From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MpS5K-00038F-FO for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:28:34 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CCCADE09DD; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:28:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D8CAE09DD for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:28:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 316A466F9B for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:28:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.547 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iQ1TOnq-8MtB for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:28:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5449B4ACB for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:12:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1MpRpw-0006Co-Ie for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:12:40 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-21-207.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.21.207]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:12:40 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-21-207.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:12:40 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: DistroWatch and Gentoo packages: status quo and future Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:12:17 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <4AAAD714.1010107@hartwork.org> <4b0462b4d4cc0f26a7b45e6787d51890@localhost> <4AAD4F43.6060906@hartwork.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-21-207.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 75715162-07c9-459d-8a7f-27d2ec4de793 X-Archives-Hash: 226bed3ed9f397406835c6b389435670 Sebastian Pipping posted on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:00:03 +0200 as excerpted: > Duncan wrote: >> [L]et's get some context here. layman's no difficulty at all, really, >> when compared to the ordinary stuff we expect Gentoo users to do all >> the time. >=20 > I think you forget about the learning curve: Gentoo users are not born > as Gentoo users. They are coming from other distros (say Debian or > Ubuntu). Not forgetting that, but perhaps forgetting how "unordinary" my own=20 experience was. I came from Mandrake, but researched Gentoo well enough=20 that I was already explaining portage basics based on the material in the= =20 Handbook, etc, on the user list (and reading the dev list), before I even= =20 had Gentoo installed. I like to think that if I can do it, everybody can, but regardless of=20 whether they /can/ or not, it's a fact that not everybody /does/, as=20 demonstrated by the fact that people were asking the questions I was=20 answering. I /do/ sometimes forget /that/ end of it, that for whatever reason, not=20 everybody chooses to read the handbook, etc, even if it's ultimately only= =20 making the job of sysadmining their own Gentoo boxen an order of=20 magnitude harder than it should be. > For me it was unmasking that confused me a lot in the beginning. There > is three different kinds, one is not in "the books" afaik and it's no > fun to me to do. I guess without autounmask by now I would be so > frustrated to not use Gentoo anymore. You have me wondering now what's "not in the books." I'd guess the three= =20 types of masking must be (entirely) unkeyworded, ~arch keyworded, and=20 hard-masked (package.mask-ed), but again, unless that material has=20 actually been /removed/ from the handbook since 2004, I was actually=20 explaining all that to others even from my still Mandrake system, so=20 it's /certainly/ in the books! And I don't need for autounmask, tho I do run ~arch. But the thing is,=20 if people are running enough individual ~arch packages so handling it=20 manually is difficult enough they need a tool for it, from my viewpoint,=20 they should seriously consider running ~arch anyway, since stable is=20 tested, and ~arch is somewhat tested, but nobody much tests a half-and- half system nor could it be practically so in any case since there's just= =20 too many millions of variants there to test, so trying to run such a half= - and-half system is really asking for more trouble than trying to run a=20 full ~arch system. But with a few small refinements over the years as Gentoo and its FLOSS=20 environment have changed, again, that's very close to the same position=20 and explanation I took from the very beginning, while I was still working= =20 on my first install. > Seriously, stuff like the layman setup mess is another tiny reason > keeping our user base smaller than needed, keeping our recruiting rates > down. I guess I just don't see it. There's a reason the packages on the=20 overlays aren't yet part of the tree, because in general, either the=20 ebuilds (if not the upstream packages) aren't yet mature enough to be in- tree (at least unmasked, in-tree), or they're community ebuilds, not=20 Gentoo-dev vetted ones. Keeping that distinction, for the protection of=20 both Gentoo and its users, is a deliberate policy. Those who are mature=20 enough to handle the risks of overlays can get them with little problem,=20 while those newbies who self-evidently are NOT mature enough in their=20 Gentoo usage to properly handle the risk (or it'd not be a problem for=20 them in the first place since they'd be comfortable with the tools and=20 how to use them), are by deliberate policy, kept away from the additional= =20 risk and danger. Other than minor refinements here or there, I just don't see how that can= =20 or should be changed, unless we're simply deciding that policy is wrong- headed, so damn the torpedoes headed for our users, full steam ahead, let= =20 them at them! --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman