Mailing List Archive

On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 02:42 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have founded a new Gentoo Project for the Gentoo User Overlay.
>
> The intention is to give contributors a single place to put their ebuilds -
> a place where they can be downloaded, updated and be moved to portage more
> easily than through bugzilla. It is also a good place for users who would
> like to become developers to learn how to commit and how to not break the
> tree.

We already *have* a single place. It is bugzilla.

Wasn't it decided that we would *not* end up with some giant overlay
that houses all of the non-tree stuff before the overlays project was
brought into being? Does this not completely fly in the face of that?

> You can find the project page as a subproject of the overlays project [1]
>
> The overlay is available on overlays.gentoo.org [2]
>
> Initially jokey and myself will be working on this. The current focus is to
> migrate ebuilds from bugzilla into the overlay and to get contributors to
> commit their changes to the overlay instead of updating the bugzilla every
> time.

Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this change is a direct
change in games team policy without any prior notice to the games team
and without our permission.

> Anyone who wants to help, please stop by in #gentoo-overlays @ freenode
>
> [1] http://gentoo.org/proj/en/overlays/sunrise
> [2] http://overlays.gentoo.org/svn/proj/sunrise
>
> - Stefan
>
> PS: This is an announcement - No flamewars allowed

Perhaps you should have discussed this before going and making an
assumption for the entire developer pool.

The idea itself isn't so bad as the fact that you've now essentially
taken it upon yourself to decide how *every single one of us* is going
to accept ebuilds from now on without any form of discussion.

--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this change is a direct
> change in games team policy without any prior notice to the games team
> and without our permission.

No one needs permission to put ebuilds from bugs.gentoo.org into an
overylay. The ebuilds, assuming they have the proper header, are all
"Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2".

~tcort

On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:32 -0400, Thomas Cort wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0400
> Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this change is a direct
> > change in games team policy without any prior notice to the games team
> > and without our permission.
>
> No one needs permission to put ebuilds from bugs.gentoo.org into an
> overylay. The ebuilds, assuming they have the proper header, are all
> "Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2".

I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with me making a request for
games ebuilds to not be included?

I really don't care if the games ebuilds are in the overlay, so long as
the latest ebuilds are *also* in bugzilla, where they belong. Of
course, it makes it rather pointless to have to update an ebuild in two
locations, but we already *have* an official location for ebuild
submissions, and that is bugzilla.

Having to troll through some overlay only increases our work load.

--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

On Thursday 08 June 2006 15:46, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Having to troll through some overlay only increases our work load.
+1 for chris

--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

> Having to troll through some overlay only increases our work load.
>

That and it would become an an official Gentoo BMG-style repo. Please,
let us not officially encourage the ricers. Some of us work very hard
to discourage this type of user behavior.

-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:32:13AM -0400, Thomas Cort wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0400
> Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this change is a direct
> > change in games team policy without any prior notice to the games team
> > and without our permission.
>
> No one needs permission to put ebuilds from bugs.gentoo.org into an
> overylay. The ebuilds, assuming they have the proper header, are all
> "Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2".
>
> ~tcort

I do not object to the concept of ebuilds in overlays.

I do very much object to using any gentoo.org infrastructure or
subdomains to do so. If someone is going to tackle that, it should be
done outside of Gentoo proper. We don't need to be stuck maintaining and
supporting a semiofficial overlay.


--
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Thursday 08 June 2006 02:42, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Initially jokey and myself will be working on this. The current focus is to
> migrate ebuilds from bugzilla into the overlay and to get contributors to
> commit their changes to the overlay instead of updating the bugzilla every
> time.

Can't agree with that. Users should a) post their ebuilds at bugzilla, since
it is the place, we track request and b) get them from there, forced to
maintain their own overlay (and actually look at each ebuild), than trust
some arbitrary overlay, that is neither supported security wise, nor is
ensured that the ebuilds have a minimal quality (do not fubar a users
system).

Overlays make sense to perform changes how a whole range of packages are
handled, to be merged with the official Portage tree, later.

What you intend to do is just broken. Don't!


