Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's future directtion ?

[Sid S]

>We didn't disband the team because we thought that having a
>team focused on games wasn't a bad idea, but so far nobody else seems
>all that interested so it seems as likely as not that there won't be a
>games team in the future.

Probably a chicken-and-egg thing. I want to play games on my Gentoo, or a
vm hosted by Gentoo, but doing so can be a pain. Is there any reason to
cater to this demographic specifically? Well, no, but making it less hard
would require solving some nontrivial problems others might benefit from.
Which is the purpose of Gentoo, right?

As for Java, I've not encountered any major bugs. This might be why nobody
is talking about Java bugs. If there are any bugs with the introduction of
Java 1.8, again, there's no reason to cater to the demographic that wants
Java 8, but it will likely solve hard problems. Java is something I should
be able to use by accident. It is almost entirely self-contained.

Solving these hard problems is likely to help in other areas. For example,
let me refer to another portion of the conversation below:

>The current Gentoo way is far more limiting, but by having a single
>version of glibc with a single policy around versioning/etc packages
>don't have to micromanage what they depend on.

I actually think this is wrong. The Gentoo way might be limiting in some
respects, but the reality seems to be it is limited by the software it is
working with more than the other way around.

So... what's a better way to do things? NI,SF. Do-autocracy suffers from
the challenging problem of challenging problems being avoided.

>On top of that, this would have to be an issue that has to be handled by
>the software devs.

If only the universe were ebuilds and not turtles.

>Today, ebuilds don't even let a chance for an admin to apply a series of
>patches to the vanilla/distro-maintainer sources without having to
>rewrite/fork the ebuild.

There isn't a way to specify ebuild properties in a way like command line
arguments? Where you can explicitly silence options by specifying them
later, etc?

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 7:12 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote:
> > On 11/24/2014 12:24 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >>> * kickban major assholes from the community, no matter how efficient
> >>> they are
> >>
> >> Proposals welcome.  Hint, things will go much better if you volunteer
> >> to do the work the assholes are doing...  It isn't like we aren't all
> >> tired of this stuff, but if we go booting half the devs then the
> >> distro will basically die.
> >>
> >
> > That's actually an argument FOR my proposal of being more distributed
> > and shrinking the dev community.
> >
> > In such a scenario we would not need 200 "gentoo developers" anymore.
> >
>
> Sure, but my point is that the way to fix this is:
> 1.  Set up new distributed model.
> 2.  Work in the new model successfully for a while.
> 3.  Retire developers who are no longer needed since they won't be
> doing anything anyway.
>
> And not:
> 1.  Stop recruiting new devs.
> 2.  Watch attrition get rid of existing devs.
> 3.  Work on new distributed model that may or may not ever take off.
> 4.  Hope that Gentoo doesn't die in the meantime.
>
> --
> Rich
>
>