From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32297 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2004 21:03:35 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 20 Jul 2004 21:03:35 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Bn1lt-0007eo-M1 for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:03:33 +0000 Received: (qmail 10783 invoked by uid 89); 20 Jul 2004 21:03:14 +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 1290 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2004 21:03:14 +0000 X-T2-Posting-ID: +Fzxb8ijMtpvZ+oCWeFeV97fN06SrlYKWbc7nsfdk0I= Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:03:15 +0200 From: Tom Payne To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <20040720210315.GA7889@tompayne.org> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20040720131405.GW18023@mail.lieber.org> <200407201643.25486.absinthe@gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200407201643.25486.absinthe@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Revisiting GLEP 19 X-Archives-Salt: 35c54b51-5ccd-46ea-8f02-3131225e521e X-Archives-Hash: bc8bcc5858ebab9376ee82e3b50fa7ac On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:43:25PM -0400, Dylan Carlson wrote: > On Tuesday 20 July 2004 9:14 am, Kurt Lieber wrote: > > A while back, I wrote GLEP 19[1] based on some of the needs of the > > gentoo-server project. For various reasons, the GLEP was tabled at the > > time and never went anywhere. A number of folks have expressed an > > interest in revitalizing this GLEP, so I'd like to start a new > > discussion about implementing it. There was a couple of previous > > threads on this GLEP back when it was first introduced that I'll > > include[2] for your reference. > > Therefore I believe another possible solution is to change the way we use > profiles (both in practice and in QA policy): > > Implications: > > 4/ we will need to have a policy about how long we'll support a profile, > and a procedure for end-of-lifing profiles. (probably don't want to > support a single profile for more than 2 years) We will also need to persuade every dev to support this. Often bug fixes are available from upstream only in a new version of a package, and are mixed in with a many other improvements. Extracting the bug fix _only_ and backporting this fix to an old version is at best time consuming, often difficult, and occasionally impossible. I think one of the reasons that Gentoo as stable as it is, despite the speed at which it changes, is that we limit ourselves to supporting _only_ what the upstream author supports. Doing anything else requires lots of manpower. Either you employ hundreds of developers like RedHat, or you end up with a very stable but very slow moving distribution like Debian. I don't want Gentoo to be either. Backporting fixes to out-of-date software that I no longer use for the benefit of people I don't even know exist is distinctly unglamourous and doesn't scratch any of my Open Source itches. You really need to persuade developers that "Enterprise (slow-moving) Gentoo" is a good idea before discussing implementation details. -- Tom -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list