Carsten

Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:32:13AM -0400, Thomas Cort wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0400
>>Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this change is a direct
>>>change in games team policy without any prior notice to the games team
>>>and without our permission.
>>
>>No one needs permission to put ebuilds from bugs.gentoo.org into an
>>overylay. The ebuilds, assuming they have the proper header, are all
>>"Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2".
>>
>>~tcort
>
>
> I do not object to the concept of ebuilds in overlays.
>
> I do very much object to using any gentoo.org infrastructure or
> subdomains to do so. If someone is going to tackle that, it should be
> done outside of Gentoo proper. We don't need to be stuck maintaining and
> supporting a semiofficial overlay.
>

It is my understanding the the Sunrise overlay is not open to "anyone to
commit", so it is not a contrib/ The sunrise project is the owner of
the overlay and they are responsible for it's contents. The people
commiting are responsible for what they commit. The point of the
Sunrise project as I understand it is to aid in the development of
ebuilds in maintainer-wanted, such that they may improve and be added to
the tree; as well as to give frequent 'not quite a dev' and 'I don't
have a bunch of time but would like to help' people a place to commit to.

-Alec
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 11:12 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> It is my understanding the the Sunrise overlay is not open to "anyone to
> commit", so it is not a contrib/ The sunrise project is the owner of
> the overlay and they are responsible for it's contents. The people
> commiting are responsible for what they commit. The point of the
> Sunrise project as I understand it is to aid in the development of
> ebuilds in maintainer-wanted, such that they may improve and be added to
> the tree; as well as to give frequent 'not quite a dev' and 'I don't
> have a bunch of time but would like to help' people a place to commit to.

I don't think the problem with maintainer-wanted ebuilds is that they
are crappy, but that there is no dev willing to maintain them and ensure
their quality over time. 'sunrise' (who came up with that name ? cheap
asian poetry attempt) doesn't change that by adding it to an 'official'
overlay.

Instead of tackling the real problem -the lack of maintainers to deal
with all requests- 'sunrise' is trying to create a backdoor for
unreliable maintained stuff to enter the tree.

- foser

On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 11:12 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> It is my understanding the the Sunrise overlay is not open to "anyone to
> commit", so it is not a contrib/ The sunrise project is the owner of
> the overlay and they are responsible for it's contents. The people
> commiting are responsible for what they commit. The point of the
> Sunrise project as I understand it is to aid in the development of
> ebuilds in maintainer-wanted, such that they may improve and be added to
> the tree; as well as to give frequent 'not quite a dev' and 'I don't
> have a bunch of time but would like to help' people a place to commit to.

Ehh... except there's *already* ebuilds that are *not* under
maintainer-wanted in the overlay.

It also doesn't answer the questions of security and maintenance. Are
genstef and jokey going to be responsible for the security of every
single package in the overlay? Are they going to be responsible for
ensuring that the packages adhere to current ebuild standards? How are
ebuilds going to get from this overlay into the official repository?

Not a single one of these questions has been answered, yet many
perfectly valid objections have been brought up by a few developers,
with no answers being given.

--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

Stefan Schweizer wrote:

> Please do not comment on this if you have no real improvements to make and
> just fell like commenting, "flaming" it.

Please stop ending every reply by ignoring the real issues and claiming
its just people 'flaming'. If you honestly think that every person that
replies against your idea is flaming then you need to open your eyes up
and see the valid concerns they have (which I agree most on).

I'm not at all impressed by your answers for all the questions brought
up thus far. Please be more detailed in the reasoning and follow through
on questions. Ignoring them will only make the project less credible. I
do not support such tactics on infra if this is certainly the case.

Cheers-

--
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 17:29 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Jon Portnoy wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:32:13AM -0400, Thomas Cort wrote:
> >> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0400
> >> Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> > Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this change is a direct
> >> > change in games team policy without any prior notice to the games team
> >> > and without our permission.
>
> We have good instructions on our trac wiki page[1] for how to work with the
> overlay. The bottom of the page, point 6) adresses your problem.

Not really. You've taken what was a simple and open way of addressing
ebuild requests, and turned it into a closed forum. With a bug, anyone
with a bugzilla account can *contribute* anything that they want, and it
is all peer-reviewed. With this overlay, only people that are given
access will be allowed to contribute anything. Also, who is going to
control access to this resource? Why *is* there access controls? I
know that I'm going to hear "security" as a response, but it is a false
one. We already had a completely open resource where any of our users
can contribute any ebuilds that they want. You've created a more
restrictive and less useful version of this and increased the workload
on any developers whose packages are affected, such as the games team
with the inclusion of xmoto, which has been rejected in its current
state, and knights, which is currently in the tree *and* maintained.

> > I do not object to the concept of ebuilds in overlays.
> >
> > I do very much object to using any gentoo.org infrastructure or
> > subdomains to do so. If someone is going to tackle that, it should be
> > done outside of Gentoo proper. We don't need to be stuck maintaining and
> > supporting a semiofficial overlay.
>
> This is a problem, that we are working on, see [2]
> It is obvioous to see if an ebuild comes from an overlay or not with that
> change. Due to the good metastructure and project support in gentoo it is
> possible to have most of the overlay-work done in the projects [3] and [4]
>
> [1] http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/sunrise
> [2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/136031
> [PATCH] Display a warning when an overlay-ebuild fails
> [3] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/overlays
> [4] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/overlays/sunrise
>
> I am still against the idea of turning this into a flamewar. Better no
> comments than flaming comments. Please - keep it constructive.

Nobody has turned this into a flame war. We are trying to provide
constructive comments. Just because a comment points out ways why this
is a bad idea doesn't make it a flame.

The only thing that bothers me is the fact that this was done and is
something that was explicitly stated would not happen with the overlays
project. We now have a semi-official secondary repository, run by a
small group of developers, allowed to touch *any* package in the tree
however they see fit, whether it goes against the policies of the
package's maintainers or not. I'm sorry, but this is not in the spirit
of cooperation and working together so much as it is in the spirit of
doing what you want, policies be damned.

Were this limited *solely* to packages that need maintainers, I would
have less of a problem than it being used, as it is currently, to
explicitly work outside of the policies of established projects. As I
stated several times to you now when you brought up the idea of a games
overlay just so you could maintain packages how you wanted, you're more
than willing to keep packages that belong under the games herd in a
personal *developer* overlay. However, what you've done here is said
that you're more important than the established practices of another
project, and blatantly disregarded their policies, establishing a
"project" that gives you free reign to do whatever you wish.

Does anyone else see this as a problem?

--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 10:13:45AM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> That and it would become an an official Gentoo BMG-style repo. Please,
> let us not officially encourage the ricers. Some of us work very hard
> to discourage this type of user behavior.

I wholeheartedly agree with Stephen on this.

You should have brought up the idea for the Sunricers project on this
mailing for discussion instead of just going ahead and implementing
it.

Personally, I dislike the idea of having officially supported (read:
hosted on *.gentoo.org infrastructure) overlays for unmaintained
ebuilds for which nobody did any real quality assurance. I fear this
will drag Gentoo back into the old-ages of having a reputation of a
ricer-distribution; a reputation I for one have worked very hard to
get rid of during the past 2 years.

Please put this project on hold until is has been discussed properly
on this mailing list.

Regards,
Brix
--
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd

On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 17:45 +0200, foser wrote:
> Instead of tackling the real problem -the lack of maintainers to deal
> with all requests- 'sunrise' is trying to create a backdoor for
> unreliable maintained stuff to enter the tree.

Don't forget the free reign it gives to the sunrise development team to
bypass any policies in place by the teams responsible for packages that
are already in the tree.

--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 18:04 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Please do not comment on this if you have no real improvements to make and
> just fell like commenting, "flaming" it.

No. A flame is being insulting to someone. Pointing out problems with
an idea is not flaming. Please quit trying to use this term to stifle
any comments from anyone that thinks this idea is not good, and has
valid points why they think so.

