1 |
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. posted on Mon, 07 Feb 2011 22:02:36 +0100 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 2/7/11 9:50 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: |
4 |
>> My suggestion, as I said to fosdem, is to freeze, or take a |
5 |
>> snapshot if you like, of the current tree, stabilize what you need to |
6 |
>> stabilize, test the whole tree ( at least compile wise ) for a couple |
7 |
>> of weeks and then replace the existing stable tree. Of course this |
8 |
>> requires automated script testing, hardware facilities etc etc that we |
9 |
>> don't have so claiming that stable tree is "stable" is quite wrong. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> This more thorough testing sounds really interesting. But do we really |
12 |
> lack hardware resources? |
13 |
|
14 |
Disclaimer: I run ~arch (plus choice unmasks/overlays where ~arch is |
15 |
already unsuitably outdated for my tastes), so this doesn't affect me |
16 |
regardless. That said... |
17 |
|
18 |
The above suggestion sounds to me like increasing the bureaucracy and |
19 |
hassle of stabilizing packages even more. We already have trouble with |
20 |
outdated stable, especially on some archs. Do we /really/ want the |
21 |
reputation of competing with Debian-stal^hble for staleness? |
22 |
|
23 |
Every few years someone comes up with the idea of creating a /truly/ |
24 |
stable, aka "enterprise" keyword/branch/whatever. Every few years, it |
25 |
doesn't happen, for both resource and (arguably) philosophical reasons. |
26 |
|
27 |
IMO, that's simply not suitable for or compatible with "mainline" Gentoo |
28 |
and its rolling updates, etc. Yes, it's possible to do it. A lot of |
29 |
things are "possible", but that doesn't mean they're practical. "It's |
30 |
Gentoo, Jim, but not as we know it!" |
31 |
|
32 |
As such, if someone/somegroup does decide to go that route, IMO the best |
33 |
approach would be a separate Gentoo-based distribution, where freezing and |
34 |
testing an entire tree for self-consistency and compatibility makes a bit |
35 |
more sense. There are already a number of Gentoo-based distributions out |
36 |
there. Certainly, talking to them about the problems they face and the |
37 |
solutions they use, if not using one of them directly, could be a good |
38 |
place to start. |
39 |
|
40 |
Similarly, just as Gentoo has never made any bones about not being a hand- |
41 |
holding distribution, in many cases, "you break, you get to keep the |
42 |
pieces" (tho users and devs do try to help and devs do try to prevent, |
43 |
where it's "sane" to do so), and it's not uncommon to see people saying |
44 |
that if the install speed of a binary distribution or the centrally |
45 |
controlled decisions of an Ubuntu are what one is after, Gentoo isn't |
46 |
really where you should be looking, I'd say the same applies, to some |
47 |
degree, here. Yes, we can try to keep stable breakage to a minimum, but |
48 |
on a rolling release system, it's /going/ to happen, and I'd argue that |
49 |
the sort of wholesale freeze-and-test discussed above really /would/ be |
50 |
"Gentoo, Jim, but not as we know it", were it to be implemented as such in |
51 |
Gentoo. That's not what Gentoo is /about/. The rolling updates are so |
52 |
much a part of what makes Gentoo /Gentoo/, that take them out, as |
53 |
wholesale freeze and test would effectively do, and you no longer have |
54 |
Gentoo, at least as historically known. |
55 |
|
56 |
That being the case, why confuse people about both the new product and |
57 |
Gentoo as it currently is, by calling the new product Gentoo at all? If |
58 |
it's effectively a Gentoo-based distribution that isn't itself Gentoo, at |
59 |
least as historically considered, call it a Gentoo based distribution. |
60 |
Don't call it Gentoo, thus avoiding the confusion on both sides. |
61 |
|
62 |
JMHO, but I've been around long enough to have seen this discussion cycle |
63 |
at least twice before... Unfortunately, the result is often the loss of a |
64 |
few devs. OTOH, if their goal is to make Gentoo a wholesale freeze and |
65 |
test distribution, perhaps it's better for both them and Gentoo that such |
66 |
efforts get applied somewhere more appropriate to that goal. |
67 |
|
68 |
OTOH, if some big name comes up with suitable big resources to devote to |
69 |
such a project and they like the Gentoo name, perhaps a Gentoo-Enterprise |
70 |
might indeed be practical. But the resource scaling that's going to |
71 |
require is enough beyond what we're doing today that I'd think seeing |
72 |
someone step up with an offer of such resources before we start seriously |
73 |
discussing it, is a worthwhile prerequisite. And even then, making Gentoo |
74 |
that dependent on that sort of major sponsorship, regardless of who or |
75 |
what form, would change the historically "community distribution" aspect |
76 |
substantially enough that arguably, that would be "Gentoo, Jim, but not as |
77 |
we know it", as well. But at that point I guess it'd be a question for |
78 |
the Gentoo foundation to decide, since they own the name and decide |
79 |
permissions for it in that regard. |
80 |
|
81 |
-- |
82 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
83 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
84 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |