| 1 |
It seems like there has been a lot of discussion here that indicates |
| 2 |
people are happy with the way it is. There seems to be differences in |
| 3 |
how packages are updated based on their purpose - desktop packages |
| 4 |
move very fast, a lot of server infrastructure moves more slowly. It |
| 5 |
seems like the "best" solution is already in place for the different |
| 6 |
usecases. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
If you hadn't noticed this, you may want to go look. I'm not sure if |
| 9 |
it's more due to choices made upstream or choices the maintainers |
| 10 |
make. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Christopher Head <chead@×××××.ca> wrote: |
| 14 |
> I’m a stable user when I can be. I use Gentoo for the configurability, |
| 15 |
> not for instant access to the newest versions of things. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
It seems to be understood in this discussion why some people use ~arch |
| 19 |
exclusively, but I would like to explain that it is a pattern I have |
| 20 |
seen very well myself; typically it's possible to solve bugs by |
| 21 |
keywording in the unstable package and being done with it. When |
| 22 |
problems related to unstable keywording arise it's usually because a |
| 23 |
system isn't completely unstable, which despite the name is very |
| 24 |
stable on Gentoo. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
It needs to be pointed out that all software in Portage is very new |
| 27 |
compared to other distributions. Stable and unstable packages work |
| 28 |
well together because they're closer in time to each other than other |
| 29 |
distributions respective categories. In fact, stable packages are *so |
| 30 |
new* compared to other distributions I think a more constructive |
| 31 |
question to ask is whether or not Gentoo should start retaining older |
| 32 |
packages for better interoperability with projects whose developers |
| 33 |
use non-Gentoo distributions.[1] |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
On a distribution like Ubuntu or Debian a developer working for a |
| 36 |
software firm might wish to use, say, the very latest version of Ruby |
| 37 |
and Rails. To do this they might pull down the source release and then |
| 38 |
try to compile it themselves. This used to be the same as opening a |
| 39 |
portal to dependency hell,[2] but it's gotten better, and we assume |
| 40 |
the developer gets it installed to their home directory. They spin up |
| 41 |
a website with the new features and are done with it. The rest of |
| 42 |
their stack is whatever was in the package manager and might be, |
| 43 |
comparatively, very old. If they do this for more pieces of software - |
| 44 |
like if it is done on a developer's workstation, and not a single |
| 45 |
purpose server - eventually packages will start conflicting and things |
| 46 |
like containers and single purpose virtual machines start making |
| 47 |
sense. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
On Gentoo, the newest software is just there, and it's updated |
| 50 |
frequently enough that you never have to jump through breaking |
| 51 |
changes. Most people I have met that use Gentoo use it because they |
| 52 |
need lots of new software, or need to customize things in ways that |
| 53 |
are hard to do on other distributions. These people tend to realize |
| 54 |
that even if they run stable, those stable packages would probably be |
| 55 |
considered unstable on another distribution. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
R0b0t1. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
[1] Personally I don't think that would be a useful thing to do, I |
| 61 |
just install it in an Ubuntu or Debian VM if I want to play with that |
| 62 |
project. A lot of issues that exist in this regard are hardcoded paths |
| 63 |
and other things that come from the design of Ubuntu and Debian. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
[2] Ubuntu seems to keep their packages more up to date than they used |
| 66 |
to, because I remember having to compile 2-3 intermediate packages to |
| 67 |
get something to the newest version a couple of times. Debian still |
| 68 |
typically has very old software in their package repository. |
Archives