1 |
Moving this to -project due to topic drift... |
2 |
|
3 |
Steve Long wrote: |
4 |
> Wulf C. Krueger wrote: |
5 |
>> Most of us who are working on the overlay have been using alternative |
6 |
>> package managers (PM) for quite some time now. Thus, the idea arose to go |
7 |
>> a step further and actually make good use of the capabilities they offer |
8 |
>> us. |
9 |
>> |
10 |
> Makes sense; after all you can do whatever you want in an overlay without |
11 |
> concern for how it will affect anyone else. |
12 |
> |
13 |
|
14 |
I wonder if there would be benefits into making gentoo more of a |
15 |
meta-distribution along these lines. Instead of having one definitive |
16 |
portage tree with some experimental overlays, you'd instead have a |
17 |
couple of branches: |
18 |
|
19 |
1. A core portage tree. This would contain at least one package |
20 |
manager and key system dependencies. Any could be overridden by an |
21 |
experimental overlay, but the general intention would be for most |
22 |
ordinary users to use the core tree for the key dependencies like |
23 |
gcc/glibc/baselayout/etc. This will avoid major dependency issues if |
24 |
everybody wants to demand their favorite versions of these kinds of |
25 |
packages which are often unslotted. |
26 |
|
27 |
2. A repository manager GUI that lets users choose any number of |
28 |
application repositories. Said repositories are allowed to collide, and |
29 |
users can select what priority the package manager should give to each |
30 |
in the event of collision (priorities set both at an overall level and |
31 |
per-package/category/etc). |
32 |
|
33 |
3. Gentoo would be free to endorse particular repositories, and |
34 |
possibly manage some of them as well. A default configuration would |
35 |
give new users the sort of experience they'd expect to get by default. |
36 |
Anybody could freely set up a repository with nothing more than an rsync |
37 |
server, although to get linked by Gentoo there might be some minimal QA |
38 |
standards. There could also be multiple tiers of endorsement - from |
39 |
"somewhat unlikely to outright rootkit your box" to "you should pay |
40 |
these guys for this level of quality". There could be license |
41 |
restrictions on endorsed repositories as well. |
42 |
|
43 |
This would offer more user choice, and user involvement, since the |
44 |
various repositories could have varying requirements for participation. |
45 |
Users could potentially fork any part of the distro and still benefit |
46 |
from the rest as well, with everybody benefiting from the resulting |
47 |
sharing. The downside might be division of effort and less unification |
48 |
(many packages could end up having mutally-exclusive requirements such |
49 |
as specific package managers that implement particular EAPIs, etc). |
50 |
|
51 |
This isn't really anything that requires any kind of action - but just |
52 |
food for thought that I figured I'd toss out there. |
53 |
-- |
54 |
gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list |