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 1LePIU-0003OV-T8 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 07:44:15 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 28D4DE0394; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:44:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE1FAE0394 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:44:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CA2364517 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:44:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.97 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.97 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.629, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] 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 6hHwteY5SKks for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:44:06 +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 1042B645D1 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:44:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1LePIB-0007Er-W1 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 07:43:56 +0000 Received: from ip68-230-99-190.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.230.99.190]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 07:43:55 +0000 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-230-99-190.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 07:43:55 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA Overlay Layout support. Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:43:45 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <497B9D38.6030702@gentoo.org> <20090302031145.GB1955@comet> <49AB7A52.3060401@gentoo.org> <20090302065727.GD1955@comet> <49AB9178.3000902@gentoo.org> <81bfc67a0903022319j38aba363nbb46e272e26be0f7@mail.gmail.com> 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: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-230-99-190.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 9e5504b4-b7fb-47f0-8f9f-4f1816a0d9df X-Archives-Hash: 1db5e4edeb7cc072acc25ab40873f05e Caleb Cushing posted 81bfc67a0903022319j38aba363nbb46e272e26be0f7@mail.gmail.com, excerpted below, on Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:19:29 -0500: > second. I generally think anything beyond a personal overlay is crap. > All these overlays like sunrise, java-overlay, and on and on... > basically official, overlays that have qa and are pretty stable. are > crap. they should be in the tree. an overlay for developers is fine, yo= u > know. where you are working on stuff... stuff that someone who wouldn't > want to hack on it wouldn't want, because it's too broken. >=20 > but one of the few good things about gentoo, in relation to other > distro's, 1 tree no repos, continues to fall further and further apart. This is the question I was asking myself as well, reading the OP. Yes, I= =20 see the policy of not putting otherwise stable Java apps in the tree, but= =20 why? If they're reasonably stable, why aren't they in the tree to begin=20 with? If there's a reason not to be comfortable having them in the tree=20 unmasked, then in the tree masked (tho in that case, are they really so=20 stable after all?). But why have overlays all over for basically stable=20 stuff, that has the usual QA done already, but simply isn't in the tree? If that were taken care of it would go a very long way to killing the=20 entire problem, since it'd only be hack/unstable overlays left in the=20 first place, and stacking that hack on unstable on hack isn't a good idea= =20 anyway. The problem is thus one of not having reasonably stable stuff in= =20 the tree where it arguably belongs, thus creating a problem with stacking= =20 multiple levels of main/stable/slightly-less-stable/unstable/really- unstable/suicide all on top of each other. That said, I do understand the reason for Sunrise, as it by original=20 definition and practice really is a hack level overlay even if it does=20 get some level of Sunrise-dev love and guidance. But as such, once=20 again, there's little reason to stack it with anything else, including=20 the personal overlays of those involved. At least, that very quickly becomes the case as soon as there's a useful=20 way to mass-package-unmask, mass-package-keyword, and package-set, and=20 the various projects already have working if not all that easy solutions=20 for the first two and sets are available in portage-2.2. --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman