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 1FoTDw-0000Jj-C9 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:43:32 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k58Mf7pw032275; Thu, 8 Jun 2006 22:41:07 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k58MWZnu028411 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2006 22:32:35 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA769653FD for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2006 22:32:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02979-19 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2006 22:32:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A316B653FA for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2006 22:32:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1FoT2v-0007cH-4u for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 00:32:09 +0200 Received: from c-68-39-44-30.hsd1.nj.comcast.net ([68.39.44.30]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 00:32:09 +0200 Received: from pete4abw by c-68-39-44-30.hsd1.nj.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 00:32:09 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Peter Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:31:43 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1149796286.19443.76.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <1149804545.19443.112.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-68-39-44-30.hsd1.nj.comcast.net User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table) X-Archive: encrypt Sender: news X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.979 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.620, BAYES_00=-2.599] X-Spam-Score: -1.979 X-Spam-Level: X-Archives-Salt: a6bf4d67-ceea-4584-9ba0-755f1f1dd932 X-Archives-Hash: ab29802328db2e9b8ff86008f787823e On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:09:04 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 16:23 -0400, Peter wrote: >> I did not read anything that implied o.g.o would bypass anything other >> than a lengthy wait in bugzilla land. Other distros have their >> experimental/testing branches, why can't gentoo? > > *cough* ~arch *cough* > > What everybody seems to miss is that having the ebuild in the overlay > doesn't "bypass" any sort of wait. It still is not in the tree. It is > still "unsupported". Having a couple developers do a 30 second check > over an ebuild does not instantly make it good quality. You're right. However it allows certain ebuilds to get published long before they would (if ever) waiting in bugzilla maintainer-wanted. Unless I am totally naive or utopian or foolish (or all of the above), what is wrong for having an overlay for orphaned or ebuilds that will never be supported. Things not being in the tree is the whole purpose of the overlay as I understand it. Some things should not be in the tree, some things should. However, for many different reasons, some things that should be in the tree just don't get there. Quality is subjective. I could write a perfect ebuild for foo.bar, but the program could suck. Or, someone could write a piss poor ebuild for "best program ever" and q/a would slam it rightfully so. Such an ebuild would likely not get onto overlay either. But for those motivated enough to want to push an ebuild, the o.g.o provides such an outlet. And, for me again as a user, using a gentoo-hosted overlay is preferable to a third party repository. This is a personal bias on my part -- and maybe unwarranted. Warn users that ebuild in o.g.o come with no assurances whatsoever, and let the market decide if this is a source worthy of use! -- Peter -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list