Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@×××.org>
To: Peter Fein <pfein@×××××.com>
Cc: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Several portage trees
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 07:37:42
Message-Id: 20030426070552.GB30561@galen
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Several portage trees by Peter Fein
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 10:10:49AM -0500, Peter Fein wrote:
> > This has been brought up before and I personally do not really like the > > idea too much, i think it makes the distro less reliable as whole if we > > add options like this. People will start using repositories here and > > there and in the end we will get bugreports on ebuilds we never approved > > or even saw (and some ebuilds can have far reaching effects). No, i > > think 'external distributors' should try and go trough the normal > > channels and get their ebuilds Gentoo approved. > > I think a note saying "DON"T DO THIS UNLESS YOU REALLY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE > DOING", as is done elsewhere would suffice. Given the recent volume on > ebuild approval, that's not much of an counter-argument. I agree that > inclusion in Gentoo-proper is a worthy goal - but as a user, not being > restricted to blessed packages should be my choice (and of course, no > one's under any obligation to support any of this to begin with, but > it's worth discussing). Maybe I'm less scared of stability issues > running Gentoo on a home box that could erupt into flames without > causing me much distress, but this should be a matter of choice, rather > than a policy enforced by software. Such a scheme may actually speed up > package acceptance, as it provides a wider test base prior to inclusion.
I'll begin by saying I have some issues with Debian these days. Take my opinions with a Syberian salt mine if you like. I must warn that although Debian's preferred package system (but not its only one) happens to support more than one source for packages, these packages almost all are made by Debian developers or people who would be developers if not for the "internal issues" which have so turned me off from that project. Nearly all of the packages in question are intended to be part of the Debian distribution eventually. Gentoo provides a mechanism for the most common thing non-Debian sources are used for: things which really aren't ready for the average user, even in unstable. If it isn't ready, Gentoo will simply keep it masked. The adventurous will unmask it by hand. The other thing it's used for is for in Debian is a place to put things that Debian will not accept because they're all a bunch of spineless cowards who don't want to risk annoying the media conglomerates and similar. Everything Debian wouldn't take that I've actually wanted is in Gentoo already, so I doubt that will be a big deal. I will say that Debian's size is one of its biggest problems. You just can't make 11,000 packages stable on 12 different architectures for a stable release. It's less of a problem for Gentoo since we're dealing with source here, but it's still significantly difficult. To Gentoo's credit, the portage tree operates already the way Debian's package pool was supposed to work as designed by a few of us Debianites (I was among them) as far back as 1998 or so to cope with Debian's size/stability issues. Five years later, Debian's package pools still don't work the way we specced it. Gentoo's system does. Guess which Linux dist I'm writing this email from? ;) - -- Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@×××.org> Do not write in this space "I've never had major knee surgery on any other part of my body." -- Winston Bennett, University of Kentucky basketball forward -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: 1024D/20F62261F1857A3E79FC44F98FF7D7A3DCF9DAB3 iEYEARECAAYFAj6qL9AACgkQj/fXo9z52rPk1ACfYkm81URuxUxiceraAvHzghp9 OJkAn3K8jRddoRI76PDia1X3Z+oC4+Pk =ngVk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list