this thread? I think we already have LOT of work with only one tree. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list