Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: George Shapovalov <george@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Several portage trees
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:02:59
Message-Id: 200304251202.05273.george@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Several portage trees by Peter Fein
On Friday 25 April 2003 08:10, Peter Fein wrote:
> > > I was wondering about having several portage trees to allow external > > > distributor having repositories of packages. > 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.
While I agree that providing the option for users to easily get a hold on "unapproved" ebuilds is nice and goes along the lines of gentoo phylosophy (to allow user break his system as he wishes ;), provided the usual disclamer) I do not think separate branch is an answer or even a good idea at all. Granted, debian and pretty much every large binary distribution have brancesh, but bear in mind that they are exactly this: binary distribution. We are talking about much stricter (and in that respect contradicting) goals and central amintaince of these branches. Now, because of higher flexibility central maintaince is not really an option in our case and actually goes completely against the purpose of this proposed branch... (I personally don't thunk we need branches even for specialized stuff. We have a very flexible mechanism - profiles - in place that allows to form a very specialized distribution off the general tree) So, lets talk about user-land. If you are talking about this seriously, you should consider the amount of ebuilds you will have to sotre and process and what work is involved and what kind of "service" are you going to provide. My estimate is that you can easily get 500+ ebuilds if you just go through bugzilla (I just quickly searched for "new" in the subject) and eventually the number will hit the range of thousands. So, do you want to just pile them all up in a loooong list? You will have to do some kind of processing and arrangement on all these ebuilds. Lets see: Joe User wants to see what's available in this "freaky" stuff he heard so much about on some topic. I can imagine him going like that: "Oh, there was some noise recently on creating that freaky-branch, should be cool to see what's in there. What? Its like 1000+ ebuilds there, how am I going to make sence of it ever. Did these guys set-up a search engine yet? Fortunately they did (because it's been half a year into this project already :)). Well, I found some stuff, I'ts good they also copied all the bugzilla correspondence here, so that I can have some idea on what's the status of this ebuild! But wait, I remember somebody announcing a really neat thing few weeks ago on -dev, why don't I see it here. How can some people be so inconsiderable as not to use this freaky-branch stuff? Sure I know its in bugzilla, but it is sooo boring to go there and search, even though not any harder..." Sorry for this improvisation, too much imagination I guess :). Anyway, my point is, if you want to make this even remotely usefull you will have to provide quite a bit of service other than just piling ebuilds up on some page. What's more, I think it is quite essentiall to provide a possibility of feedback and appropriate ebuild tagging (unless you want to test all these ebuilds for stability and correctness yourelf, but in this case I will start quietly pointing that rectuiters address to you ;)). And somehow all this reminds me of bugs.gentoo.org already ;). As you can see I have strong feelings about this type of branching, I hope this serves as an explanation. I apologise to anybody who thinks I was too harsh in this comment. So, what instead? Can I point you and everybody interested in the direction of #1523 again ;)? Sure, that bug is lengthy and quite involved, so not many people actually get through. However I do not see any easy way to go about it. Yes, it *is* complex, just what I tried to briefly illustrate and I did not even mention any security considerations (without which it's not gonna be approved by majority of developers), and possible and IMHO quite required automation.. Yes, that bug was around for like ages already. But if you read it carefully you will realise, that some major infrastracture changes have already taken place (most of that was written when there were no KEYWORDS and gentoo-stable/stats for example). We are undergoing another infrastructure rewamp atm and as soon as it gets near completion I will start updating that bug again (it doesn't make sence to do so before some organizational issues are finalized). On a final note I just want to solicit some patience and faith in developers. We do acknowledge the problem and we are trying to address it. Don't forget that we are talking about core infrastructure changes here and it always takes time, especially if we want to stay alive during them :). Post final note :). As always, discussion and contributions in other forms are wellcome! George -- gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Several portage trees Peter Fein <pfein@×××××.com>