On 09:53 Fri 10 Jun, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > So forgive me for being blind .. but we were talking about going > > -away- from central, curated repositories, and now we've come full > > circle to the situation we have now with overlays, mostly > > controlled in some way by gentoo .. so, do tell me .. what's the > > difference?! > Some things. For users, the main difference is that their repositories > are central and can be grown in a modular manner. Their repositories > would likely be amalgamations of our curated and reviewed > repositories, and some more obscure ones from specific areas they are > interested in. This is very similar to what we have today, save for > the public user repositories. A central index, as pointed out by Zac, > would ideally be Accompanying the public repositories. Via this hub, > users could review each other's ebuilds, and so on.
That's great, but how are you gonna prevent nodejs-like clusterfuck (happened not so long ago: some guy just removed his packaged and suddenly everything was broken)? Or any other kind of screw-you-guys-im-doing-it-my-way behavior? We already have a lot of issues (like nobody gives a damn about broken packages for weeks) due to lack of manpower. In my opinion, we need more people with commit access, not a bunch of standalone repos managed by some random dudes. > For our central repositories, the main difference would be having more > repositories, to ensure that we are as modular as possible, so that > users can more easily e.g. pick and choose external repositories > instead of what we suggest and recommend, or completely get rid of > components they don't need or want. Splitting one giant repo in a bunch of smaller ones (like haskell-overlay for example) is actually a good idea.
