Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays

2013-06-29 Thread Thomas Kahle
On 06/12/2013 06:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote: Hello, I'd like to raise another issue I've met again recently. Shortly put, some of our projects are relying too much on their overlays. The net result is that some of their packages in the tree are not well-tested, semi-broken and users end up

Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays

2013-06-16 Thread Alexander V Vershilov
On 16 June 2013 08:08, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote: On 6/12/13 11:51 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: Still seems like working in gentoo-x86 without doing stabilization would cover most of those bases. Working in the unstable main tree is still a lot better than keeping stuff out

Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays

2013-06-16 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 6/16/13 12:36 AM, Alexander V Vershilov wrote: In this is a continuation of a 'gentoo-haskell' sub-thread I have to say that Chromium and co. it not a development library this is a end user application. End user applications should be in tree (except for some testing reasons), if not just

Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays

2013-06-15 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 6/12/13 11:51 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: Still seems like working in gentoo-x86 without doing stabilization would cover most of those bases. Working in the unstable main tree is still a lot better than keeping stuff out there in an overlay, IMO. +1 This works really well for the Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays

2013-06-14 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 06/13/2013 12:56 AM, Alexander V Vershilov wrote: The main reason it isn't is because nobody wants to use CVS. For good examples, see sunrise or gentoo-haskell. As a part of gentoo-haskell team, I'd like to say that CVS issue is not strongest one, there are much more meaningful reasons

Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays

2013-06-13 Thread Dirkjan Ochtman
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Alexander V Vershilov alexander.vershi...@gmail.com wrote: The main point that haskell ecosystem is very breaky and only latest version is supported, so the safest path is to be on a bleeding edge and patch inconsistent applications. So if one package gets

Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays

2013-06-13 Thread René Neumann
Am 13.06.2013 07:44, schrieb Michał Górny: Dnia 2013-06-12, o godz. 13:23:04 Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com napisał(a): We need worse support for overlays, i.e. no. Having to use 3 overlays defeats the purpose of a QA'd tree. Everything in an (official) overlay should be in

Re: TLDR: rant in support of overlays (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays)

2013-06-13 Thread yac
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:31:57 -0700 Greg Turner g...@malth.us wrote: Anyhow, isn't the gentoo-x86 tree already plenty big enough, without every single overlay's ebuilds and eclasses in there too? Personally, I'm inclined to wish it was smaller, even if that meant more stuff was pushed into

[gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays

2013-06-12 Thread Michał Górny
Hello, I'd like to raise another issue I've met again recently. Shortly put, some of our projects are relying too much on their overlays. The net result is that some of their packages in the tree are not well-tested, semi-broken and users end up being hurt by that. The major project where this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays

2013-06-12 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 18:59:48 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 06/12/2013 06:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote: Teams, what are the main reasons for keeping that much stuff in overlays? It's a mix of easier workflow especially for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays

2013-06-12 Thread hasufell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/12/2013 07:02 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 18:59:48 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: On 06/12/2013 06:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote: Teams, what are the main reasons for keeping that much stuff in overlays?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays

2013-06-12 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 19:05:29 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Isn't it more an indication that Gentoo needs better package management support for overlays? No. You make a persuasive argument. I realise now that the Summer of Code

Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays

2013-06-12 Thread hasufell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/12/2013 07:13 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 19:05:29 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Isn't it more an indication that Gentoo needs better package management support for overlays? No. You make a persuasive

Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays

2013-06-12 Thread Michael Orlitzky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/12/2013 01:13 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 19:05:29 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Isn't it more an indication that Gentoo needs better package management support for overlays? No. You make a persuasive

Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays

2013-06-12 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
Am Mittwoch, 12. Juni 2013, 18:59:48 schrieb hasufell: On 06/12/2013 06:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote: Teams, what are the main reasons for keeping that much stuff in overlays? It's a mix of easier workflow especially for contributors and less responsibility/noise in case of bugs. If there

RE: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays

2013-06-12 Thread gmt
-Original Message- From: Michał Górny [mailto:mgo...@gentoo.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 9:51 AM To: Gentoo Developer Mailing List Subject: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays Hello, I'd like to raise another issue I've met again recently. Shortly put

TLDR: rant in support of overlays (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays)

2013-06-12 Thread Greg Turner
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote: On 06/12/2013 01:13 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 19:05:29 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Isn't it more an indication that Gentoo needs better package management support for overlays?

Re: TLDR: rant in support of overlays (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays)

2013-06-12 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 06/12/2013 06:31 PM, Greg Turner wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote: On 06/12/2013 01:13 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 19:05:29 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: Isn't it more an indication that Gentoo needs

Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays

2013-06-12 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: Ah btw how's that git migration coming along? Even though we're drifting here an update is probably due. At this point I'd say we have pretty high confidence that we can accurately migrate the tree. The issues

Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays

2013-06-12 Thread Alexander V Vershilov
The main reason it isn't is because nobody wants to use CVS. For good examples, see sunrise or gentoo-haskell. As a part of gentoo-haskell team, I'd like to say that CVS issue is not strongest one, there are much more meaningful reasons for having much stuff in overlays at least for haskell.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Over-reliance of Gentoo projects on overlays

2013-06-12 Thread Michał Górny
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Dnia 2013-06-12, o godz. 13:23:04 Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com napisał(a): We need worse support for overlays, i.e. no. Having to use 3 overlays defeats the purpose of a QA'd tree. Everything in an (official) overlay should be in