| 1 |
On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 13:58 -0600, Christopher Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Feel free to post any ideas you have to enhance Gentoo's base |
| 5 |
> functionality to the list though, I think you've roused everyone's |
| 6 |
> curiosity Grant :D |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Christopher |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Okay, here it goes: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I think we could need a better support for binary packages. |
| 15 |
There was a thread in here a few months ago about how to offer binary |
| 16 |
packages for customers. As far as I remember the problem was (and still |
| 17 |
is) that there is no easy way to check the packages for corruption |
| 18 |
(trojans, stuff like that). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
In my opinion the end result should be something like a build server |
| 21 |
that builds and provides a set of packages with different USE- and |
| 22 |
CFLAGS, possibly even accepting automatic requests from clients. |
| 23 |
Everything could be digitally signed and distributed over a network. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Other things to improve? A better documentation on USE-flags. In my |
| 26 |
opinion every maintainer should provide as much information as possible |
| 27 |
on what exactly a USE-flag changes. At the moment it's the |
| 28 |
administrator's responsibility to find this out. Not really a good idea |
| 29 |
on production systems if you ask me ... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Maybe we could also improve our user-dev relations. I hardly if ever see |
| 32 |
a dev or bug wrangler responding to threads in the user list even when |
| 33 |
they concern Gentoo as a whole (like this one and its predecessors). |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I know, all this should be redirected to bugzilla but since they are not |
| 36 |
high priority problems and I can't - at least for now - help solving |
| 37 |
them, I don't like to bother our had working devs and bug wranglers with |
| 38 |
stuff like that. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
- Florian Philipp |
Archives