On 03/05/2010 11:54 AM, Peter Hjalmarsson wrote: > > I have start to question why should we care about overlays more then the > actual portage tree?
My comments do not imply caring more about overlays than the actual portage tree. > > Take for example the kernel or Xorg. > They give themselves a period of time to clean up their own code (i.e. > kernel-modules, xorg-drivers) and then they release it as stable and > tell users/distributors to upgrade. > They do not wait for nVidia/AMD/other out-of-tree drivers/modules to > catch up. > This doesn't match the situation in question. This more closely matches changing for example libX11 ABI. > Now if we say we have someone managing an overlay, and this person do > miss this warning/die for half an year, then I would say they have nott > done their homework and they are on their own. I do not see why we > should wait unreasonable long periods of time because there may be > someone broken somewhere. > Because there is so little benefit from removing old functions. What is so bad about having them grouped at the bottom of the file inside a deprecated section? Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
