1 |
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:29:44 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Tuesday 13 June 2006 16:17, Peter wrote: |
4 |
>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:17:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
5 |
>> > | Care to elaborate? The wise, all-knowing Zen argument isn't | |
6 |
>> > |
7 |
>> > particularly helpful.... |
8 |
>> > |
9 |
>> > It's perfect proof that there are users that are utterly clueless |
10 |
>> > about what is best for their system, and utterly clueless about how |
11 |
>> > using third party software can cause problems for other software. |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>> It's no such proof. Anyone who rolls a kernel, takes the time to learn |
14 |
>> what it entails, understands what he/she is intending to do, knows the |
15 |
>> ramifications of those actions. Gentoo users, in particular, by virtue |
16 |
>> of the fact that this is a source-based distro, have to be accorded a |
17 |
>> slightly higher level of respect and regard. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> you clearly have never heard of love/nitro sources and all the fun we |
20 |
> went through back when they were being "actively maintained" |
21 |
> |
22 |
Actually, I have. I never wanted to use them because, as with the -mm |
23 |
sources, they were using stuff not based on the current kernel, but future |
24 |
enhancements which may or may not make it to the kernel. As for gentoo's |
25 |
experience with those versions, I am not familiar. Before my time here. |
26 |
But -mm lives in the tree and so does -ck (and I know dsd is _thrilled_ |
27 |
having them there :)). |
28 |
|
29 |
> being able to download patchsets from the internet, touchup a few lines |
30 |
> so they apply without rejects, and releasing the result to the rest of |
31 |
> the world deserves no respect/regard ... you've proven you have skills |
32 |
> at: |
33 |
> - wget |
34 |
> - patch |
35 |
> - an editor |
36 |
> - tar |
37 |
> |
38 |
> the respect/regard comes when the compiled kernel *actually performs* |
39 |
> -mike |
40 |
|
41 |
I respect your opinion. But, does that mean e17 should be removed, because |
42 |
it really has a lot of problems (like its file manager), or all it's |
43 |
libraries? How about wine? Just because a project may entail risk, should |
44 |
not eliminate it from being considered for inclusion in the tree OR in an |
45 |
overlay. |
46 |
|
47 |
Anyone can write an ebuild which is different from being able to code an |
48 |
application. That's obvious. Providing ebuilds is not at all the same in |
49 |
terms of scope, difficulty or even talent level. I am sure there are many |
50 |
sucky applications in the tree. But, the purpose of providing ebuilds is |
51 |
to provide more choice. If you like e17, even though it really is half |
52 |
functional, and I like e16, which also has some, but not as many issues, |
53 |
is Gentoo wrong to provide e17 as a choice along with e16? |
54 |
|
55 |
If a user downloads a hardened kernel and installs it, and wonders why |
56 |
some things which used to work fine no longer do, is that the fault of the |
57 |
ebuild provider? The fault of the people who did the patches? The fault |
58 |
of Gentoo? No. Same with sellinux. People can get just as messed up with |
59 |
those, as they could with -mm or -ck or -beyond. If someone wants to try |
60 |
reiser4 and wonder why their hard disk resembles a Picasso painting, is |
61 |
that the fault of the ebuild's providers? |
62 |
|
63 |
And, yes, I showed my "limited" skills in downloading and applying |
64 |
patches for the beyond sources. But, I also applied most of the |
65 |
gentoo-base and extra patches to beyond as well (if you reviewed the |
66 |
ebuild). And, you know what? It benchmarks better than all but -ck. I have |
67 |
not had a crash due to the kernel in two weeks and, it even runs VMWare |
68 |
which the author (iphitus) wasn't even sure it would do! This was reported |
69 |
upstream. |
70 |
|
71 |
JM2C |
72 |
|
73 |
-- |
74 |
Peter |
75 |
|
76 |
|
77 |
-- |
78 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |