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 1EuMrG-0004oa-VB for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 04:36:15 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k054ZReX003334; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 04:35:27 GMT Received: from mta9.adelphia.net (mta9.adelphia.net [68.168.78.199]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k054XPHE012750 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 04:33:25 GMT Received: from [192.168.0.165] (really [68.168.137.100]) by mta9.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060105043324.FHTA14388.mta9.adelphia.net@[192.168.0.165]> for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2006 23:33:24 -0500 Message-ID: <43BCA18F.5020809@leetworks.com> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 23:33:19 -0500 From: Andrew Muraco User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051102) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January References: <200601011053.k01ArjOh019213@robin.gentoo.org> <43B96D6D.8080107@gentoo.org> <1136226795.8779.10.camel@localhost> <43B975FD.1000401@gentoo.org> <1136228634.23404.125.camel@localhost> <1136230095.8779.32.camel@localhost> <43BAB220.1030601@gentoo.org> <1136311952.8779.76.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1136311952.8779.76.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: af64de97-2c55-443c-97ab-b57624ed1c16 X-Archives-Hash: fbd252de2070a74570d44d4119fe95bc Lares Moreau wrote: >On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 18:19 +0100, Simon Stelling wrote: > > >>My point is, either you have to generalize each project's goal to a real >>triviality or you have to define a goal which doesn't match some >>project's goals. Conclusion: Let it be. >> >> > >Maybe we are looking at this problem the wrong way. Instead of trying >to have Gentoo be the distro, perhaps Gentoo can be thought of as a >provider of infrastructure and tools to allow 'sub-distros' to flourish. > >THere are many projects which now are trying to pull Gentoo in many >different directions, such as bianary distro vs. enterprise distro. If >we remove "Gentoo as distro" from out thinking and replace it with >"Gentoo as provider of tools and infrastucture", These two seemingly >contradictory goals can each flourish in their own way. > >Haveing sub-distros, lack of a better term, is not new to Gentoo. >Hardened has their own LiveCD, profile and tools. I feel this can be >nurtured. Allowing the Binanary group to move in one direction, and >'tweakers' in an other, and die-hard security people in yet another, >while not severely conficting with each other. > > >Maybe what we need is a clearer definition of what each herd does? I am >considering writing a GLEP about this, having each herd answer three >questions periodicly (say 6mths). > - What do we want to do? > - How are we going to get there? > - How to we measure success? >and /maybe/ add a section about current devs and AT/HTs. >Just a thought. > > I like your idea of having gentoo not being a distro, but moreso a collection of tools. Mostly because gentoo's method of dealing with problems (problems that binary distros tend to have, like keeping software uptodate) are handled in a way thats just a tad more managable, plus when multiple repo support gets added, its just another way that gentoo can be customized and reflavored. +1 for that thinking Tux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list