| 1 |
As an "outsider" reading that summary the message *I* read is that there |
| 2 |
is some strain over fitting the development model into "stable", "~", |
| 3 |
and "package.mask". I think I see people basically saying that they |
| 4 |
have differing views over what qualifies for each level? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Perhaps part of the solution is to review the current list of "levels" |
| 7 |
of stability? Debian for example use several levels with something |
| 8 |
like: stable, unstable, testing, development (or whatever they are |
| 9 |
called). Perhaps something more like that would be useful for gentoo? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I do know as a user it can be quite frustrating trying to find the |
| 12 |
ebuild for a package and having to dig around bugs.gentoo, and some |
| 13 |
other website, then patch up a dodgy ebuild found on some website, etc, |
| 14 |
etc. Perhaps it would be more useful to have "development quality" |
| 15 |
ebuilds straight from portage (labelled as dangerous and unstable of |
| 16 |
course) and then I could more easily file back patches to fix problems |
| 17 |
that I find, and development would be more centralised...? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Also, as someone who has submitted a few patches and some ebuilds and |
| 20 |
then seen nothing happen to them and my offers to act as maintainer have |
| 21 |
gone unresponded I also wonder if there is some way to make better use |
| 22 |
of casual contributors like me? (I'm not bitter, it's just that I feel I |
| 23 |
could contribute more, but don't know how to?) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Good luck. I'm a big gentoo fan. I hope this extends gentoos lead even |
| 27 |
further! |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
All the best |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Ed W |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives