From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19FA5138A1A for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 15:31:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 93779E085C; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 15:31:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com (mail-wg0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 321F3E084B for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 15:31:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id l18so10123081wgh.26 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 07:31:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HUQIbvGK2qaTtKk8xFRNW+kPJXb349y7bH83Qa5fwwY=; b=G4AIq79svhjc2iPqknCuE3Q1VvdG2mN530UmL3MoJ5qYVkZRmtZhsBoA8lAYw9VO7+ U5Trumq6j3nf4fzoiCBTxUsOBMkR9/uKQgdD/17H2uqw7G60mPGKyVwOKZlkwEDLTwst 6+fOxbHJ8R4QOR9dC21pdSjXuPfKohz+GszkgHxhEjgZrRPxtqJB13jhfqk0glg5NO6u zxi4DubVMsM+9M8oUypl+eiPCCECVZgGcTtCTtcSz/qQnAB+V0qPn87y06qOBy7k9U3r Ntp7vb+CbjZFsMn4QPowqMfZRTX2Diaw23eEhXjDyV44vwua6/AKpSCnE6VFfQDBDXQP VOXQ== X-Received: by 10.180.75.237 with SMTP id f13mr13699159wiw.69.1416756705911; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 07:31:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.21] (p4FC12258.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [79.193.34.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bf6sm16794697wjb.13.2014.11.23.07.31.45 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 23 Nov 2014 07:31:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5471FDE1.2040108@googlemail.com> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 16:31:45 +0100 From: Volker Armin Hemmann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's future directtion ? References: <5470D229.7000806@tampabay.rr.com> <5470DBF5.1060304@gentoo.org> <547111B5.2030909@gentoo.org> <20141123151825.GA2139@vidovic.ultras.lan> In-Reply-To: <20141123151825.GA2139@vidovic.ultras.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 0ed09dc2-c471-4911-b71c-5d063add310d X-Archives-Hash: c1b891e657b30ee28887e7cce71ba23a Am 23.11.2014 um 16:18 schrieb Nicolas Sebrecht: > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 06:20:01PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for more overlay support. I'm all for >> reform when there is something to reform. However, in all your >> complaints about developers causing conflicts you're actually becoming >> part of the problem. > I'd say the problem is not about the devs themselves causing conflicts > but the environment and frame devs are working in the current workflow. > Everybody look baffled with the current way of doing things in Gentoo. > > I agree with hasukel that the "distributed Gentoo" as proposed today is > a wrong answer. Not that the issues raised are not valid. They do. > > Also, I agree with hasukel that the main problem is about having a > correct distributed model. Posting on bugzilla for ebuilds updates or > new ebuilds is seriously damaging when almost every where else it is > just about sending your git patches. Becoming an official Gentoo dev is > not a solution either due to the recruiting process. > > As you say, official devs can work on whatever they like and their > contributions will likely hit the users at some point while at the same > time occasional devs are asked to work with old tools like bugzilla. So > yes, the whole review process is broken and the contribution process is > broken too. > > About that, there's no other way than break the whole recruiting process > and change of tools. Have your core team handle git repositories and let > others request pull or send patches like almost all the other open > source softwares in the world. Let's exploit the anarchy and openness > instead of partitionning things into devs/non-devs or main-tree/overlays. > > > Back to the original request. Here is how starts the "distributed > Gentoo" model: > > Imagine you would say "I like gentoo, but I don't like the way the > toolchain is handled, so I want to do it differently". Currently, your > only way is to fork the whole distro or do dangerous stuff with > overlays. > > Imagine gentoo would actually be a small repository of core packages > with lots of optional user contributed extenions of all kinds. You'd > only need to fork the core and add those extensions you like. > > Similarly... you don't like the way ruby is handled? Well, apart from > dev-lang/ruby maybe, there'd be no ruby gems in the tree anyway. So > there can be different approaches of packaging ruby gems and you choose > which to use or if you want to do it completely different. And there > would be no complicated configuration required to prevent in-tree ruby > packages getting pulled in, because there are none. > > Isn't this all stuff about handling some kind of pointers? Don't like > the toolchain? Point to another one. Don't like the way ruby is handled? > Point to another one. > > So, is it about overlays? No. I'd say overlays are some kind of poor > pointers for many reasons. > > Hence, why not adding the pointers we are all missing and rethinking the > other pointers? > am I the only one who thinks that this way leads to madness? Version conflicts are bad enough. No multiply that with a bunch of overlays, all having their own libXY with just some tiny, tiny differences, and another bunch of overlays who want libXY from certain others.... if that does not give you nightmares, I don't know what.