Re: [gentoo-server] Portage Maintenance

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christian Parpart" <cparpart@×××××××××.net>
To: <gentoo-server@l.g.o>
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-server] Portage Maintenance

On Tuesday 07 September 2004 6:40 pm, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 09:29:18AM -0700 or thereabouts, Mark Rudholm
wrote:
> > What I wanted to do was understand what the problem is.  I can't decide
> > how to respond unless I understand something about the problem first.
> > And if the problem is a shortage of developers, as seems to be the
> > consensus, then I have my answer.  I'd be interested in hearing
> > discussion on how that can be addressed (as a trend, not on an
individual
> > basis), but if we can't get past the "well, you should contribute!"
> > stage, then obviously that discussion can't be had here.
>
> Speaking about ebuild upgrades, specifically, that is a problem that may
> have a different solution.  Previously, I have suggested (in other
> channels) having a fourth tier of ebuilds in the tree (right now, we have
> hard masked, arch masked and stable).  The fourth tier would be "totally
> untested and unsupported" and would/could consist of user-contributed
> ebuilds.  There would/could be a feedback process for these ebuilds and,
> after a certain threshold had been reached, a fourth-tier ebuild could be
> automatically moved into ~arch status.
>
> Now, whenever I bring up this idea, people tend to get too focused on the
> implementation details and refuse to debate the idea as just that, an
idea.
> They want to debate what the threshold would be for automatic inclusion in
> ~arch or what language the script should be written in.  That's generally
> when I get frustrated and move on to other things.
>
> So, I think there is a possibility of some sort of automated process
> whereby users can contribute ebuilds and get them into the tree in *some*
> fashion.  However, it needs someone to take charge and try and get some
> traction around the idea.  Probably also means writing a GLEP, debating
the
> finer points of the implementation, etc.  That person is not me.  If you
> (meaning the collective you) want to take the idea and run with it, please
> feel free.
>
> OK, there's today's random thought.

i watched this thread with much interest and i even wanted to reply a few
times.
it seems to me that the truth is somewhere in the middle. here is how i see
it:

    - if an ebuild is important many users need it so there is a greater
chance someone will contribute it.
if a package is not that popular to be on the todo list of many ebuild
makers, then probably we are waiting for someone to need it strong enough to
take the initiative and build the ebuild for himself (and for the
community). you may be that person. if you decide you are not, you don't
need that ebuild that bad. that is exactly what applies to me :)

    - at first sight, the ideea of a new (and worse) tier of ebuilds seems
appealing. but i think it would be really really a wrong move to make. if an
ebuild is good enough it will make it to one of the other tiers, if it's
not, you probably shouln't use it anyway so why make it available. why not ?
because many beginners will be tempted to use it if they think they need the
package and they will choose the "easy" way and use the "declared bad"
ebuild. and when that will mess things up (and it probably will), who will
be asked to offer support for the problems? yes, the developers. and instead
of focusing on aproving "popular" ebuilds that will help the majority they
will be stuck in the forums with problems that should not happen anyway.

i must say that i am only running gentoo for my servers but believe, when i
need a piece of software for my servers it's there, or there's a better
option for it.
"amateur" developers that don't have write acces to contribute to portage
will continue to post their "home made" ebuilds on the forums and moderators
will notice them. that's how some developers are born i guess.

is there a problem with the portage tree ? maybe. but the question is not
always only "what do we do about it?" but sometimes is this: "is this more
important than other stuff that needs attention?"

to get back on track from the theory, i am asking the author of this thread
a question: what are those packages that were outdated for you? because we
are on gentoo-server mailing list and we may help by aproaching the matter
differently here.

since this is my first post on any of the mailing lists i must apologize for
my english (for this and future messages) and i fell i should also state
that i am very happy with gentoo running on my servers.

radu