Re: [gentoo-dev] Regen2 ( was QA Overlay Layout support )

[Peter Alfredsen]

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 02:32:13 -0500
Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@×××××.com> wrote:

> I'd like to start with, I'm not trying to stir up trouble but since
> questions were asked i'll answer them.
>
> > If you think neither should exist why do you have an opinion about
> > this at all?
>
> I merged the java-overlay into regen2 a couple of weeks ago. as of
> right now I've no plans to support java-experimental.

Then don't. Really.

> I filed a bug on xorg-server
> 1.6.0 not being in tree. It was resolved fixed (in overlay) (which
> another bug clearly states it has amd64 build issues). since when has
> (in overlay) been an acceptable solution to a missing package?


That's pretty much at developer discretion. Please note that we have to
have an actual working distribution, which means that sometimes we use
overlays to make basic QA checks against installed packages (Does it
build? Does it work?). That said, I try to not close bugs before
they've been resolved in-tree precisely because of the reaction that
provoked on bug 260582. I personally like to have my bugs reflect the
state of the tree.

Bugzilla is a tool for developers to track progress, not for
third-party distributions to track progress. You've forked the tree.
That's fine. The license allows that. But it doesn't obligate us to
adapt our tools to fit your purpose. Bugzilla is a strictly
technical tool, so comments on bugs should be kept free of ad hominem
remarks. From all parties.

Your behavior on bug 260582 was clearly unacceptable. You
seem to think that we owe you something. Please re-examine your
premises. Donnie already told you he was working on it. Our job is not
to support your distribution. It is to make the best distro for
ourselves. In the case of xorg-server, that means getting something
into the tree that works. A masked ebuild will in this case be more
bother than it's worth because the mask would have to encompass a
bunch of other packages. Which leads me on to the next paragraph...

> I said it before, the reason I like gentoo* distro's is I don't have
> to find the repository to get the latest package, that's just a pain,
> in ubuntu, in opensuse, in fedora... etc. But no more... officially
> supported huge overlays have ruined this.

Please contact me on IRC. I'll mentor you. It shouldn't be painful for
someone as knowledgeable as you. That way you get to fix most problems
yourself. If you prefer someone else to mentor you, we can probably
arrange that too.

> on the topic of sunrise, I approve of sunrise to a degree. I like the
> non-reviewed half, but once they're reviewed they should be put in
> tree. Isn't it true that some of those packages never get maintainers?

They need maintainers to be maintained in-tree. Sorry, but that's the
deal.

> users don't know how to hack. the very definition of user says that,
> imo. There are developers, admins, and users. admins don't want
> overlays, they are supposed to be unstable. users can't hack, so what
> do they care. the problem is, an overlay has become a repo, I'm not
> sure that it was originally intended for that.

It wasn't. And if an admin has a problem with overlays he can become a
developer. *hint*

There are too many possible packages for the number of developers we
have in Gentoo. But that'll always be the case, probably, no matter how
many developers you pour in. If you have specific grievances, the
recruitment process is the obvious remedy since you seem to have the
time, the ability and the will to adress them.
 
> this does not mean officially supported overlays. You obviously won't
> commit just anything to an officially supported overlay which suggests
> that you don't allow 'mucking around'.

The only thing in Gentoo that's 'officially supported' is the tree.
 
> > Further, overlays are good places to put ebuilds for software that
> > is more experimental than what's expected for ~arch. That includes
> > live ebuilds. In the end, overlays have a (far) lower level of
> > guaranteed quality than the main tree, for their ebuilds
>
> because ~arch is supposed to work? take open bug on wine-1.1.16 it
> doesn't build on amd64 and yet it's ~amd64.

QA fail, amd64 keyword dropped.

> how about that nam ebuild
> that has invalid bash that I mentioned? that's some quality work
> there. The point is the tree is no better or worse than the overlays
> in many cases.

In many cases that's true, but on average, the QA of the tree is much
better than overlays.

> perhaps this is the real problem gentoo's primary way to accept user
> contributions is via overlays. I disagree with the calling of Funtoo
> as one big overlay, it's a replacement tree, and it provides
> everything needed within that tree, as does regen2.

We Need Git. It would really ease the workflow of accepting user
contributions if users could just set up their own overlay and sent me
an email asking to merge their changesets.

> overlays however
> rely on an external tree, and now you've been discussing making them
> rely on other overlays.

Personally, I think that any itch that's scratch-worthy is commendable
but I would personally abstain from the rather elaborate java overlay
setup. Not because it doesn't work, it does to a degree, but because it
keeps potential developers away from Gentoo, instead playing in
sandboxes. And because it's a pain in the neck to keep track of
packages that aren't being used.

> Regen2, is attempting to fix these problems, and more. I do try to get
> my fixes back upstream here, but more often than not the bug
> languishes. I don't think Gentoo is bad, but I do think it's taken a
> wrong turn. But I suppose that these things are problems are simply my
> opinion.

We need to get you recruited. Why haven't you pushed us more? You could
have made thousands of commits already, fixing a substantial amount of
the problems you've raised. I know the perl herd is always in need of
new devs. This isn't a quick fix. You'll have to work with people and
that can sometimes be frustrating. But you'll get to be part of the
development process and you'll get to work with the things you care
about.
 
> I've probably already offended a large share of people on this list,
> now lets see if I can offend a few more by soliciting.

If people can't take a bit of honest criticism, we've become too
thin-skinned.

/loki_val