On 12:01 Tue 16 Oct , Andrey G. Grozin wrote: > The original cryos' idea when he created the science overlay was a place to > develop ebuilds until they become mature enough to be moved to the main > tree (I can dig his original post about this subject). He suggested that > ebuilds whould, in most cases, be moved to the main tree quickly enough.
OK, sure, but historic reasons are not future reasons. If things should change, this is not a reason to hold it back. > Gentoo users are not instructed to use overlays. Most of them just don't > know about them. Hunting for an interesting package in many tens of > overlays present at overlays.gentoo.org is not easy. There is http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/overlays/userguide.xml -- for some reason, it doesn't appear to be linked from the main docs section. I just asked in #gentoo-doc about this. I agree that hunting could be difficult, but most of the project (rather than developer-owned) overlays are topical by definition. If I'm looking for a scientific application, it shouldn't take a leap of logic to try the science overlay. Also, eix (a searching tool) includes a searchable package cache of every overlay, generated daily. > 1. Inform users *prominently* that some interesting packages don't live in > the main portage tree (currently, not many users know this). Yep. > Who will decide which packages are first-class citizens and which are not? > What are the criteria? I suggested a few. - Is a developer willing to commit to maintaining it? - Is it expected to be fairly popular, or is it extremely specific? - (for apps already in the tree) Is it unmaintained? Should it be moved to an overlay? Thanks, Donnie -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
