Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Enterprise Future - Summary Attempt #2
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 20:28:49
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Enterprise Future - Summary Attempt #2 by Matthew Marlowe
1 Matthew Marlowe wrote:
3 > 1) enterprise devs form their own mailing list and/or herd and spend the next several
4 > weeks attempting to come up with a consensus on a GLEP that might realistically
5 > address their needs. There is no need for the details to be worked out on the -dev
6 > ml. Once a consensus is reached, it can be proposed and discussed on -dev like
7 > all other GLEPS. Note, that I think this thread can be mined for a rather comprehensive
8 > list of issues that would need to be addressed by the GLEP.
10 This has already happened in the past. We got to a point, and then
11 people lost interest/got busy.
13 > 2) Other devs should probably realize that this isnt a one way street. Enterprise devs
14 > have contributed to many other areas of gentoo and if they are dissatisfied it might impact
15 > other areas of gentoo development. Furthermore, as the gentoo foundation is a rather
16 > cash poor organization, enterprise development might be a way to bring in badly needed
17 > funds without compromising our principles or greatly increasing the overall developer
18 > workload. These issues would have to be addressed by the GLEP, but this isnt an issue
19 > that only impacts enterprise devs.
21 I can't tell you how many times this topic has come up between -dev and
22 -server (at least dozen or so). And EVERY time its come up, everyone
23 decided to put their $0.02 in and so we have 100 different ways to
24 accomplish something. History will repeat itself, it tends to do that.
26 > 3) It might be the consensus that there is no solution here. We should all be willing to face
27 > that and be willing to take the consequences if it is true. Either way, the enterprise support
28 > aspect has been a significant source of confusion and we need to get a clear and fair
29 > resolution determined and communicated to the entire gentoo community within the next
30 > few months.
32 The problem I foresee is that nobody will be able to decide on a final
33 implementation that makes everyone happy. Everyone will want their
34 method to be used and it'll get no where. That's kind of why I think an
35 outside project that has its own set of goals and management will
36 accomplish more of the outcome we need. Sure, we can make another TLPish
37 thing for server, but we'll end up waiting for months while people
38 decide on the GLEP(s) that it may have to achieve to finish it properly.
39 I'd hate to see such an outside project alienate itself from Gentoo,
40 rather they could offer their patches/fixes in return.
42 >From what I can see, Gentoo itself is really moving towards a premiere
43 desktop OS. Most of the goals/ideals for having a desktop ideals are
44 totally different than a server based one. I feel that both sides will
45 have too many conflicting things that will hamper development. By doing
46 an outside project, we can define things in portage/other areas that
47 won't break things for the general gentoo project. They could even
48 'start from scratch' and possibly fix the legacy issues right off. It
49 gives the enterprise group the flexibility of doing whatever they need
50 to do without the backlash of everyone else.
52 Just my thoughts on the whole situation.
54 --
55 Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o>
56 Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager
58 ---
59 GPG Public Key: <>
60 Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742
62 ramereth/


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature