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 4.43) id 1E0ON0-0005c7-KM for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2005 18:53:51 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j73IqPt4030010; Wed, 3 Aug 2005 18:52:25 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j73IogOB026046 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2005 18:50:42 GMT Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E0OKc-0001EH-RG for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2005 18:51:11 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1E0OIu-0002tQ-Iq for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2005 20:49:24 +0200 Received: from dsl-082-083-011-150.arcor-ip.net ([82.83.11.150]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 03 Aug 2005 20:49:24 +0200 Received: from skoehler by dsl-082-083-011-150.arcor-ip.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 03 Aug 2005 20:49:24 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: =?UTF-8?B?U3ZlbiBLw7ZobGVy?= Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: where goes Gentoo? Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 20:43:19 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20050606235550.GL9084@kaf.zko.hp.com> <1123076347.31550.17.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> 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; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigA29BAFA98F0CF4526A3978EC" X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: dsl-082-083-011-150.arcor-ip.net User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en In-Reply-To: <1123076347.31550.17.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 69f20e24-7f34-457f-80c1-73fce4ac8397 X-Archives-Hash: 6ac1183d21767ec685b99046ac45fe14 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigA29BAFA98F0CF4526A3978EC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>In my humble opinion, Gentoo is missing too many points to be an >>>enterprise Linux. We commit to a live tree. We don't have true QA, >>>testing or tinderbox. We don't have paid staff, alpha/beta/rc cycles. >>>We don't really have product lifecycles, since we don't generally >>>backport fixes to older versions, requiring instead for people to >>>update to a more recent release. We don't have, and probably will >>>never be able to offer, support contracts. We support as wide a range >>>of hardware as the upstream kernel, plus hardware that requires >>>external drivers; we don't have access to a great deal of the hardware >>>for which we provide drivers. We understand when real life gets in >>>the way of bug-fixing, because all our developers are volunteers. >> >>QA is a problem. Bugs get fixed, but often they are only fixed in ~x86 >>versions, not in the stable x86 series. For example baselayout: there >>are lot of ~x86 - miles ahead of that is marked x86. Maintainers think, >>it's sufficient to only fix the most recent version. How do they >>legitimate that? > > This one is easy. A stable package's ebuild should not change. Period. I agree with you there - though sometimes, stable ebuilds are changed - even without changing the version-number. > To "fix" the stable version, means that a new revision of the latest > stable version would need to be made, and that revision would need to be > tested, before it would go to stable. The only real exception to this > is security bugs. Also, in many cases, the bug in question requires > changes that are simply not feasible easily in the current stable > version, but quite easy in the latest version. It really boils down to > this: If you're having an issue with a package in Gentoo and it is > fixed in the latest ~arch version, then you should *use* the ~arch > version (remember, it doesn't mean "unstable" it means "testing") and > you should report back to the maintainers that this is working for you > so that they can get it moved into stable quicker. We don't have the > staff or the time to backport every fix to every stable version. > Remember that in many cases the "latest stable" version varies between > architectures. I chose baselayout for a particular reason. There is baselayout 1.9, 1.11 and 1.12. (i think there was 1.10 too - some time ago - perhaps) I i reported bugs - as usual - but the bug was fixed for 1.11 or 1.12 (i can't remeber, it was about a year ago). The problem: the fix was not backported to 1.9 (which was stable at that time). Since baselayout is a very important part of Gentoo, i didn't think that it would be a good idea, to upgrade my x86-version 1.9 to a ~x86-version 1.11. So i would have expected that such changes would go into a new 1.9-version which could have become stable after some testing - but they didn't. So patches the scripts manually - well, and easy task, although i had to pay attention so they my changes weren't overwritten. --------------enigA29BAFA98F0CF4526A3978EC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFC8RBH7Ww7FjRBE4ARAmCZAKCYWs9CTNVIiGI+/7IZ8yjrFIMdLgCgj+SI MOBuxDcAvp9x35BPJUUuXoU= =JTDM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigA29BAFA98F0CF4526A3978EC-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list