| 1 |
On Wednesday 11 August 2004 04:21, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> In that case you can just use Redhat instead. There is no point in |
| 3 |
> customizing our tree to behave like a Redhat release (e.g. what do you |
| 4 |
> do about baselayout, the initsystem, the new webapp-config, ...). |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> This would create a lot of work for us for (IMO) no benefit at all. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The main point is reuse of manpower. Compatibility with commercial software is |
| 9 |
a secondary benefit. Behaving identically is not desirable or practical. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
My main concern is practicality. It isn't much work to create a list of |
| 12 |
essential package versions from another distros stable release and pin them |
| 13 |
in a frozen gentoo release. It is a lot of work to maintain a frozen tree |
| 14 |
that we create ourselves from scratch; please don't underestimate this! |
| 15 |
Everyone is discussing the technicalities of implementing a frozen tree, when |
| 16 |
we should be discussing whether its logistically possible. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Questions: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
How many developers are willing to support a new frozen tree every 6 months |
| 21 |
for their packages? After 12 months you have 3 frozen trees, as well as the |
| 22 |
main portage tree to support. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
There are over 7000 open bugs on bugzilla with the existing tree! How are we |
| 25 |
going to manage and respond to bug reports from all of these frozen tree |
| 26 |
releases? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives