Gentoo Archives: gentoo-releng

From: Alex Howells <astinus@g.o>
To: gentoo-releng@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-releng] Re: Free-standing Portage / Recent stage3 tarballs / Beta
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:44:44
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-releng] Re: Free-standing Portage / Recent stage3 tarballs / Beta by "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky"
> > .. which may not be received too well. There is a perception that > > Developers *support* ~arch, which is a skewed outlook; it's there for > > testing, it is *not* meant to be used by 99.5% of end users. It is a > > means to an end, a way to track packages which *may* be stable, a QA > > process. > > > > ie: The following would/should be entirely acceptable: > > > > <User> I'm running ~arch of libfoo and it's breaking appwoo, help! > > Need this to work, really *REALLY* badly! > > > > <Dev> We're aware of those issues, but libfoo works fine for most > > of the other apps which require it. No ETA on the fix, > > tough sh*t for running ~arch on a critical box. > > > > <User> Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh! > > > > If you're interested in helping that QA process, most of the > > architecture teams now have an 'Arch Tester' (AT) setup you could help > > out with... > > Well ... I've been running ~x86 and ~amd64 for a long time and I can't > remember an instance where I needed to drop back to stable for the > things I regularly use, such as R, maxima, Ruby, Lyx, and I can't > remember a time when I needed to drop back to stable for a core > component like the kernel, gcc, perl, or python either. But -- that's > x86 and amd64 -- it might be much riskier on something less common, like > powerpc.
I wasn't attempting to state "This does not work!"; merely expressing that ~arch isn't really a supported platform. Dropping back to stable isn't really a viable route, once your system is ~arch there's quite a lot to go <BOOM!> if you tried to globally undo that. Wanna try it? ;) At the moment Gentoo Linux has a reputation as a "ricer" distribution, and a large proportion of users on ~arch does nothing to solve that... Speaking entirely frankly I'd love to see increased adoption in enterprise, there's a whole lot this distribution has to offer to server farms, for example. 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 through the various 'Arch Tester' teams is a great way for a "Power User" to help out; should you feel you're more technically inclined, can write a useful language or three / hack ebuilds as naturally as breathing, I know we need Developers! Especially in understaffed areas like Release Engineering. :) I'd have liked to see two main things happen with Gentoo 2008.0: * Get rid of stage3 - all our install documentation works with just the stage3 right now, we don't "support" stage1/2 installs yet users are /always/ asking on IRC and MLs for help with a stage1 install because they think it's l33t. Remove it from mirrors, put it in /experimental, whatever; we need the stage1/2 somewhere for lotsa reasons, but lets make it less obvious to weed out those clueless ricers. (the next one is more of a Portage change) * Have some warning banners on ~arch and a toggle option for make.conf to disable them. There are *far* too many people on IRC suggesting newbies adopt ~arch, and they do so.. :( They've got no clue what it means, then they bitch/whine when they hit ABI issues or other problems and blame Gentoo. Don't document the toggle option in the Install Manual ;) Suggested value for disabling the big flashy warning banners :P MODIFYING_ACCEPT_KEYWORDS_MAY_BREAK_MY_BOX_AND_I_UNDERSTAND_THIS -- gentoo-releng@l.g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-releng] Re: Free-standing Portage / Recent stage3 tarballs / Beta "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@×××××××.net>