Gentoo Archives: gentoo-releng

From: davecode@××××××××××.net
To: gentoo-releng@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-releng] Re: Free-standing Portage / Recent stage3 tarballs / Beta
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 07:36:01
In Reply to: [gentoo-releng] Free-standing Portage / Recent stage3 tarballs / Beta by
Thanks for all the feedback, everyone.

> Markus Hauschild: > If you really want to test ~arch packets you don't necessarily need > ~arch stages to download, you can just switch your Installation to > ~arch and then file bugs etc.
That's what we did, and what generated the ~tarball suggestion.
> Alex Howells: > Look at it this way: by running ~arch whilst *not* a Developer or > Arch Tester you're having a very limited impact, or possibly a > negative one. Getting onto the 'track' of contributing to the project
Contributing...I just tried a couple of suggestions? They seem good to me. It isn't preference or 133t-ness. There are technical issues with the user machines and desktop lust. I'm not saying "change your ways" but rather "tarball ~stuff" to help sysadmins make their own design choices. Any choice is a balancing act of competing requirements.
> They've got no clue what it means, then they bitch/whine > when they hit ABI issues or other problems and blame Gentoo.
Not in this discussion? All I want is a cleaner way to install ~arch. Put all the warning stickers you want. I agree it is *not* for average users. Many feel Debian unstable is the more stable branch, because it swallows upstream bugfixes. Debatable; can depend on the system spec. Debian focuses too much on servers -- it ought to fork a desktop branch, if you ask me. Some Debian distros have done just that. Anyway the point is, there can be legit reasons to run unstable; reasonable people can differ. There is lag between upstream package releases and distro adoption. Typical scene: an upstream package advertises "now more stable!" but the distro takes a year or two rolling it in. Worse scene: upstream package advertises "now supports your hardware!" but again, the distro takes 1-2 years. So the dilemma: which branch is really the more "stable"? The one that the distro calls stable, or the one with all the latest from upstream? There is no one answer of course. Obviously a release engineering statement on the matter is going to be different from another viewpoint. I follow release engineering's worries about user install procedures, and that's legit. But I am a sysadmin, unafraid of reasonable breakage that I can fix. I would not recommend average people install ~arch any more than you would. All I'm saying is ~tarballs would be nice for experts. My job reviews aren't based on making Gentoo penetrate this or that market sector but making computers work. I don't have the luxury of explaining to folks that "the distro will take care of it in 1-2 years" or endlessly fiddling with custom package selections ("apt-pinning" in Debian). Users want me out of their cubes, fast.
> run ~arch with XFS on a desktop system that doesn't have a UPS
Guilty as charged. Running Debian unstable on XFS for years, through dozens of storm blackouts, and zero data loss. Ext3 lost plenty of data before we gave up on it. Have no intention of using ext4, either. We should have UPSes, if only the bean counters would stop retorting that we've never lost data, so why do we need 'em...ha. (Good fstab tips: barrier, noatime, nodiratime...and /tmp and /var/log in tmpfs...) The consensus here is that we'll wait for beta release and install that with ~arch keyword. Lookin' forward to it. -- davecode@××××××××××.net -- - One of many happy users: -- gentoo-releng@l.g.o mailing list