bleugh replied to "Public mailing list for archlinux development" again.. so i post here!
On Wed, 09 May 2007 00:42:06 +0200, Andreas Radke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > congratulation. we have won! > > our gcc-gcj is broken due to a major feature addon the developer made > right before he orphaned it. we (Hussam who does i686 rc packages and > me) are no more able to build OpenOffice.org standing a few days before > the 2.2.1 release candidate. this is not to blaim that developer but for > any other developer and all users not using the testing repo. > > but this is only the peak of all the chaotic "development" as we call > it. untill now we used have one ArchLinux tree now having two > architectures officially supported (i686+x86_64) based on simplicity and > pacman repo manager as its basic parts. Having the latest stable package > version was the goal. we have put more and more packages into the > current+extra repos. important packages we want to test for a while in > our "testing" repos. sadly it's not worth the name. almost nobody uses > it. even not all developers as highly recommended. continously we put > packages with major issues into the stable repos. > > we from the x86_64 port are only 2 guys rebuilding and maintaining > ~2500 packages. we have not the power and possebility to change > anything important. > > from my point of view we have passed a point where this concept won't > work anymore. we have a poor developement infrastructure compared to > other distributions. we slow down our package release process due to > many developers beeing busy with other things (real life and more). but > then we force us to push things very quickly into the repos to satisfy > our own old goals. > > well. not more with me beeing responsible for the Arch x86_64 port. > > some ways are possible: > > 1) improve the infrastructure and increase the manpower of developers > and packagers for all supported dramatically. we are trying that for > over a year now without any noticable real success. > > 2) dramatically lower the work(=less binary packages) for the devs to > give them time for making packages of a better quality. doubt came up > as Arch should remain a supported binary distribution in most parts. > > 3) new goals for ArchLinux: accept to have not well tested packages > when we want to keep the update speed or accept a lower speed on update > to get new packages better tested. > > 4) split the goals we have! let's have one more conservative stable > rolling rellease tree for higher quality and one on the bleading edge > front accepting it might break sometime. > > > > I've brought it up several times: i'm no more willing to be the dump > rebuild monkey. > > wha i suggest is a mix of 3) and 4). > > there is only one working other distribution based on pacman out > claiming having a stable tree. I've talked to several devs and users > and they can imagine that a stable distribution by ArchLinux can become > a successor. > > I'm going to start a new project based on what we now call ArchLinux > for a new more stable but easy to maintain distribution. I would like to > do this for ArchLinux. But I have also no problem if you totally dislike > that and say it's a NoGo under the name of ArchLinux. > > Everybody who wants to help out or has something to say may post > here or contact me on one of my instant messenger accounts you find in > the forum. > > AndyRTR > nut543(really at work now): I've said it before and i'll say it again; NOONE of this is needed if we had more of a wiki'ish system like me and phrakture have talked about in the past HERE: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg10504.html You want to alleviate the problems that you are facing? Well the above is the only viable solution unless you want to build a friggin "stable" distro. (which btw, old packages != stability anyway) You could increase the TU size or increase some hierarchial system like most distros do but that would only be to shift the problem on to some supposedly elite group of users who frankly only represent a percentile of the real man-power out there. Look at the PKGBUILD's posted to the AUR; there are doctors, physicists, mathematicians, sysadmins etc etc; we have a very capable bunch that's dying to help out, if only the infrastructure was there to help them do it. They don't want to post to the bugtracker only to be told "i'll get to it when i have the time" when they know perfectly well that they could have fixed the issue already, for all future users if they had the oppurtunity. That's like saying, hey we have this free distro here, but we don't value your contribution unless you are one of "insert elite group here", and be really nice and everything after you have jumped through a lot of hoops getting registered for the bugtracker, sat a bunch of values, explained what is the issue etc etc and wait wait wait. WHEN YOU COULD HAVE JUST FIXED THE ISSUE AND HELPED OUT OTHER USERS Why isn't this glaringly obvious that we need to fix? I very much support phrakture's idea of an implementation aswell, and maybe just a good old fashioned wiki with a repo section and an AUR section where devs could grab PKGBUILD's as they are updated by the users would really be the best unless someone steps up that wants to build this cool new system and get interviewed from all the papers afterward ;D - nut543 -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
