On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 09:58:19AM -0500 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > Also, can we drop the idea of "stable"? It does not fit the audience > that it seems we're shooting for at all. I would think "enterprise" is > much more fitting, as suggested by others before myself.
In general, I try to avoid solutions that are too specific because they tend to be the ones that get lost in the shuffle or go unmaintained after one or two iterations. I also hope that the stable tree *will* eventually turn into something akin to Debian Stable (although updated more frequently) or FreeBSD-stable. That's up to the QA team, though. I'd like to keep the name stable if possible for the two reasons above. If folks really want a name change, I'd prefer something non-specific like 'fixed' which I think pauldv suggested earlier. > This is the initial proposal for the GLEP mainly to get comments and to > get the ball rolling from our developers and the community. As I see > it, pretty much anything in the GLEP is subject to change. Yep. > I agree with this completely. I see no reason at all for things such as > games to be added to the enterprise Gentoo. If a user really wants > them, they can grab the ebuild from the "regular" portage tree and add > it to their overlay. I would see enterprise Gentoo as a stable > platform for use in commercial environments, and by users which value > stability over the most current packages. This would allow Gentoo to > fit a much larger audience, especially since our "Enterprise" version > would still be free for all to use. I don't want to get in the business of defining what shouldn't be in this tree. While *I'm* proposing it for use by enterprise users, if we can reasonably accomodate other types of users, then I think we should. While adding games may not make sense for enterprise users, maybe there are other uses for it where it does make sense. It doesn't really cost us anything to keep that ability in there, so why remove it? --kurt
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
