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.
