1 |
Rich Freeman posted on Sat, 25 Jan 2014 19:59:19 -0500 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
4 |
>> I've often wondered just how much faster gentoo could move, and how |
5 |
>> much better we could keep up with upstream, if we weren't so focused on |
6 |
>> 30+day outdated stab?le bumping all the time. All that effort... from |
7 |
>> my viewpoint going to waste on something that gentoo really isn't going |
8 |
>> to be that great at anyway, certainly in comparison to other distros |
9 |
>> which REALLY provide a stab?le service, up to a /decade/ outdated, |
10 |
>> supporting often trailing edge software, in an effort to slow down |
11 |
>> progress for people that don't want to move so fast. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> I get what you're saying, and I'm going to use a bit of hyperbole so |
14 |
> don't take this too seriously, but couldn't you just as easily argue |
15 |
> that Gentoo could go much faster if we actually took advantage of the |
16 |
> fact that we DO have a stable tree, and stop being so careful about not |
17 |
> breaking the testing tree? |
18 |
|
19 |
If that was hyperbole it was a bit too subtle for me. =:^) |
20 |
|
21 |
Actually, I'd support something like this too. After all, I've already |
22 |
stated that on some packages I run from the project overlay and/or the |
23 |
live-vcs version. In a way, that's arguably what testing should /be/, |
24 |
tho it'd certainly be a departure from how gentoo handles things now. |
25 |
|
26 |
Basically in my ideal gentoo, what's now stable would disappear entirely, |
27 |
and what's now testing would be the new stable, with what's now hard- |
28 |
masked and/or only available in the overlays being testing. |
29 |
|
30 |
But obviously I recognize that's totally broken for a lot of people who |
31 |
do depend on gentoo stable, and as such, I don't really consider it an |
32 |
entirely practical option... But it'd be nice for me anyway! =:^) |
33 |
|
34 |
So it's far from hyperbole in my world. In my world it's the ideal. =:^) |
35 |
|
36 |
> Honestly, I think both trees represent a pretty decent balance. It is |
37 |
> pretty safe to run ~arch for the packages you really are interested in, |
38 |
> and run stable for the stuff that you don't care so much about, thus |
39 |
> limiting your exposure to problems while getting cutting-edge where you |
40 |
> care for it. |
41 |
|
42 |
Except, well, ~arch is if anything safe enough to be stable, and |
43 |
unfortunately, isn't always that cutting edge after all. One has to run |
44 |
overlays and hard-unmask live-vcs versions to actually get cutting edge |
45 |
testing, which is in my view... unfortunate. |
46 |
|
47 |
> Most of the concern in this thread has been about some minor archs that |
48 |
> struggle to keep up. It seems like the simplest solution in these cases |
49 |
> is to just have them focus on @system packages for the stable tree, and |
50 |
> let users deal with more breakage outside of that set (where it isn't |
51 |
> super-disruptive). If you're running a minor arch chances are that |
52 |
> you're happy to have any support at all, since you sure aren't going to |
53 |
> be running Ubuntu... |
54 |
|
55 |
Agreed. |
56 |
|
57 |
Tho AFAIK both Ubuntu and Fedora have an arm variants... But also AFAIK, |
58 |
due to them being binary distros these variants are closer to the sub-arm- |
59 |
keyword-variants I believe someone else proposed in this thread (??) for |
60 |
gentoo/arm as well, consequently leaving other sub-arch-variants that |
61 |
gentoo/arm supports out in the cold. |
62 |
|
63 |
-- |
64 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
65 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
66 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |