Il 20/11/2014 00:58, Rich Freeman ha scritto: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:54 PM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 11/19/2014 06:27 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote: >>> On 11/19/2014 03:36 PM, hasufell wrote: >>>> In the end, I'm not sure if this is actually such a big problem. You can >>>> still use random ebuilds from random overlays and commit them straight >>>> to your own overlay. >>>> >>> A bad idea. Bad because of the same reason why copy-past in your code >>> would be bad. >>> >> Depends. If a third-party overlay dependency regularly breaks my >> packages, I am going to copy paste it into my own to have more control >> over it. >> >> At that point it is forked. I don't see what's wrong with forking. >> > What happens when 3 overlays all fork the same dependency, and you > want to use all three? somwthing bad > > The distributed repository works well for release-based distros since > the core of the OS is fixed. A repository for Ubuntu x.y will always > work with Ubuntu x.y, since Ubuntu x.y isn't going to upgrade from > libfoo-2 to incompatible libfoo-2.3. I disagree distributed repository does NOT work well, even for release based distro. They are annoing, require magic updating at the right time and break often. Gentoo being compiled can avoid some but not all pitfalls and could introduce a lot more.
> > On the other hand, libraries on Gentoo can change without warning, and > the only quality standard we impose is that the main repo still works > (with no forced testing of distributed repos). And thinking to be able to impose something more is very optimistic (maybe doable with a much smaller tree like USE=-X @system) > > If we want to truly support first-class distributed repos, then we'll > need to impose a number of standards on the main tree that we do not > impose today. > > -- > Rich > good luck -- Francesco Riosa
