| 1 |
On Tuesday 06 July 2010 01:48:43 Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> Albert Hopkins wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 01:29 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> Hi folks, |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> does he speak for all of you ? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > huh? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> This was sent to -dev too. It referenced this bug on that list. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=326991 |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Still not sure what is going on with this yet. It's a head scratcher. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Dale |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> :-) :-) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Gentoo uses upstream master sources and cherry picked patches. Not quite as |
| 22 |
rigid on upstream-only as say Slackware, but close. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Ubuntu chucks all manner of wild fancy-free patches into their distro with |
| 25 |
nary a care in the world for the results - they are an experimental distro. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Red Hat and SLES deviate so far from upstream it just isn't funny anymore. |
| 28 |
Their customer's need very different things to desktop users and gentoo |
| 29 |
sysadmins. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Where's the common ground to combine all of that into one repository? The idea |
| 32 |
is a pipe dream. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
The correct place for stuff like that is in an overlay where it can be tested |
| 35 |
then pushed upstream if found workable. From there it makes it's way down to |
| 36 |
the users. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
The OP is essentially asking to switch steps 2 and 3. flameeyes and spanky are |
| 39 |
telling him not to pollute the tree in such a ways. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives