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 2E6421389E2 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:00:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2748CE08BB; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:00:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F20D2E0880 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:00:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E93E234072E for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:00:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.343 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.343 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.631, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no 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 5S24-sLhGX8h for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:00:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A7AE340746 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:00:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XtxkS-00074O-9b for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:00:36 +0100 Received: from rrcs-71-40-157-251.se.biz.rr.com ([71.40.157.251]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:00:36 +0100 Received: from wireless by rrcs-71-40-157-251.se.biz.rr.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:00:36 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: James Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's future directtion ? Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:00:27 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <5470D229.7000806@tampabay.rr.com> <54760E01.2050508@gentoo.org> <547620C2.8050806@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 71.40.157.251 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/29.0 SeaMonkey/2.26.1) X-Archives-Salt: 3df26018-1f19-48e6-abf3-578a596bc288 X-Archives-Hash: cc5c7710de9f23d298de039a00317dbd hasufell gentoo.org> writes: > I still don't see a good argument why we made our system so inflexible, > that obviously needed change needs such high amount of work, PR and proof. I think that most folks appreciate your efforts and insightful ideas on how to open up development, particularly in non-critical (non-core) areas. The quesiton is how do we get from where we are to where we want to be. I find most of what I'm interested in already in Arch Linux. I wonder why it is so much easier for Arch users to create pkgbuilds (like gentoo's ebuilds) and find a dev to adopt the package? Surely someone has some insight on this differences, or do I miss something that creats the difference? [1] I also find the Arch documentation to be of the finest quality of any and all linux distros, close to gentoo. ymmv. > Trying to improve a tiny fraction about gentoo workflow (including your > attempts) already took more than 4(?) years with never ending excuses. > The necessity was more than obvious. > Now I could talk about similarly obvious things. Sure, not all issues > are obvious and those shouldn't be easy to push through. Everyone understands small changes and all changes take time for the majority of members to digest, imho. Not everyone has your keen insight into the problem/opportunity. So your patience in explanation, encouragement and solicitation, is very important, if your idea is to be implemented and tested. Naturally, Rich and other deeply involved devs, with addtional responsibilities exude caution, to keep the gentoo stable. They will not be the source of "team building" for your idea, imho. > You can draw your conclusions about this. I drew mine: small changes > will not get us out of here. I think the jury is still out. So, why can't we test a transient plan where we take something very broken areas at Gentoo (games or java or sys-cluster) and test out your hypothesis for package development expansion? In fact, I've been looking over quite a few ebuilds and pkgbuilds at (Arch linux). [2] I see quite a lot of commonality. So, why can we not "modify" this aforementioned "inflexible" system on gentoo to allow for Arch Linux pkgbuilds to be routinely compiled and installed on gentoo? Maybe limit the test to /usr/local/portage or /usr/local/portage/test/ so folks can participate or purge the experiment? Maybe find some Arch linux devs keen on the idea of developing/evolving package management so that the two distros can readiy (or more easily) convert packages between Arch and Gentoo? Is it possible? Could your plan be modified to include a variety of Arch developers? Surely you have a collection of devs ready to implement your keen ideas? I, for one realize something fundamental has to change with Gentoo, after pushing a few months on java and cluster codes.... Also, there is a vast array of software, of various quality, among the overlay repositories to use as test-packages? The biggest thing I seen wrong with Arch is they have forced systemd onto their users, and all of the arch users I know, are not very happy about that. So if you approach this correctly, I'm sure quite a few Arch linux folks would also test your offerings. > Have fun, if you can. Always we should have fun. That is why we should deeply discuss these issues to find common ground. Maybe fixing this inflexible system should involve a survey of those distros closest to gentoo, for ideas, particulary several (structured) methods to install packages, provide choices for the init system, and strongly advocate package development within the ranks of the user base. Clear and concise documentation, concurrent with this effort is probably your single greatest alley, should your idea and leadership prove successful. hth, James [1] http://www.volkerschatz.com/unix/ebuilds/ebuilds.html [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/sl/slurm-llnl/PKGBUILD