From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-dev-return-12737-arch-gentoo-dev=gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: (qmail 21576 invoked from network); 21 May 2004 18:37:22 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by parrot.ussg.indiana.edu with SMTP; 21 May 2004 18:37:22 +0000 Received: from parrot.ussg.indiana.edu ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BREtV-0006Tr-Md for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 18:37:21 +0000 Received: (qmail 28331 invoked by uid 89); 21 May 2004 18:37:21 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 14848 invoked from network); 21 May 2004 18:37:20 +0000 From: Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> Reply-To: wolf31o2@gentoo.org To: John Nilsson <john@milsson.nu> Cc: "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org>, Gentoo Developers <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <1085158789.8753.112.camel@newkid.milsson.nu> References: <200405201846.37173.cbrewer@stealthaccess.net> <40AD80D1.6050504@skylineaero.com> <20040521063324.GC8475@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net> <1085145580.8753.93.camel@newkid.milsson.nu> <1085146797.25036.52.camel@localhost> <1085158789.8753.112.camel@newkid.milsson.nu> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-SQEw5L7u52TEWE7GBDZa" Organization: Gentoo Linux Message-Id: <1085165137.25036.92.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 14:45:37 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Stuff that makes people mad X-Archives-Salt: 4fc73132-1425-49b3-bb13-dfc566c9dcea X-Archives-Hash: 07db306624bd18cf80a0e7719490e066 --=-SQEw5L7u52TEWE7GBDZa Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 12:59, John Nilsson wrote: > When I emphasized "NEED" I didn't mean the official requirement I menat > the practical/technical requirement. >=20 > I meant: Can we engineer a solution to the problem removing the need for > maintainers but still meeting the requirements? No. One of the requirements is that someone is responsible for that piece of software and what it does on YOUR system. Would you prefer we just arbitrarily assign out responsibility for packages? I vote that YOU get to take over OpenOffice, KDE, Gnome, GCC, and glibc. I'll take bash. ;] > I view an ebuild as a kind of hack at the moment. Ebuilds solve the > problem that open source software packages does not meet the > requirements of their users (distributors). Actually, LFS has proven that the software packages are pretty much OK amongst themselves, it is when you start bringing in numerous variables of versions, revisions, configure options, etc. that you start to get into the complexity that ebuilds try to relieve. Nobody is forcing you to use emerge. Remember that. > Ebuilds provide a uniform interface for configuring and installing. > Fair, does that need one maintainer per package? Yes. Though I know that personally, I probably maintain 20-30 packages. As a member of the 2 herds I am in (games/livecd), I would venture that number is closer to 200-300. Did I mention that there's only 4 of us (3 active) in games? The livecd herd at this time is just me. > Ebuild provide metadata for dependencies. Is this really the > responsibility of Gentoo or even Portage? I say, move that to the source > packager. I wouldn't mind seeing this done upstream. I'm not sure how it would be done, but it would definitely make all of our lives much easier. > Ebuilds provide an "install shield" so that installed files can be > tracked, protected, removed, updated. Would it be correct to patch this > functionality into install(1) instead? ...or RPM, or apt, or yum, or pkgtools, or... As you see, there are many competing packaging systems. What you propose would require everyone to agree on one. If you've learned anything about Linux, it is that everyone is out to build a better mousetrap. > Ebuilds makes sure that files go to the right places. A broken install > system is a broken install system. Patch automake/autoconf their purpose > is to make portability a breeze, why do we have another in house layer > on top? Pretty much read above. What you propose really is for Linux to unify. There would be no need for Gentoo, or Debian, or Red Hat. It would all just be Linux. It would all work the same and it would all feel the same. Well, sir. I wish you luck in the endeavour. Until then, I'll be here working on ebuilds and trying to make what we have today better. --=20 Chris Gianelloni Developer Games/LiveCD Teams Gentoo Linux Is your power animal a penguin? --=-SQEw5L7u52TEWE7GBDZa Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBArk5RkT4lNIS36YERAgxTAJ9JY04lF0WsoB3uI7yUgzhgcZZjuwCghdfW Yv3AYmufIhTyAULXck1Gw1I= =nhC5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-SQEw5L7u52TEWE7GBDZa--