Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's future directtion ?
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 18:14:50
Message-Id: CAGfcS_mFkZe4Ye2Don4yt6bJGTC3UMhvz+gLBbQ9EMmrtLMawQ@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's future directtion ? by James
1 On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:34 PM, James <wireless@×××××××××××.com> wrote:
2 >
3 > Here's one, very, very interesting proposals, under
4 > serious consideration:
5 >
6 > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Distributed_Gentoo
7 >
8 >
9 > I'd be curious what the fine and wonderful folks at
10 > gentoo_user think of this proposal. Old farts are
11 > welcome to comment, even encourage to "constructively rant"....
12
13 Honestly, I think it is a bit optimistic, though something I'd love to
14 see. I'm more of a fan of getting the new working before dismantling
15 the old, and I'm not keen on proposals that start out with gutting
16 what we already have before there is anything new to replace it.
17 Burning bridges usually isn't wise.
18
19 The optimistic bit is that the proposal is that the only part of
20 Gentoo that would actually be developed centrally are the parts that
21 almost nobody is working on today. That basically amounts to just
22 having all the developers quit, and hoping that they all move on to
23 work on overlays instead of moving on to something else.
24
25 There are a lot of technical challenges in such an approach -
26 supporting overlays isn't all that unlike trying to provide kernel
27 internal API stability. I think it could be done better, but it would
28 be a big change. IMHO it makes far more sense to make those changes
29 and use them for our own internal benefit in the main repository, and
30 THEN think about whether the main repository is still needed.
31
32 --
33 Rich

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's future directtion ? Paige Thompson <erratic@××××××××××.sx>