On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 09:47 -0500, Aron Griffis wrote: > Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Fri Mar 24 2006, 08:55:30AM EST] > > As I've said, my only request is a single policy that before an overlay > > can become publicly readable on overlays.gentoo.org (which is Gentoo > > infrastructure) that it does not break packages in the main tree that > > are not in the overlay. > > This makes sense, but what's the content of such a policy? Take your > gcc-5.1.99 example: say it "breaks" lots of packages in portage. Is > it not allowed to be in a publicly accessible overlay in that case? > If that's not the policy, then what policy allows gcc-5.1.99 but still > covers the ground you want covered?
I see your point here and honestly do not have an answer. I don't want to limit what people can do in the overlays so much as reduce the "collateral damage" that can be done. Honestly stuff like the toolchain is a bit of an exception only because that information all shows up on an "emerge --info" already. I really can't think of much besides kernel + toolchain that can have such devastating effects to the rest of the tree. The only other massive breakages would be via eclasses, which was my main target. Does anyone have any ideas how we could resonably reduce problems reported from things such as toolchain breakages in an overlay, yet still not punish the people running the overlay by disallowing it? I surely wouldn't want to limit the toolchain maintainers from being able to enjoy the use of an overlay if they wished it. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
