Chris Bainbridge wrote:
On 08/06/06, Jon Portnoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do very much object to using any gentoo.org infrastructure or
subdomains to do so. If someone is going to tackle that, it should be
done outside of Gentoo proper. We don't need to be stuck maintaining and
supporting a semiofficial overlay.
There are already loads of semi-official overlays. Besides the stuff
actually hosted by gentoo (random example
http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/bzr/overlay/) there are official
groups (again, not picking on anyone but exampes would be java, php,
webapps...) with semi-official overlays. I don't know if the overlays
are actually hosted on gentoo hardware, but when they're run by gentoo
devs, publically available, and referred to in forums, bugzilla,
mailing lists etc. then that at least makes them "semi-official".
I don't agree with that "semi-official" term.
We for example have an overlay for the Haskell project. Nevertheless,
we consider it the official overlay for our group, but not for Gentoo. So
that way we can use it as our sand-box, to play with it as much as we
can, and giving commit access to even non-developers, the advantage
with this model, is that at some degree we compromise ourselves as a
group with the "little" base users who dare to test experimental stuff
(that
probably will *never* find its way into portage), but we keep Gentoo as
project excluded from such a responsibility. And.. isn't that the real
sense
behind the "overlay" concept?, to have an "official" overlay wouldn't
break the
main goal of it?, and even more, an official maintainer-wanted overlay
sounds
more crazy to me.
Regards,
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
