[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's future directtion ?

[James]

hasufell <hasufell <at> gentoo.org> writes:


> I still don't see a good argument why we made our system so inflexible,
> that obviously needed change needs such high amount of work, PR and proof.

I think that most folks appreciate your efforts and insightful ideas
on how to open up development, particularly in non-critical (non-core)
areas. The quesiton is how do we get from where we are to where we
want to be. I find most of what I'm interested in already in Arch Linux. I
wonder why it is so much easier for Arch users to create pkgbuilds (like
gentoo's ebuilds) and find a dev to adopt the package? Surely someone has 
some insight on this differences, or do I miss something that creats the
difference? [1]  I also find the Arch documentation to be of the finest
quality of any and all linux distros, close to gentoo. ymmv.


> Trying to improve a tiny fraction about gentoo workflow (including your
> attempts) already took more than 4(?) years with never ending excuses.
> The necessity was more than obvious.
> Now I could talk about similarly obvious things. Sure, not all issues
> are obvious and those shouldn't be easy to push through.


Everyone understands small changes and all changes take time for the
majority of members to digest, imho. Not everyone has your keen insight into
 the problem/opportunity. So your patience in explanation, encouragement and
solicitation, is very important, if your idea is to be
implemented and tested. Naturally, Rich and other deeply involved devs, with
addtional responsibilities exude caution, to keep the gentoo stable.
They will not be the source of "team building" for your idea, imho.


> You can draw your conclusions about this. I drew mine: small changes
> will not get us out of here.


I think the jury is still out. So, why can't we test a transient plan
where we take something very broken areas at Gentoo (games or java or
sys-cluster) and test out your hypothesis for package development expansion?

In fact, I've been looking over quite a few ebuilds and pkgbuilds at (Arch
linux). [2] I see quite a lot of commonality. So, why can we not "modify"
this aforementioned "inflexible" system on gentoo to allow for Arch Linux
pkgbuilds to be routinely compiled and installed on gentoo?

Maybe limit the test to /usr/local/portage or /usr/local/portage/test/ so
folks can participate or purge the experiment? Maybe find some Arch linux
devs keen on the idea of developing/evolving package management so that 
the two distros can readiy (or more easily) convert packages between
Arch and Gentoo?   Is it possible?  Could your plan be modified to
include a variety of Arch developers? Surely you have a collection
of devs ready to implement your keen ideas? I, for one realize something
fundamental has to change with Gentoo, after pushing a few months
on java and cluster codes.... Also, there is a vast array of software,
of various quality, among the overlay repositories to use as test-packages?


The biggest thing I seen wrong with Arch is they have forced systemd
onto their users, and all of the arch users I know, are not very
happy about that. So if you approach this correctly, I'm sure quite a
few Arch linux folks would also test your offerings.

> Have fun, if you can.


Always we should have fun. That is why we should deeply discuss these
issues to find common ground. Maybe fixing this inflexible system should
involve a survey of those distros closest to gentoo, for ideas, particulary
several (structured) methods to install packages, provide choices for the
init system, and strongly advocate package development within the
ranks of the user base. Clear and concise documentation, concurrent with
this effort is probably your single greatest alley, should your idea
and leadership prove successful.


hth,
James


[1] http://www.volkerschatz.com/unix/ebuilds/ebuilds.html

[2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/sl/slurm-llnl/PKGBUILD