Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New metastructure proposal
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:22:14
Message-Id: 461BF111.6070605@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New metastructure proposal by Alexandre Buisse
1 Alexandre Buisse kirjoitti:
2 > Hi everyone,
3 >
4 > as everyone probably noticed, there is a current atmosphere of sinking ship,
5 > with quite a lot of people leaving and many agreeing that gentoo is no fun
6 > working on anymore. Before it's too late, I'd like to propose a big reformation
7 > that would help solve some of the issues we are currently having and,
8 > hopefully, bring back some of the fun we all had developing and using this
9 > distribution.
10 >
11
12 I can say that inside all the teams I work with things are just fine and
13 fun as ever. :)
14 IMHO it's just this mailing list that is perceived rotten in some
15 people's eyes. Only time time will if the ongoing changes will help.
16
17 >
18 > The idea is pretty simple: modularization. There is a core part, with a couple
19 > hundred packages that are absolutely necessary to a system. Then we have a
20 > hierarchy of overlays with additional ebuilds for people's need. Top-level
21 > projects could look like: desktop, dev, business, embedded, misc. Then we
22 > would have subprojects, e.g. multimedia, DE, games for desktop, multimedia
23 > being itself subdivided in audio and video, and so on. This would get us a
24 > tree of arbitrary depth, with development happening mostly in leaves. The
25 > hierarchy would mostly serve as a classification tool, and projects would not
26 > necessarily share resources, including devs, with their subprojects, neither
27 > should they have decision power over them.
28 >
29
30 Splitting the tree is a nice idea but first we would need to solve the
31 problems that have come up in previous threads about this some of which
32 you outline later.
33
34 >
35 > By having everything as modular as possible, we also allow an easy fork of a
36 > single project, for whatever reason. So if enough people think that mozilla is
37 > being badly maintained by the current project and that people in it don't want
38 > or can't apply their fixes, they can easily provide their own overlay with
39 > better ebuilds. And if their version is indeed better, over time it will get
40 > the official status and have superseeded smoothly the first project. Think of
41 > paludis and pkgcore vs portage.
42 >
43
44 Hmm. Should I emerge mozilla-firefox from module A or module B. Both
45 have web sites claiming theirs is better. Flame on. Maybe we should just
46 focus on QA being able to kick out people who do a lousy job.
47
48 Regards,
49 Petteri

Attachments

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