lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote: > Adding "@overlay" atoms/deps postfix support could really make life > easier, especially because forcing specific atoms in *DEPEND hoping > that these will be always pulled in from the same overlay is not > something reliable, as you already know.
No. This is a terrible idea. The solution is to *fix the overlays*, not force the user to intervene and fix things himself. Conflicting overlay issues turn up on the Gentoo forums (check Unsupported Software), and in pretty much all cases, once the maintainer(s) of the overlay(s) are contacted about the issue, the overlays are quickly fixed so that the next update sorts out the user's tree. Users should *not *have to take steps to fix overlay blocks and breaks ahead of time; that should be the overlay maintainer's job, not the poor end user. > Comments are welcome, flames are not. On that note, I'd like to offer a friendly word of caution, in the interests of us all talking together and working through the ideas presented in your threads. In your last visit to our mailing list (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/55180), you stated that you'd like to make some sweeping changes to Gentoo, then you started telling the developers why they all sucked ahead of time for not implementing said ideas. And then you kept telling developers that they sucked throughout the rest of the replies. You expressed unwillingness to work with Gentoo developers through our admittedly long recruitment process, instead wanting to push your changes to our tree directly. There wasn't very much accomplished on either side at the end of that debacle, except some hurt feelings. It seems that the discussions you're having in the binary packages and overlay threads are already heading the same direction, and I for one don't want that to happen. Telling people they're not allowed to express disagreement is counterproductive.[1][2] [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/61555/focus=61568 [2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/61530/focus=61560 So, folks, just take it easy. We don't have to accept every suggestion offered to the list, nor do we have to reject it out of hand. Thanks.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
