From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <troy@tkdack.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_NXDOMAIN,
DMARC_MISSING,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,WEIRD_PORT autolearn=unavailable
autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0
Received: from mta01bw.bigpond.com (mta01bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.78])
by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E522019AC5
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 00:06:32 -0600 (CST)
Received: from linuxbox.internal.lan ([144.135.24.84]) by
mta01bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP
id GTRVFE00.7AJ for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Sat, 30 Mar 2002
16:02:02 +1000
Received: from CPE-61-9-165-54.vic.bigpond.net.au ([61.9.165.54]) by bwmam06.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 47/2781456); 30 Mar 2002 16:02:02
Received: from gentoo.internal.lan (windowsbox.internal.lan [192.168.1.100])
by linuxbox.internal.lan (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B2A11A487
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:02:01 +1100
From: Troy Dack <troy@tkdack.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unstable branch proposal - second round
To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:02:00 +1100
References: <20020325112402.296491A429@linuxbox.internal.lan> <200203161942.LAA07376@chamber.cco.caltech.edu> <1017445237.10692.31.camel@mule.relentless.org>
User-Agent: KNode/0.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-Id: <20020330060201.6B2A11A487@linuxbox.internal.lan>
Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org
Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-request@gentoo.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev>,
<mailto:gentoo-dev-request@gentoo.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev>,
<mailto:gentoo-dev-request@gentoo.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gentoo.org/pipermail/gentoo-dev/>
X-Archives-Salt: 5cb11055-987c-48bb-a61e-4df553aed517
X-Archives-Hash: 12deeeb23ac1b7018149ff0bfa7ecc39
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:40, Chris Johnson got a bunch of monkeys together
and come up with:
> What I don't like about this, and catching Aaron Cohen's tone perhaps in
> his follow-up email ("Great, we will be a Debian Want a be!"), is the
> complexity of a set of cvs branches, stability levels, etc.
>
> It's what has made a mess of debian from the perspective of having
> mature packages float to the top and become available in a timely
> manner. See, if I run debian, I have to make all sorts of decisions
> about what stability level, which tree, which mirrors, etc. I want to
> connect to. With the quality of ebuilds and the ease of the gentoo
> system, we can have much lower complexity and higher quality.
>
> I vote strongly against any cvs branches of the portage tree--that's why
> we currently have the -rx designations, anyway! Leverage that and the
> organic nature of the community (i.e., see my proposal at
>
http://relentless.org:8000/gentoo/forum/message?message_id=6584&forum_id=6581
> ) to get a simple, effective system.
>
> Please, avoid the duplication of effort that all the branches of debian
> represent!
>
> Chris
Fair enough... I realise that the -rx designations are there, however I
have had -rx .ebuilds fail on numerous occassions because there was simply
not enough testing before the ebuild was submitted to CVS.
This is fine if you already have a package installed ... simply file a bug,
or slap the ebuild maintainer on IRC and in a few hours (a day or two at
most) the ebuild is fixed and away you go.
The problem comes when a new user is trying to build their system and they
get all these errors. We don't want to discourage newcomers by having a
tree of ebuilds that is not 100% stable for their first installation.
That was my main reason for suggesting seperate CVS branch(es).
I agree that Gentoo is not targeted at the "I've never seen linux before
and thought I'd give it a go" type of user (that's what RH & MDK do), but I
don't think we should make new users jump through too many hoops simply
because an ebuild maintainer has hastily submitted an ebuild --
particularly for core packages (baselayout is one that comes to mind).
Perhaps a comprimise ....
A stable/install CVS branch that is only used during the initial
bootstrap/build process and afterwards portage defaults to using the
regular CVS tree?
Still it is a refreshing way to get my linux "fix"!
--
Troy Dack
http://linuxserver.tkdack.com
The onset and the waning of love make themselves felt in the uneasiness
experienced at being alone together.
-- Jean de la Bruyere