On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 11:10 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > Over the years we've had a fairly consistent stream of suggestions that > we should open up the e-build maintaining process to users instead of > just devs. The main arguments against it are the security issues and an > expectation that it would add to developer workloads. The former is > certainly a real problem, although signing (assuming a reasonable > web-of-trust) could mitigate that some (at least we'd know who to > blame). The latter, however, is conjecture, and the only good way to > verify it would be to actually try it and see what happens. Oh, and > there's also a very real fear that if things go horribly wrong, that > Gentoo's reputation would suffer quite badly. Perhaps I'm naive, but I > tend to think that if we were to advertise project sunrise as > experimental, temporary, use-at-your-own-risk, and > might-break-your-system, and even put it on hardware without a > gentoo.org address and add a portage hook that warns whenever the > project sunrise overlay is used, then our reputation isn't really likely > to suffer even if it's a complete disaster. > > So, Chris, what have I failed to address that would make this a really > bad idea?
That this describes break-my-gentoo, that it is as old as Gentoo itself and that it only creates problems for the 'supported' tree : the unexplained bugs, the weird errors, the continuous suspicion devs need to have on reported errors. Keep that stuff separated, don't mingle it with Gentoo. - foser
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
