On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 09:43:01AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > It's no more or less supported than anything else on > overlays.gentoo.org. The word "overlays" ought to be enough. I suppose > you oppose the whole concept, anyhow?
No, I am certainly not opposed to overlays in general. I even maintain my own public overlay of packages I work on in portage, an overlay I consider moving to overlays.g.o when I have more time. However, as has been pointed out several times in this thread already, back when the devloper community agreed to the overlays project it was also agreed that projects similar to what is now known as Project Sunrise was not be present on overlays.gentoo.org. I believe this was why many developers agreed to having the overlays project in the first place. The idea was to have a central repository for the team and developer specific overlays that already are available on e.g. dev.gentoo.org. Overlays that are far more limited in contents and where the ebuilds are written and reviewed by people who actually know the packages in question. Instead of following this consensus, the people behind Project Sunrise choose to ignore this and went ahead and implemented the project - without even presenting the idea to the developer community before announcing it's presence to the world; perhaps thinking it would be easier to get pardon than permission. As I see it we have already agreed that an overlay of this type should not be hosted on the overlays project back when the overlays project was agreed upon. Yet a small number of developers ignored this and implemented it anyhow behind the back of the rest of the developers, disregarding their public stated oppinion. As this is a project that has the potential of affecting the entire project I find this very problematic. Regards, Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd
pgpml7nyTSUpF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
