Re: [gentoo-dev] DistroWatch and Gentoo packages: status quo and future
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: >> koffice (2.0.2) 1.6.3 > > There has been koffice-meta-2.0.2 for a while. Good catch, thank you! Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] DistroWatch and Gentoo packages: status quo and future
Aaron Bauman wrote: > Sebastian, > I definitely admire your point and know that through your tracking and > Google > SoC project you have good visibility on this I do however have to disagree. > As much as I enjoy the open source community and admire the products they put > out I do believe Gentoo has the right approach to packaging. > My standpoint is that Gentoo always ensures stability in the fact that > we > require packages to be tested prior to release in the main portage tree and > secondly the Gentoo developers always ensure security as best as they can. > These I believe are what keep the portage tree somewhat behind the > latest and > greatest and as always there are overlays and options that allow users to > pull > these packages down if they want. > I believe the great thing about Gentoo is the choice of whether to be > cutting > edge or not. If I have missed anything please let me know. I don't think we should trade away quality. You said you disagree with me but with that said I don't see at which point. Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: 2009.0 profiles
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Saturday 29 August 2009 05:42:45 Duncan wrote: Mike Frysinger posted on Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:56:33 -0400 as excerpted: On Friday 28 August 2009 20:05:12 Alex Alexander wrote: On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 00:23, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 28 August 2009 16:27:18 Sebastian Pipping wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: 10.0 is retarded How would you like the problem to be addressed? we already have a simple logical version system. 2009.0 is the next step. Years do not make a good versioning scheme, if one release gets out late you're automatically considered outdated by users. then help the release team to get more tested releases, otherwise reality is we are releasing out of date install media But as we all know, releases != profiles. If there's no reason to update the profiles besides the fact that the name incorporates a year, and they look out of date, why do so? For that reason, getting away from year for the profiles is a reasonable idea, now that Gentoo seems to be mature enough that we don't need a new profile multiple times a year. OTOH, having the year in there, as long as people don't get fixated on it, can be useful as an indication of when the profile was born, just not necessarily that it's outdated. If it weren't for the outdated appearance, therefore, year would be fine. except that profiles and releases have always been tied (for good reason). profile default changes are made as part of the release process. if we want to change a USE flag default, we dont (shouldnt) be doing it to live profiles. it is part of the natural version bumping. releng has always been managing new profiles since we started the process years ago and there's no reason to change now. Well, besides the fact that releng is not interested in making new profiles... Whatever, bikeshedding from my perspective, and this one I don't /care/ what the color/name is. But since we already have 10.0 profiles in-tree, just run with them, as it's more work to worry about changing them now, than it's worth. (And, I might add, I'm glad they're in, as the /last/ thing we need is to be stalemated debating it for a year or two, as it /is/ bikeshedding.) date based profiles isnt bikeshedding, it's logical. and if your only complaint is that it doesnt matter, then there is absolutely no reason to go changing from what we've been doing for years with no complaints. picking random numbers out of your ass (like 10.0) is confusing. 10 year anniversary of Gentoo. It's not random, nor is it confusing. IMO. -mike
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: 2009.0 profiles
On Friday 11 September 2009 19:48:03 George Prowse wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > ... > > Why not tie the the thing that makes Gentoo unique and one of the major > reasons why users use it to the version numbers - Portage. > > We had 1.2, then 1.4 then 2004.0 and if i'm not mistaken portage is at > 2.1 currently. Tie it in and we have 2.2 (currently masked) next. Add > release candidates along the way and everyone is happy. But i'm sure > there is a million reasons why this is wrong... Bring on the wrath. these two things simply dont make sense to tie together. profiles control the default configuration for your system (USE flags / build flags / etc...) while portage is a package manager. version changes in the package manager dont directly relate in any way to the default configuration the user has selected. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: DistroWatch and Gentoo packages: status quo and future
Ryan Hill wrote: > Personally I don't see how gaming the system helps us in any way. I was afraid it could be read in such a way. Handing out fake version numbers would be much easier, wouldn't it? I want every single package int he tree to be stable, up to date and polished. But as our resources are limited let's focus on packages that are most important first. > Also, screw DW. I'd be interested to hear details about your attitude off-list. Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] DistroWatch and Gentoo packages: status quo and future
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Hello there!
>
>
> Among other information the Gentoo page at DistroWatch [1] displays a
> table on about 200 selected packages [2] and how up to date Gentoo is
> per package. I assume that DistroWatch is still one of the first places
> people go to get a feeling for a Distro they heard about, besides
> Wikpedia and ${distro}.org.
>
> The freshness of these 200 packages have influence on how people
> perceive Gentoo on DistroWatch. While the tree as a whole is what we
> should keep as up to date as possible keeping these 200 packages (list
> further down) up to date can therefore be of particular importance.
>
> From a quick look at the table these packages seem to need extra care in
> Gentoo:
>
> cups (1.4.0) 1.3.11 <-- latest in Gentoo unstable/testing
> koffice (2.0.2) 1.6.3
There has been koffice-meta-2.0.2 for a while.
> mysql (5.1.38) 5.0.84
> perl (5.10.1)5.8.8
> php (5.3.0) 5.2.10
> samba (3.4.1)3.3.7
Marijn
- --
If you cannot read my mind, then listen to what I say.
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
