From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18745 invoked by uid 1002); 25 Jun 2003 05:26:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 14984 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2003 05:26:33 -0000 From: Tony Clark To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 07:26:32 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 References: <20030625013328.GA10762@inventor.gentoo.org> <200306250502.32174.tclark@telia.com> <20030625040446.GA27460@cerberus.oppresses.us> In-Reply-To: <20030625040446.GA27460@cerberus.oppresses.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200306250726.32233.tclark@telia.com> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] *IMPORTANT* top-level management structure! X-Archives-Salt: e5171868-4a21-4bec-9efe-f3801e03f653 X-Archives-Hash: c5ae3a6f75ff79b1192826c1b6c92346 On Wednesday 25 June 2003 06.04, Jon Portnoy wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 05:02:32AM +0200, Tony Clark wrote: > > On Wednesday 25 June 2003 03.33, Daniel Robbins wrote: > > [snip] > > > 1. What is Gentoo 1.4. What it may have been intended to be in January > > is probably not what it is going to be now. Before you recruit all and > > sundry you have to define this as if it isn't defined everything will > > fall down and chaos will return. Some basic things I see is that it > > needs to be are: gcc3.3 based > > glibc2.3.2 > > openssl0.9.7 > > We can do this if you want to wait another couple of months. > > Unfortunately, there are some requests to have 1.4 ready for LWESF at > the beginning of Augusy This is just classical, happens everyday type stuff in electronics/software companies, espically ones who don't know what they are building with clear goals. Marketing keeps moving the requirements and dates aren't met. Some deadline finally gets set and a patch work job happens to meet THE DATE. > This is not viable. The tree is not gcc3.3-ready and OpenSSL 0.9.7 needs > a much more mature upgrade path, otherwise there will be serious > breakage (you need to remerge wget without ssl support, then merge the > new openssl, then rebuild everything depending on it currently). The OpenSSL upgrade is really ready, it just that the whole tree needs a rebuild which is time consumming. You have to break the cycle sooner or later. Seems to me one solution is to release a binary version of 1.4 build with the latest OpenSSL goes someway to ease that upgrade. Users can get a working basic system maybe with kde and gnome desktops then add or rebuild at their own pace. New takers have no problems as they are current. GCC is a slightly different problem but not as large. I guess it could be solved putting different versions of GCC in slots. Glibc is pretty well there and doesn't seem to have any problems that I have noticed. > > > 2. What are the core applications. Is it a desktop, a server orinitated > > system or a system compremised to do both. I would suggest desktop as I > > think thats what it is mainly used for, but I don't have the stats so I > > could be well off the mark. (Market research required) > > I don't understand what you mean by 'core applications' in this context. I think of core applications as things people are actually going to use to do something outside of maintaining their systems. ie desktop, browser, apache etc. verses core-system stuff like kernels, tools, portage etc. > > 3. What platform should be supported at release time. Here I think x86 > > and maybe x86-64. Targeting too many will just delay it. Have some > > other dates for the rest to follow. > > We target all platforms that're release-ready. Right now, that's x86, > ppc, and sparc. Release-ready means the tree is prepped, the stages and > LiveCDs can be built, install documents are up on the site. Well if you ask me, thats too many for an August deadline. Do the best that can be done with x86 and have the rest follow by a month. That way any nasty bugs can be squashed before the other 2 hit the stand but I guess the Marketing Dept has mandated that all 3 will be ready at the same time. :) > > > These are just really fundementals but until the requirements are > > documented things will never really come together. > > > > Get things out in the open. Gentoo-core is probably the worst idea > > someone ever came up with, OSS development is meant to be a very > > transparent process. Make it transparent. I know there are always > > private issues but if they involve more than 3 people then perhaps they > > should be public. > > We are making it transparent by discussing development on gentoo-dev. Don't tell me, someone woke up this morning and formed a new management structure, honest :) You know you need this transparent as it is the only hope of it getting done in time. It's not a big deal for me actually, it's just that of ppl where primed and ready for the announcement you would be more than halfway towards meeting the objectives. Anyway, from another comment it is impossible to define goals for Gentoo therefore I would submit it is impossible to have a 1.4 release. I have no problems with that, marketing probably does though. tony -- Contract ASIC and FPGA design. Telephone +46 702 894 667 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x633E2623 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list