| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Thilo Bangert wrote: |
| 5 |
> Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o> said: |
| 6 |
>> AllenJB wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> All that's going to happen is Gentoo will have many many buggy and |
| 8 |
>>> out of date packages in the MAIN TREE. Exactly where they shouldn't |
| 9 |
>>> be. You claim quality won't be sacrificed, but I simply can't see |
| 10 |
>>> this without any attempt to solve the manpower issues first. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> Isn't the purpose of this project already somewhat covered by |
| 13 |
>>> Sunrise? |
| 14 |
>> I have to agree with your points. We need to have quality standards |
| 15 |
>> for packages. Currently we have a couple of tiers: |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> 1. Main tree - every ebuild has an official maintainer and gets prompt |
| 18 |
>> security updates/etc. New features might get a little more stale, but |
| 19 |
>> you aren't going to be running at risk if you only use the main tree |
| 20 |
>> and routinely emerge -u world. If a package falls behind on security |
| 21 |
>> it gets masked and booted. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> 2. Overlays - you're on your own and at the general mercy of the |
| 24 |
>> overlay maintainer. |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> 3. Sunrise (just a special case of an overlay) - somewhere in-between. |
| 27 |
>> Again, you have to opt-in. |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> AFAIK, we have never explicitly made this distinction clear. if we had, we |
| 31 |
> would have to remove stuff from portage which doesnt live up to the |
| 32 |
> standards. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
We should try to work with the maintainers of those packages to improve things. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> it is also not true from a more real world perspective: there are many |
| 37 |
> packages in portage that have a standard which is much lower than what is |
| 38 |
> in some overlays. and there are many packages in overlays which live up to |
| 39 |
> a quality standard way above portage's average. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
This is probably true, but without knowing which is which we can't do much about |
| 42 |
it. Even if we did know, that still doesn't mean packages could be moved from |
| 43 |
overlays to main tree, as they would instantly become unmaintained. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> if you want to exaggerate a bit, we have roughly 500 ebuilds in portage |
| 46 |
> which are maintainer-needed and have only a few users and thats why you |
| 47 |
> want to keep popular packages out of the tree? |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
If packages are popular enough someone will care enough to add and maintain them. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> its weird, how this whole thing started with wanting to accomodate our |
| 52 |
> users better and then other people come around and argue against it in |
| 53 |
> order to protect our users... |
| 54 |
> user who want protection run stable arch! |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Perhaps there are pros and cons to actually doing this, like with most things. |
| 57 |
It seems like some are arguing that the value of having more ebuilds outweighs |
| 58 |
the bad of having more less-maintained ebuilds. Others may feel differently. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
> given the current state of the tree, its hypocritical to be against this |
| 61 |
> proposal, IMHO. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
See above. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
> however, one could try to implement the above quality standards, possibly |
| 66 |
> by splitting up the tree. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
Overlays are effectively a splitting of the tree, so we are already there. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
> this issue, as well as some others very similar to this one, have come up |
| 71 |
> many times before. I suggest we do something about it... (splitting the |
| 72 |
> tree or moving more stuff wholesale into portage and have a better rating |
| 73 |
> system... whatever) |
| 74 |
> |
| 75 |
> Fedora is a much more current distribution than Gentoo - and has been for |
| 76 |
> a couple of years... |
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
Please elaborate what exactly you think Fedora does better than we do. I have no |
| 79 |
first-hand experience with Fedora, but from what I read I had the impression |
| 80 |
that sometimes they go with new stuff before it is ready, like KDE4 and pulseaudio. |
| 81 |
I like about the current situation that we also have all those things available |
| 82 |
AFAICS, but have very broad choices in how much we want to bleed. |
| 83 |
IMO this is a different issue than having supposedly popular ebuilds not in main |
| 84 |
tree. |
| 85 |
|
| 86 |
|
| 87 |
I think there is a steady inflow of fresh developers from sunrise (and other |
| 88 |
places). Does anyone have a chart? I'd also like to know from prospective |
| 89 |
developers if they have trouble getting recruited, through sunrise or other |
| 90 |
projects. |
| 91 |
|
| 92 |
Marijn |
| 93 |
|
| 94 |
- -- |
| 95 |
If you cannot read my mind, then listen to what I say. |
| 96 |
|
| 97 |
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML |
| 98 |
<http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode |
| 99 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 100 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) |
| 101 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 102 |
|
| 103 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkoNPjsACgkQp/VmCx0OL2x/lgCgrvL/3f0XqLJPEe6+BOCl/0R8 |
| 104 |
j3kAn1jLAW1flDAZt7wu9IuSMO3jtmZe |
| 105 |
=szxf |
| 106 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives