Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Tony Clark <tclark@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] *IMPORTANT* top-level management structure!
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 05:26:33
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] *IMPORTANT* top-level management structure! by Jon Portnoy
1 On Wednesday 25 June 2003 06.04, Jon Portnoy wrote:
2 > On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 05:02:32AM +0200, Tony Clark wrote:
3 > > On Wednesday 25 June 2003 03.33, Daniel Robbins wrote:
4 >
5 > [snip]
6 >
7 > > 1. What is Gentoo 1.4. What it may have been intended to be in January
8 > > is probably not what it is going to be now. Before you recruit all and
9 > > sundry you have to define this as if it isn't defined everything will
10 > > fall down and chaos will return. Some basic things I see is that it
11 > > needs to be are: gcc3.3 based
12 > > glibc2.3.2
13 > > openssl0.9.7
14 >
15 > We can do this if you want to wait another couple of months.
16 >
17 > Unfortunately, there are some requests to have 1.4 ready for LWESF at
18 > the beginning of Augusy
19 This is just classical, happens everyday type stuff in electronics/software
20 companies, espically ones who don't know what they are building with clear
21 goals. Marketing keeps moving the requirements and dates aren't met. Some
22 deadline finally gets set and a patch work job happens to meet THE DATE.
24 > This is not viable. The tree is not gcc3.3-ready and OpenSSL 0.9.7 needs
25 > a much more mature upgrade path, otherwise there will be serious
26 > breakage (you need to remerge wget without ssl support, then merge the
27 > new openssl, then rebuild everything depending on it currently).
28 The OpenSSL upgrade is really ready, it just that the whole tree needs a
29 rebuild which is time consumming. You have to break the cycle sooner or
30 later. Seems to me one solution is to release a binary version of 1.4 build
31 with the latest OpenSSL goes someway to ease that upgrade. Users can get a
32 working basic system maybe with kde and gnome desktops then add or rebuild at
33 their own pace. New takers have no problems as they are current. GCC is a
34 slightly different problem but not as large. I guess it could be solved
35 putting different versions of GCC in slots. Glibc is pretty well there and
36 doesn't seem to have any problems that I have noticed.
38 >
39 > > 2. What are the core applications. Is it a desktop, a server orinitated
40 > > system or a system compremised to do both. I would suggest desktop as I
41 > > think thats what it is mainly used for, but I don't have the stats so I
42 > > could be well off the mark. (Market research required)
43 >
44 > I don't understand what you mean by 'core applications' in this context.
45 I think of core applications as things people are actually going to use to do
46 something outside of maintaining their systems. ie desktop, browser, apache
47 etc. verses core-system stuff like kernels, tools, portage etc.
49 > > 3. What platform should be supported at release time. Here I think x86
50 > > and maybe x86-64. Targeting too many will just delay it. Have some
51 > > other dates for the rest to follow.
52 >
53 > We target all platforms that're release-ready. Right now, that's x86,
54 > ppc, and sparc. Release-ready means the tree is prepped, the stages and
55 > LiveCDs can be built, install documents are up on the site.
57 Well if you ask me, thats too many for an August deadline. Do the best that
58 can be done with x86 and have the rest follow by a month. That way any nasty
59 bugs can be squashed before the other 2 hit the stand but I guess the
60 Marketing Dept has mandated that all 3 will be ready at the same time. :)
62 >
63 > > These are just really fundementals but until the requirements are
64 > > documented things will never really come together.
65 > >
66 > > Get things out in the open. Gentoo-core is probably the worst idea
67 > > someone ever came up with, OSS development is meant to be a very
68 > > transparent process. Make it transparent. I know there are always
69 > > private issues but if they involve more than 3 people then perhaps they
70 > > should be public.
71 >
72 > We are making it transparent by discussing development on gentoo-dev.
73 Don't tell me, someone woke up this morning and formed a new management
74 structure, honest :) You know you need this transparent as it is the only
75 hope of it getting done in time. It's not a big deal for me actually, it's
76 just that of ppl where primed and ready for the announcement you would be
77 more than halfway towards meeting the objectives.
79 Anyway, from another comment it is impossible to define goals for Gentoo
80 therefore I would submit it is impossible to have a 1.4 release. I have no
81 problems with that, marketing probably does though.
83 tony
84 --
85 Contract ASIC and FPGA design.
86 Telephone +46 702 894 667
91 --
92 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] *IMPORTANT* top-level management structure! Jon Portnoy <avenj@g.o>