Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo or Linux from Scratch - Perspectives?

[Paul Hoy]

On Aug 14, 2005, at 9:34 PM, Holly Bostick wrote:

> Paul Hoy schreef:
>
>> See inline
>>
>>
>> On Aug 14, 2005, at 5:51 PM, Holly Bostick wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Nick Rout schreef:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:12:31 -0700
>>>> Zac Medico wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>
>>>>> Are we really far behind?  That's difficult to believe.  For what
>>>>> packages specifically?  Do
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you know how to unmask unstable packages (marked M or M~ at
>>>> packages.gentoo.org)?
>>>>
>>>> Unstable does not really cut it IMHO. I am a gentoo enthusiast
>>>> through
>>>> and through, but plonking something in portage with a ~ beside
>>>> it  does
>>>> not constitute a release of a recent version IMHO.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> OK, I'll bite. What then do you consider "a release of a recent
>>> version"
>>> to be constituted from?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't really understand your question. The most recent version
>> to  me
>> coincides to a release date closest to whatever today is.
>>
>
> OK, so what you're saying is that an application's entry into Portage
> unstable does not constitute a 'release' of the package in Gentoo
> terms,
> as far as you're concerned? So until Firefox 1.0.6 and KDE 3.4.2
> propagate down to stable (which could take time, admittedly), it's not
> actually released? Well, to each his or her own, I guess.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> If it's been released upstream, and it's in Portage a couple of
>>> hours
>>> later, so I can install it, I don't know what more you could
>>> want....
>>> what, you want a Mandrake- (or worse, still, Debian) -style wait of
>>> months before you can use the upstream version?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't agree with you. There are many examples where a file that has
>> been released upstream has not found its way into Portage. I've
>> provided examples elsewhere in this thread. You can also compare with
>> the Fedora feedlist.
>>
>
> Yes, I know. I'm creating a list of interesting programs I've
> discovered
> that aren't in Portage or b.g.o, to practice my ebuild writing skills.
>
> But you know, I don't give the first hairy hoot about the Fedora
> feedlist. This idea that 'marking' a package 'stable' is some kind of
> magic bullet that actually *makes* the package stable is starting
> to get
> on my nerves a bit.

It appears I may be contradicting myself, but I agree with you here.  
Fedora releases something as stable, but in some cases, it's far from  
it.  NetworkManager is my favourite example.


> What Gentoo marks or doesn't mark the package, or in
> fact whether or not it's in Portage, generally has nothing to do with
> the status of the package itself. There are plenty of perfectly stable
> packages in Gentoo unstable, plenty of stable ebuilds (meaning that
> they
> compile the application correctly, and beyond that point it depends on
> the upstream stability) in b.g.o, and even a few on breakmygentoo.org.
> And plenty of 'stable' packages that just act wonky in various ways as
> upstream manages the changes in whatever they're doing (migrating
> to the
> freedesktop standard, implementing DirectX 9 support, working around
> video driver bugs, kernel bugs, scheduler changes, you name it).
>
> I use what I need, and I get what I need from wherever it may
> happen to
> be. Most of it comes from Portage, of course, but I've got some
> ebuilds
> in my overlay from b.g.o, a couple from Project Utopia, and some perl

Yes, I've scanned over the instructions for creating your own ebuilds  
and I've experimented with the Gnome 2.12 beta ebuild put out by  
someone.

> modules from cpan. It all works pretty well, and when it doesn't, I
> either ditch the package until it works a bit better, or fix it myself
> (and report what I had to do up the chain, if appropriate). It all
> looks
> a bit patchwork I suppose, but it's my patchwork, and so I know what
> sticky-out-bit goes where... most of the time. And I decide if there's
> going to be sticky-out-bits at all...there's no way, with an ATI card,
> that I'm going anywhere near the new modular X for quite a while, for

Yes, that is one of my great joys - having an ATI card on my Notebook.

> example. But not because of Gentoo... because there's way too many
> upstream cooks for me to think they're going to concoct a 'stable'
> brew,
> *for me*, anytime soon. I said before and I do believe that the Gentoo
> dev team will do their very best (and that's damn good) to provide
> stable ebuilds that work as well as possible, but there's way too much
> whitewater flowing down the channel for me to believe that even
> they can
> successfully guide me through these difficult transitions.
>
> It just seems to me that if you want or expect a team of well-paid
> experts monitoring all possible inconveniences and smoothing them over
> before you even see them... well, then Fedora would be the place to
> be.
> Or SuSE. Gentoo or Ubuntu, on the other hand....
>

Again, I don't think Fedora removes all the defects at all. SuSE  
doesn't either, at least for the Gnome desktop. And, believe it not,  
neither does Ubuntu, notably with packaging.

> Holly
> --
> gentoo-user@g.o mailing list
>
>

-- 
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list