Re: [gentoo-dev] Attracting developers (Re: Packages up for grabs...)
On 2013.01.05 05:47, Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 10:43 Mon 17 Dec , Markos Chandras wrote: On 16 December 2012 18:53, Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: How to do this, however, and what software to target should probably be decided by people who know more than me... and in the end it all boils down to who has the time and motivation. Outsource it to someone who has the knowledge and interest in doing this. The foundation has the funds to support it, and none of us actually have the time to invest in a complete webpage redesign. I did much of the design work nearly 2 years ago: http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/gentoo_website/ gentoo_landing_black.png http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/gentoo_website/ gentoo_landing_install.png http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/gentoo_website/ gentoo_landing_handbook.png http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/gentoo_website/ gentoo_landing_handbook2.png Some early work on it using Bootstrap: http://a3li.li/~alex/g.o/ That said, why the hell are we wasting time implementing our own website backend when we should be using a CMS? We're here to make a distro, not a website framework. No reason we should care, day to day, about anything but frontend theming and content. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Council Member / Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux http://dberkholz.com Analyst, RedMonk http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/ Donnie. We make our own website framework for the same reason that everything else happens in Gentoo. Someone is interested in doing it. I agree its not 'core business' but Gentoo isn't a business. -- Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of elections gentoo-ops forum-mods trustees pgpdIQacGgwHH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Attracting developers (Re: Packages up for grabs...)
Am Samstag, 5. Januar 2013, 16:46:07 schrieb Roy Bamford: That said, why the hell are we wasting time implementing our own website backend when we should be using a CMS? We're here to make a distro, not a website framework. No reason we should care, day to day, about anything but frontend theming and content. Donnie. We make our own website framework for the same reason that everything else happens in Gentoo. Someone is interested in doing it. I agree its not 'core business' but Gentoo isn't a business. Even if you're not a business you should care about maintainable solutions. -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Attracting developers (Re: Packages up for grabs...)
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: Am Samstag, 5. Januar 2013, 16:46:07 schrieb Roy Bamford: That said, why the hell are we wasting time implementing our own website backend when we should be using a CMS? We're here to make a distro, not a website framework. No reason we should care, day to day, about anything but frontend theming and content. Donnie. We make our own website framework for the same reason that everything else happens in Gentoo. Someone is interested in doing it. I agree its not 'core business' but Gentoo isn't a business. Even if you're not a business you should care about maintainable solutions. I'm sure at the time it was created (12+ years ago) the website looked pretty maintainable :) -A -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Attracting developers (Re: Packages up for grabs...)
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: Even if you're not a business you should care about maintainable solutions. I'm sure at the time it was created (12+ years ago) the website looked pretty maintainable :) Hence the reason we should strongly consider a mainstream CMS. I don't have a problem with somebody wanting to spend a lot of time making something fancy for us - we're all volunteers. The problem is that the satisfaction of having built something new and shiny tends to wear off, and then it ends up having to be maintained by people who could care less how fancy the engine behind it is. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Attracting developers (Re: Packages up for grabs...)
On 18:03 Sat 05 Jan , Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Am Samstag, 5. Januar 2013, 16:46:07 schrieb Roy Bamford: I agree its not 'core business' but Gentoo isn't a business. Even if you're not a business you should care about maintainable solutions. More importantly, even if you aren't a business (although we are, technically, albeit a not-for-profit one), you should still have a mission that you're focused on accomplishing. Otherwise you can justify anything in the context of Gentoo, when in reality we need to limit our scope to increase our impact. I actually suspect this is a byproduct of Gentoo being many contributors' first OSS development experiences. They're nervous to branch out on their own w/ e.g. a GitHub repo so they initiate *everything* under the Gentoo umbrella. I would argue that defining a clear vision and audience for Gentoo would significantly increase our ability to get useful things done. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Council Member / Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux http://dberkholz.com Analyst, RedMonk http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/ pgpzBhWAtbiqb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] About using a CONFIGURATION (or SETUP) file under /usr/share/doc for configuration information
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 11:34:59PM -0600, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 10:26 Sat 22 Dec , Pacho Ramos wrote:
Hello
After seeing:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=440214
Looking to a lot of its blockers shows that we are using elog messages
for informing people about configuration (like pointing people to
external links to get proper way of configuring things, tell them to add
to some system groups...). I thought that maybe this kind of information
could be simply included in a canonical file under /usr/share/doc/
package dir called, for example, CONFIGURATION or SETUP. We would them
point people (now with a news item, for the long term provably a note to
handbook to newcomers would be nice) to that file to configure their
setups. The main advantages I see:
- We will flood less summary.log ;)
- The information to configure the package is always present while
package is installed, now, if we remove merge produced logs, people will
need to reemerge the package or read directly the ebuild
What do you think?
Bikeshedding ... would go with README.gentoo, because people are already
used to looking for README files. Every time we can eliminate
Gentoo-specific weirdness, we should.
Thinking about this, I tend to agree. That way we can put the README
file in ${FILESDIR} and change it whenever we need to for different
versions of the package.
William
--
Thanks,
Donnie
Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux http://dberkholz.com
Analyst, RedMonk http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/
pgpruzYrr009F.pgp
Description: PGP signature
