On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 17:29 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: > Jon Portnoy wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:32:13AM -0400, Thomas Cort wrote: > >> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0400 > >> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this change is a direct > >> > change in games team policy without any prior notice to the games team > >> > and without our permission. > > We have good instructions on our trac wiki page[1] for how to work with the > overlay. The bottom of the page, point 6) adresses your problem.
Not really. You've taken what was a simple and open way of addressing ebuild requests, and turned it into a closed forum. With a bug, anyone with a bugzilla account can *contribute* anything that they want, and it is all peer-reviewed. With this overlay, only people that are given access will be allowed to contribute anything. Also, who is going to control access to this resource? Why *is* there access controls? I know that I'm going to hear "security" as a response, but it is a false one. We already had a completely open resource where any of our users can contribute any ebuilds that they want. You've created a more restrictive and less useful version of this and increased the workload on any developers whose packages are affected, such as the games team with the inclusion of xmoto, which has been rejected in its current state, and knights, which is currently in the tree *and* maintained. > > I do not object to the concept of ebuilds in overlays. > > > > 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. > > This is a problem, that we are working on, see [2] > It is obvioous to see if an ebuild comes from an overlay or not with that > change. Due to the good metastructure and project support in gentoo it is > possible to have most of the overlay-work done in the projects [3] and [4] > > [1] http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/sunrise > [2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/136031 > [PATCH] Display a warning when an overlay-ebuild fails > [3] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/overlays > [4] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/overlays/sunrise > > I am still against the idea of turning this into a flamewar. Better no > comments than flaming comments. Please - keep it constructive. Nobody has turned this into a flame war. We are trying to provide constructive comments. Just because a comment points out ways why this is a bad idea doesn't make it a flame. The only thing that bothers me is the fact that this was done and is something that was explicitly stated would not happen with the overlays project. We now have a semi-official secondary repository, run by a small group of developers, allowed to touch *any* package in the tree however they see fit, whether it goes against the policies of the package's maintainers or not. I'm sorry, but this is not in the spirit of cooperation and working together so much as it is in the spirit of doing what you want, policies be damned. Were this limited *solely* to packages that need maintainers, I would have less of a problem than it being used, as it is currently, to explicitly work outside of the policies of established projects. As I stated several times to you now when you brought up the idea of a games overlay just so you could maintain packages how you wanted, you're more than willing to keep packages that belong under the games herd in a personal *developer* overlay. However, what you've done here is said that you're more important than the established practices of another project, and blatantly disregarded their policies, establishing a "project" that gives you free reign to do whatever you wish. Does anyone else see this as a problem? -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
