From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B92F31381F3 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 20:16:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DCA7CE08E1; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EED7EE086F for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 20:16:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.3.7] (cpe-69-207-16-110.buffalo.res.rr.com [69.207.16.110]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: blueness) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D0A9933E140 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 20:16:05 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51BCCBBB.5010902@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:16:59 -0400 From: "Anthony G. Basile" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130518 Thunderbird/17.0.6 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] SRC_URI behaviour References: <51BC2C55.7010506@mva.name> <20130615150549.5faa3829@gentoo.org> <1371309858.28535.30.camel@big_daddy.dol-sen.ca> <51BC8B9B.9020301@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <51BC8B9B.9020301@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: f58df5f5-2907-4706-937a-aeb3a15d70cc X-Archives-Hash: e991b5a8bd12373a7d0ff5bf84d0d20e On 06/15/2013 11:43 AM, Luca Barbato wrote: > On 06/15/2013 05:33 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: >>> The other thing is that would put a mandatory system requirement on >>> layman which many of the devs would be opposed to. But, there is an open >>> bug calling for it to be merged with portage... >> >> Honestly, native support for overlays is something paludis gets right >> - the main tree is just another tree and you prioritize them. > > Not sure it is a great idea in practice. > > lu > There was a period where Zorry and I were working on the hardened toolchain off the hardened-dev overlay. Migrating it back to the tree was a pita. Unless the stuff in the overlay is orthogonal to the main tree, you will effectively be creating forks which are not easily merged. Repositories in other distros (eg debian) normally just add new .debs. They don't override deeper structures such as toolchains and core utilities. We can overrride *anything* in the portage tree like eclasses making overlays a more serious matter. -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail : blueness@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA