1 |
Hello, everyone. |
2 |
|
3 |
On bug #577398, Pacho has requested removing the 'Development' |
4 |
component that's rarely used according to its description. However, I'd |
5 |
rather not remove a single component when it fits the component split |
6 |
currently used there. |
7 |
|
8 |
Right now we have the following components: |
9 |
|
10 |
- Applications, |
11 |
- baselayout, |
12 |
- Core system, |
13 |
- Development, |
14 |
- Eclasses and Profiles, |
15 |
- Games, |
16 |
- GCC Porting, |
17 |
- GNOME, |
18 |
- Hardened, |
19 |
- Java, |
20 |
- KDE, |
21 |
- Keywording & Stabilization, |
22 |
- Library, |
23 |
- New packages ('New ebuilds' previously), |
24 |
- Printing, |
25 |
- SELinux, |
26 |
- Server, |
27 |
- Unspecified. |
28 |
|
29 |
This basically is a mix of two component types: functional (like |
30 |
keywording, new packages...) and ebuild category (app, baselayout, core |
31 |
system...). |
32 |
|
33 |
Out of those components, GNOME, Hardened, Java, KDE and SELinux don't |
34 |
go through bug-wranglers. All other components don't have a specific |
35 |
default assignee. |
36 |
|
37 |
Of course, users are pretty much confused about which component to use, |
38 |
except for simple cases. The more experienced ones know that it doesn't |
39 |
matter most of the time, and choose a random one. |
40 |
|
41 |
Applications have around 100k bugs, new packages 128k (mostly wrong |
42 |
filled because of the old 'ebuilds' name), other components are less |
43 |
than 20k. |
44 |
|
45 |
|
46 |
I would personally go for the following layout: |
47 |
|
48 |
- All packages, |
49 |
- Core system [includes baselayout], |
50 |
- Eclasses and Profiles, |
51 |
- GCC Porting, |
52 |
- Hardened, |
53 |
- Keywording & Stabilization, |
54 |
- New packages ('New ebuilds' previously), |
55 |
- SELinux. |
56 |
|
57 |
The goals would be: |
58 |
|
59 |
a. have something that would fit most bugs going through bug-wranglers |
60 |
on the top, |
61 |
|
62 |
b. leave the functional split for 'eclasses and profiles' and 'new |
63 |
packages', |
64 |
|
65 |
c. leave the special team components such as 'gcc porting', 'hardened'... |
66 |
|
67 |
Keeping the big pseudo-category split doesn't make much sense as most |
68 |
of the packages can't be fit easily into a specific group and it only |
69 |
confuses users. GNOME & KDE aren't very clear either, especially for |
70 |
non-core packages (like: is systemd a GNOME package?). Having them |
71 |
skip bug-wranglers doesn't sound really helpful. |
72 |
|
73 |
|
74 |
Your thoughts? |
75 |
|
76 |
|
77 |
[1]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=577398 |
78 |
|
79 |
-- |
80 |
Best regards, |
81 |
Michał Górny |
82 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |