On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:26:48PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd & 4th > Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @ > irc.freenode.net) !
Informal request, but it would be useful to get an idea of the councils views on portage overlay compatibility issues. Specifically, when it comes to gentoo repositories, there is one, and only one definition of what that is- pms's repo spec. The problem here is that the only repository truly conformant to that spec is gentoo-x86, for the rest of the repositories (overlays realistically) whatever portage supports seems to be the eventual standard they grow towards. Problem with this is that there is *zero* way to spot these non-pms repositories as it stands. Simplest example, under portage overlays can unmask pkgs globally (gnome overlay reverting masks in gentoo-x86), package.unmask exists/works, package.keywords exists/works, and package.mask can be a directory. I've not traced through the mess of config's __init__ to verify *every* pms noncompliance there, but I'd assume there are definitely a couple more hanging around to blow up in alt managers faces. At the very least I'm after having the non-pms repos marked in some fashion so that alt implementations don't have to assume the portage standard (rather then the *agreed to* pms standard) to avoid exploding, but that's a rather short sighted solution- something is needed long term. Either way, I'd be curious about the councils *informal* opinion on the overlay issue. thanks, ~harring
pgpFTL9Srx0V9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
