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 D8B721381F3 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:52:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DA404E084C; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:52:08 +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 074CDE076B for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:52:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com (mail-pa0-f43.google.com [209.85.220.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: djc) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 452DA33E121 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:52:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id hz11so6890422pad.30 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:52:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=8buoL+5u4owMay9r+ne4VDgvjJWxD09zlVvCC8qEKNE=; b=Gh6jLLuap9VsbgegbPJNB6pe6NGoAbqIE4kBZFHvu0nWMCkY4AGm9CDy/d1o8oHUTP CySg1NlxWUB+6o9Pt0ZpiGpiyf08RGFXUIutbdPo3NiWhZ9wEfE+UNcrFcwlW6UP2Ly5 aOku0MDHEAl7j60XAQl2L9qqG2wuG+gUaHkI+LLlIndt5yBS9lplBmZMPfgHGm7+sPJQ C8vyBWyiV9NQfi4W2g72saYgyoamBo1r/LqliPXK1uHygWk7781pFMr3APhVc1VBdcAH lvMHLwtcLBd4xAluUuo7uEtSQrDQHBUM6ulIFim5e4v6wm/2go2iy4xs0HKjFATfx/cM 7Bhw== X-Received: by 10.66.164.71 with SMTP id yo7mr1482423pab.92.1371106325978; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:52:05 -0700 (PDT) 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 Received: by 10.70.22.237 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:51:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20130612185126.15f142b0@gentoo.org> <51B8A904.6060406@gentoo.org> <20130612180255.59f313b3@googlemail.com> <51B8AA59.8010603@gentoo.org> <20130612181312.774d0bd1@googlemail.com> <51B8AE78.5030702@orlitzky.com> From: Dirkjan Ochtman Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:51:45 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays To: Gentoo Development Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: c14e13f3-35c0-41ab-a025-96b5a6320e28 X-Archives-Hash: d786f5d21db5eeac7cd24d1ebec026c7 On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Alexander V Vershilov wrote: > The main point that haskell ecosystem is very breaky and only latest > version is supported, so > the safest path is to be on a bleeding edge and patch inconsistent > applications. So if one > package gets updated then commonly we need to fix its reversed deps, > if it were in tree than > we would be involved into stabilization process and in the end will > delay updating deps, and > the difficulty of tracking all version variant will be much higher > than no, at the end the quality > of the packages in tree will fall. Really we can _guarantee_ that > everything work in overlay > but there is either no technical or bureaucracy reasons that prevent > from fixing as soon as > possible. Still seems like working in gentoo-x86 without doing stabilization would cover most of those bases. Working in the unstable main tree is still a lot better than keeping stuff out there in an overlay, IMO. Cheers, Dirkjan