Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Project proposal -- maintainer-wanted
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 23:24:21
Message-Id: 1242775478.30374.7.camel@localhost
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Project proposal -- maintainer-wanted by Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
1 On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 12:24 +0000, Duncan wrote:
2 > Daniel Pielmeier <daniel.pielmeier@××××××××××.com> posted
3 > 6142e6140905150344y4a8007b5wd352ffe891e49230@××××××××××.com, excerpted
4 > below, on Fri, 15 May 2009 12:44:47 +0200:
5 >
6 > > 2009/5/15 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) <hkBst@g.o>:
7 > >>
8 > >> Thilo Bangert wrote:
9 > >>>
10 > >>> Fedora is a much more current distribution than Gentoo - and has been
11 > >>> for a couple of years...
12 > >>
13 > >> Please elaborate what exactly you think Fedora does better than we do.
14 > >> I have no first-hand experience with Fedora, but from what I read I had
15 > >> the impression that sometimes they go with new stuff before it is
16 > >> ready, like KDE4 and pulseaudio. I like about the current situation
17 > >> that we also have all those things available AFAICS, but have very
18 > >> broad choices in how much we want to bleed. IMO this is a different
19 > >> issue than having supposedly popular ebuilds not in main tree.
20 > >>
21 > > AFAIK Fedora is [Red Hat's unstable.] So it makes more sense to
22 > > compare it with the Gentoo unstable tree instead of the stable
23 > > one. Assuming this there is probably not a big difference in the
24 > > up-to-dateness.
25 >
26 > Well, yes and no. As the GP said, they sometimes go with new stuff
27 > before it's ready -- before Gentoo even has it in-tree hard-masked let
28 > alone ~arch, while it's still in the various project overlays. I know
29 > they've had some serious issues with xorg on Intel GPUs at least, due to
30 > running versions that aren't in our tree yet, only in the X overlay,
31 > because Fedora is running clearly not even ~arch-ready packages,
32 > sometimes even xorg prereleases.
33
34 I believe you are thinking of rawhide.
35 Fedora and quite most other distributions work fundamentally different.
36 We have a gradually moving tree, as we can do that by being source
37 based.
38 Fedora and other distributions are doing releases, which involves
39 switching to a newer repository branch with dist-upgrade and so on.
40 They release a new version typically every 6 month, we release new major
41 versions of packages all the time (considering the whole set).
42 I'd say that at the point of binary distribution releases their released
43 trees are somewhere between our ~arch and stable tree, while within a
44 month or two, they become similar to our stable tree until our continous
45 releases overcome it with newer versions.
46 Fedora has xorg prereleases in what they call "rawhide". This is what
47 will become a new release in the future, as they have ~6 month cycles.
48 It's unstable on purpose, as they are thriving towards being stable with
49 that repository at the time of the planned next release, while having up
50 to date packages around the time of the release (with a ~1 month
51 stabilization period before the release time). That's the fundamental
52 difference, and where we can have an advantage over them in addition to
53 other things coming from being source based.
54
55 > Years ago we'd have put these in-tree but hard-masked for those who
56 > wanted to try them. Now, depending on the package and Gentoo but more
57 > likely as the complexity rises to meta-package levels, those who want to
58 > try them must load an overlay. As someone who selectively unmasks and
59 > tries these, having them in-tree but hard-masked is convenient, but I
60 > understand why projects may prefer overlays in many cases.
61
62 We do tend to prefer overlays in many cases for unstable releases.
63 The project proposal at hand is of course talking about packages that
64 are not available at all in the main tree yet. Overlays are quite nice
65 for tracking unstable releases of package sets that do have their
66 upstream stable releases in official tree.
67
68 > However, none of this directly applies to the subject at hand, because
69 > while we're talking new versions of packages already in-tree here, the
70 > subject at hand is packages that aren't in-tree in any form yet.
71
72 Sorry, still felt like replying with my view on Gentoo vs dist-upgraded
73 distros :)
74
75
76
77 --
78 Mart Raudsepp
79 Gentoo Developer
80 Mail: leio@g.o
81 Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio

Attachments

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