Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: > Personally, I dislike the idea of having officially supported (read: > hosted on *.gentoo.org infrastructure) overlays for unmaintained > ebuilds for which nobody did any real quality assurance. I fear this > will drag Gentoo back into the old-ages of having a reputation of a > ricer-distribution; a reputation I for one have worked very hard to > get rid of during the past 2 years.
I agree here. When I decided to help out the overlays project, I thought I had made it clear that I didn't want to support a BMG-style repo on official hardware. It was for things like php, perl, etc that had their own overlay and were actively working out specific issues for their project. What you're proposing goes against what I supported initially. There was a lengthy discussion about this months ago, but apparently this group decided to ignore all the points in it and just go with this without consulting the group first. If you can't sort out the issues that have been brought out here, I'm afraid I'm going to have to decline my support on infra hardware for this specific project (but not the other overlays so people don't have a fit :-) ). -- Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager --- GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 ramereth/irc.freenode.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
