From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1EuuLa-0003LT-OJ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2006 16:21:47 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k06GL3k3026899; Fri, 6 Jan 2006 16:21:03 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k06GJGAv010635 for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2006 16:19:16 GMT Received: from d071254.adsl.hansenet.de ([80.171.71.254] helo=iglu.bnet.local) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.54) id 1EuuJ9-0006DM-IZ for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2006 16:19:15 +0000 From: Carsten Lohrke To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 19: Gentoo Stable Portage Tree -- ideas Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 17:19:06 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9 References: <43BDF53C.8080205@leetworks.com> <1136560152.18383.15.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <43BE8C5B.4020804@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <43BE8C5B.4020804@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart6424722.o5in09kGzJ"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200601061719.13224.carlo@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: cb62e08b-3150-47be-975f-5bcc6ac87347 X-Archives-Hash: b69a45f486698262c387ad0987ef2208 --nextPart6424722.o5in09kGzJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday 06 January 2006 16:27, Lance Albertson wrote: > As seen from the discussion earlier this week, I don't think Gentoo has > the proper open-mindness to create a proper enterprise distro. This has nothing to with open-mindness, but having enough people doing the= =20 general maintenance of a clearly defined frozen (sub-)tree as well as=20 backports to fix vulnerabilities and other critical issues, without negativ= e=20 effects on other Gentoo subprojects (like "I work now on GLEP 19 stuff and= =20 don't care what I leave unmaintained instead."). Don't expect that=20 maintainers of packages of the current tree do backports for a GLEP 19 tree= =2E=20 This is something the proponents would need to do themselves. You can't=20 expect a commitment of the whole developer crowd in something only a minori= ty=20 is interested in. This doesn't mean there can't be a frozen tree within the= =20 context of Gentoo or as a separate project, of course. Carsten --nextPart6424722.o5in09kGzJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDvpiBVwbzmvGLSW8RAlnrAJwKCMS6jWblxxrDrR6kQ+mqLIAUYQCgi04E 1BHinMKy/h9aY2CkrQLd2qM= =P/lU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart6424722.o5in09kGzJ-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list