--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Thursday 08 June 2006 02:42, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
>> Initially jokey and myself will be working on this. The current focus is to
>> migrate ebuilds from bugzilla into the overlay and to get contributors to
>> commit their changes to the overlay instead of updating the bugzilla every
>> time.
>
> Can't agree with that. Users should a) post their ebuilds at bugzilla, since
> it is the place, we track request and b) get them from there, forced to
> maintain their own overlay (and actually look at each ebuild), than trust
> some arbitrary overlay, that is neither supported security wise, nor is
> ensured that the ebuilds have a minimal quality (do not fubar a users
> system).
>
> Overlays make sense to perform changes how a whole range of packages are
> handled, to be merged with the official Portage tree, later.

Agreed. While this is in theory an excellent idea, it won't help right now. In
my opinion, what we really need is for some community members to step up and
create "the world's <lauditory adjective> Gentoo-ebuild-related "clearinghouse",
better than BMG etc., that could be used as a better means of submitting ebuilds
to bugzie. That way there's much more outside testing and widespread use before
(hopefully) very high quality ebuilds and/or overlays are submitted to bugzilla
for official Gentoo review.

So the workload on the Gentoo devs would be greatly reduced, instead of having
to (now) police ebuilds in at least two different locations. Overlays are a pain
to manage as it is. I understand that Sunrise is trying to solve the central
problem of maintainers, but right now it sounds like it's doing it in a very
roundabout, ineffective manner.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEiFKFrsJQqN81j74RAu9XAKCOuXMRWIKQqlVXpAzA9s2DvGA03QCfaGjp
f2zhH9DNu9dLONvnh1ACtK4=
=kuou
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Peter wrote:
> Nonetheless, the bug is active, with a good number of people subscribing
> to it and contributing to it. The sunshine overlay would be an ideal place
> to store a kernel source tree or any project which would never find a home
> in portage.

Pardon me if I'm totally confused, but isn't this what BMG is for?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On 08/06/06, foser <foser@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I don't think the problem with maintainer-wanted ebuilds is that they
> are crappy, but that there is no dev willing to maintain them and ensure
> their quality over time. 'sunrise' (who came up with that name ? cheap
> asian poetry attempt) doesn't change that by adding it to an 'official'
> overlay.

One of the problems is that developer interest is transitory. The
current system suggests that a developer take personal responsibility
for ebuilds they maintain, and they maintain them until another
developer steps up. It would be nice (and I guess this is one of the
aims of sunrise) if there were a way for people to contribute ebuilds
that they are interested in at the time, but don't want to promise to
maintain forever. Think about wikipedia - how many pages would there
be if every page creator had to guarantee that they would maintain
each page indefinately?

The time it takes to actually apply fixes etc. is another point.
Bugzilla is a poor system for sharing and managing the flow of
ebuilds and patches. It would be nice if there were a way for non-devs
to publish ebuilds/fixes using a VCS so that they could be shared and
easily pulled and applied to the main tree. It takes too long to
browse bugzilla, find bugs, find ebuilds and patches, download them,
copy to an overlay, fix digests, emerge, etc. and most users will
figure it's not worth the hassle.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:

> Personally, I dislike the idea of having officially supported (read:
> hosted on *.gentoo.org infrastructure) overlays for unmaintained
> ebuilds for which nobody did any real quality assurance. I fear this
> will drag Gentoo back into the old-ages of having a reputation of a
> ricer-distribution; a reputation I for one have worked very hard to
> get rid of during the past 2 years.

I agree here.

When I decided to help out the overlays project, I thought I had made it
clear that I didn't want to support a BMG-style repo on official
hardware. It was for things like php, perl, etc that had their own
overlay and were actively working out specific issues for their project.
What you're proposing goes against what I supported initially.

There was a lengthy discussion about this months ago, but apparently
this group decided to ignore all the points in it and just go with this
without consulting the group first. If you can't sort out the issues
that have been brought out here, I'm afraid I'm going to have to decline
my support on infra hardware for this specific project (but not the
other overlays so people don't have a fit :-) ).

--
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

Stefan Schweizer wrote: [Wed Jun 07 2006, 07:42:03PM CDT]
> Initially jokey and myself will be working on this. The current focus is to
> migrate ebuilds from bugzilla into the overlay and to get contributors to
> commit their changes to the overlay instead of updating the bugzilla every
> time.

I'm not opposed to what would essentially be an overlay of
maintainier-wanted ebuilds, but I would actually prefer to see that
happen by pulling from the bugzilla database instead of trying to
replace bugzilla altogether. My reasoning is that bugzilla provides a
place for community development of an ebuild (including commentary!),
which would not be true of just the overlay. If one were instead to add
a magical bugs whiteboard status or keyword that let a script know that
there's an ebuild to pull from bugzilla that should be added to the
there-be-dragons-here overlay, I'd think that would make life
much simpler for everybody.

-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

On 08/06/06, Jon Portnoy <avenj@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I do very much object to using any gentoo.org infrastructure or
> subdomains to do so. If someone is going to tackle that, it should be
> done outside of Gentoo proper. We don't need to be stuck maintaining and
> supporting a semiofficial overlay.

There are already loads of semi-official overlays. Besides the stuff
actually hosted by gentoo (random example
http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/bzr/overlay/) there are official
groups (again, not picking on anyone but exampes would be java, php,
webapps...) with semi-official overlays. I don't know if the overlays
are actually hosted on gentoo hardware, but when they're run by gentoo
devs, publically available, and referred to in forums, bugzilla,
mailing lists etc. then that at least makes them "semi-official".
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Thursday 08 June 2006 18:59, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> Besides the stuff
> actually hosted by gentoo (random example
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/bzr/overlay/)
That is now actually moved on my own box :) This is going away soon as I have
time to replace it with a fake overlay telling to use the GIT repo.

--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On 08/06/06, Jon Portnoy <avenj@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> I do very much object to using any gentoo.org infrastructure or
>> subdomains to do so. If someone is going to tackle that, it should be
>> done outside of Gentoo proper. We don't need to be stuck maintaining and
>> supporting a semiofficial overlay.
>
> There are already loads of semi-official overlays. Besides the stuff
> actually hosted by gentoo (random example
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/bzr/overlay/) there are official
> groups (again, not picking on anyone but exampes would be java, php,
> webapps...) with semi-official overlays. I don't know if the overlays
> are actually hosted on gentoo hardware, but when they're run by gentoo
> devs, publically available, and referred to in forums, bugzilla,
> mailing lists etc. then that at least makes them "semi-official".

These overlays are completely controlled by Gentoo developers, which is
what the overlays.gentoo.org was going to be, simply a single location
for all these developer controlled overlays. This project is an overlay
(un)controlled by random users, with no quality checks or any standards
of any kind. This is fine for non-gentoo hosted stuff (like BMG), but
hosting stuff like this on *.gentoo.org, and not having the use go
through hoops to use it is probably not a good idea from either a
security or QA standpoint.

Currently 3rd party ebuilds can live in bugzilla, and the use must
create their own overlay, and generate their own digests to use them.
Making a user put this extra work into encourages users to be more
careful, and hopefully look stuff over before using it. It also
reinforces that the package is _unsupported_, hence discouraging them
from filing any new bugs.

Having a "semi-official" overlay where users can contribute ebuilds will
open possible security problems (malicious commits) as well as be a
QA/bug triaging nightmare as developers will have to figure out whether
the ebuild the user is using came from the "official" overlay or the
official tree.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Stefan Schweizer wrote: [Wed Jun 07 2006, 07:42:03PM CDT]
>
>>Initially jokey and myself will be working on this. The current focus is to
>>migrate ebuilds from bugzilla into the overlay and to get contributors to
>>commit their changes to the overlay instead of updating the bugzilla every
>>time.
>
>
> I'm not opposed to what would essentially be an overlay of
> maintainier-wanted ebuilds, but I would actually prefer to see that
> happen by pulling from the bugzilla database instead of trying to
> replace bugzilla altogether. My reasoning is that bugzilla provides a
> place for community development of an ebuild (including commentary!),
> which would not be true of just the overlay. If one were instead to add
> a magical bugs whiteboard status or keyword that let a script know that
> there's an ebuild to pull from bugzilla that should be added to the
> there-be-dragons-here overlay, I'd think that would make life
> much simpler for everybody.
>
> -g2boojum-

FYI I've been tinkering with something similar using gentoo-bugger, but
I haven't had time to work on it recently.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list