List Archive: gentoo-project
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On 8/1/07, René 'Necoro' Neumann <lists@...> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Hey guys,
> I'd like to discuss a topic that I know much people will use for
> trolling/flaming or similar. If you feel like this - get you a weapon
> and cool down, but please do not answer :)
> I start this discussion as I'm inspired by some posts at drobbin's blog.
> The first thing:
> What is the actual (official) attitude towards Sabayon?
What is this 'official' stuff?
I don't think Gentoo has a body that makes decisions on 'officiality'
and I don't think anyone cares anyway. Some people think Sabayon is
good, others do not. I don't think you will get an 'official
attitude', you will get the attitude of whomever you have asked.
> If it is as I think it is (negative) - why is it like this? Why isn't
> Sabayon treated as an official "child project"? Why is support denied
> for Sabayon Users? - I know that they have a global ~$ARCH and some
> not-so-nice hacks ;), but this shouldn't be a reason, as problems
> related to this shouldn't be the major part...
Sabayon (in my experience) has badly chosen settings in
/etc/make.conf. Those settings by default make the packages in
sabayon unsupported in a typical gentoo environment (ie you are using
gentoo but have those settings, good luck getting support from many
Support in #gentoo is typically denied to sabayon users because in our
experience it's rarely a gentoo problem. It's usually a problem with
the sabayon overlay or build settings. The number of times I've
helped someone for 15 or 20 minutes only to find out they are using
sabayon and not gentoo and holy crap they have this overlay and horrid
build settings. Hey surprise, your packages didn't build. Maybe you
should use sane settings! -> makes me grr ;)
I believe you can always get support for it in the Unsupported Software forum.
So to sum up, we don't support it because it has really bad make.conf
settings (CFLAGS/LDFLAGS). It would be like saying 'we support you
using -ffast-math'. Which is false, we will tell you to rebuild your
system without -ffast-math. If you come to me with a sabayon problem,
I'll tell you to rebuild your system with sane build flags unless you
have good evidence that those flags are not the problem. Most Sabayon
users are not prepared to do that.
> I want just to propose, that the devs should be more open for Sabayon -
> and see it as a source of ideas and software. If lxnay will finish
> Entropy (and it helds what it is supposed ;)) - it will add a feature
> that is often asked for and always declined as "not possible". (And
> there may be other stuff ...)
> Hmm ... I had several other thoughts but forgot them during the day :/.
> So again: Only serious, constructive answers :)
> - -- Nec
> P.S.: Nope - I'm not a Sabayon User :)
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
email@example.com mailing list