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
Message-Id: 1202196949.27192.1235119087@webmail.messagingengine.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-releng] Free-standing Portage / Recent stage3 tarballs / Beta by davecode@nospammail.net
1 Thanks for all the feedback, everyone.
2
3 > Markus Hauschild:
4 > If you really want to test ~arch packets you don't necessarily need
5 > ~arch stages to download, you can just switch your Installation to
6 > ~arch and then file bugs etc.
7
8 That's what we did, and what generated the ~tarball suggestion.
9
10 > Alex Howells:
11 > Look at it this way: by running ~arch whilst *not* a Developer or
12 > Arch Tester you're having a very limited impact, or possibly a
13 > negative one. Getting onto the 'track' of contributing to the project
14
15 Contributing...I just tried a couple of suggestions? They seem good to
16 me.
17
18 It isn't preference or 133t-ness. There are technical issues with the
19 user machines and desktop lust.
20
21 I'm not saying "change your ways" but rather "tarball ~stuff" to help
22 sysadmins make their own design choices. Any choice is a balancing act
23 of competing requirements.
24
25 > They've got no clue what it means, then they bitch/whine
26 > when they hit ABI issues or other problems and blame Gentoo.
27
28 Not in this discussion? All I want is a cleaner way to install ~arch.
29 Put all the warning stickers you want. I agree it is *not* for average
30 users.
31
32 Many feel Debian unstable is the more stable branch, because it swallows
33 upstream bugfixes. Debatable; can depend on the system spec. Debian
34 focuses too much on servers -- it ought to fork a desktop branch, if you
35 ask me. Some Debian distros have done just that. Anyway the point is,
36 there can be legit reasons to run unstable; reasonable people can
37 differ.
38
39 There is lag between upstream package releases and distro adoption.
40 Typical scene: an upstream package advertises "now more stable!" but
41 the distro takes a year or two rolling it in. Worse scene: upstream
42 package advertises "now supports your hardware!" but again, the distro
43 takes 1-2 years.
44
45 So the dilemma: which branch is really the more "stable"? The one that
46 the distro calls stable, or the one with all the latest from upstream?
47 There is no one answer of course. Obviously a release engineering
48 statement on the matter is going to be different from another viewpoint.
49
50 I follow release engineering's worries about user install procedures,
51 and that's legit. But I am a sysadmin, unafraid of reasonable breakage
52 that I can fix. I would not recommend average people install ~arch any
53 more than you would. All I'm saying is ~tarballs would be nice for
54 experts.
55
56 My job reviews aren't based on making Gentoo penetrate this or that
57 market sector but making computers work. I don't have the luxury of
58 explaining to folks that "the distro will take care of it in 1-2 years"
59 or endlessly fiddling with custom package selections ("apt-pinning" in
60 Debian). Users want me out of their cubes, fast.
61
62 > run ~arch with XFS on a desktop system that doesn't have a UPS
63
64 Guilty as charged. Running Debian unstable on XFS for years, through
65 dozens of storm blackouts, and zero data loss. Ext3 lost plenty of data
66 before we gave up on it. Have no intention of using ext4, either.
67
68 We should have UPSes, if only the bean counters would stop retorting
69 that we've never lost data, so why do we need 'em...ha.
70
71 (Good fstab tips: barrier, noatime, nodiratime...and /tmp and /var/log
72 in tmpfs...)
73
74 The consensus here is that we'll wait for beta release and install that
75 with ~arch keyword. Lookin' forward to it.
76 --
77
78 davecode@××××××××××.net
79
80 --
81 http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users:
82 http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html
83
84 --
85 gentoo-releng@l.g.o mailing list

Replies