| 1 |
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I've often wondered just how much faster gentoo could move, and how much |
| 3 |
> better we could keep up with upstream, if we weren't so focused on 30+day |
| 4 |
> outdated stab?l3 bumping all the time. All that effort... from my |
| 5 |
> viewpoint going to waste on something that gentoo really isn't going to |
| 6 |
> be that great at anyway, certainly in comparison to other distros which |
| 7 |
> REALLY provide a stab?le service, up to a /decade/ outdated, supporting |
| 8 |
> often trailing edge software, in an effort to slow down progress for |
| 9 |
> people that don't want to move so fast. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I get what you're saying, and I'm going to use a bit of hyperbole so |
| 12 |
don't take this too seriously, but couldn't you just as easily argue |
| 13 |
that Gentoo could go much faster if we actually took advantage of the |
| 14 |
fact that we DO have a stable tree, and stop being so careful about |
| 15 |
not breaking the testing tree? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Honestly, I think both trees represent a pretty decent balance. It is |
| 18 |
pretty safe to run ~arch for the packages you really are interested |
| 19 |
in, and run stable for the stuff that you don't care so much about, |
| 20 |
thus limiting your exposure to problems while getting cutting-edge |
| 21 |
where you care for it. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Most of the concern in this thread has been about some minor archs |
| 24 |
that struggle to keep up. It seems like the simplest solution in |
| 25 |
these cases is to just have them focus on @system packages for the |
| 26 |
stable tree, and let users deal with more breakage outside of that set |
| 27 |
(where it isn't super-disruptive). If you're running a minor arch |
| 28 |
chances are that you're happy to have any support at all, since you |
| 29 |
sure aren't going to be running Ubuntu... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Rich |
Archives