On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:15:01 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: Chris, I am not familiar enough about gentoo's hierarchy, politics, or team responsibilities to question your sincerity or authority to say something like: Sorry, but if it isn't supported, it doesn't belong on Gentoo infrastructure.
I do think that is a pretty heavy-handed statement though. However, authority issues aside, I would like to respond to your comments. >> Secondly, my bias against a third party repository is perhaps >> unwarranted. I am sure the bmg site is excellent and the people running >> it are well-intentioned and experienced. However, that said, as a user, >> I have a higher comfort level staying in the gentoo.realm. > > Again, you are *proving* the point on why this would be bad. It would > be not nearly as well maintained, yet users such as yourself will have > this rose-colored perception that "it's from Gentoo, so it must be > good." This is the *exact* thing that I am trying to avoid. This will > *not* be from Gentoo and it will *not* be good. > I do not understand how ebuilds created by gentoo developers or interested users who may have contributed via bugzilla that are hosted on o.g.o would not be good? My perspective is primarily as a user. However, there are several ebuilds in portage, and one eclass with my name on it. So, I feel that I have the ability to discern between good and bad. I choose to contribute to gentoo because I want to. Some projects will never see the light of day. Others will. However, some bugs have a large following. And to keep those ebuilds in limbo is unfair to those users who are interested. >> Thirdly, the opportunity to be able to publish ebuilds that would >> otherwise languish in bugzilla is very exciting. I think it also gives >> the bugday people an opportunity to close out bugs. Despite what others >> have written, having multi-year old bugs is very counter productive. If >> something has not been fixed in so long, it probably either can't be >> fixed, or may not even apply anymore. I know this is a generalization, >> but if a bug was filed against gentoo 2004.3, who knows if it still >> applies with gentoo 2006.0. Especially if there has been little or no >> activity. > > Perhaps there is no activity because the interest is not there? Nobody > seems to be taking this into account. > That's a fair point. However, if there is no activity and no interest, then nuke the bug. Post an announcement like they do periodically on -devel saying "Last rites for....." and see who comes forward. > If you really think your package should be added to the tree, then add > yourself to CC, get your friends on CC, drum up some support in the > forums, find yourself a developer to proxy maintain for you. We don't > need a dumping ground for abandoned or little-use ebuilds. > Done that. However, there are some packages that won't ever make it. Like some kernel sources, java and gcc hacks, etc. I don't think the process of committing and ebuild should be a popularity contest. I do not infer that sunrise would be a dumping ground at all. I think that it's a very low chance that every maintainer-wanted bug will get there, don't you? >> Personally, I don't see the conflict, or the risk, or the additional >> work for devs. In fact, I see the opposite. Removing maintainer-wanted >> bugs is a net positive. If that means the proposed ebuild lives in >> o.g.o that's fine. Just point users who see the bug over to it. And, if >> an ebuild proves to be useful, or popular, it's conceivable that it >> could ultimately find its way over to the main tree. > > Well, I've done about as good as I can do to point out how it would be > additional work and a major risk. If you cannot see it, there's not > much else I can do. Luckily, a growing number of official developers > *do* see the risks and are taking a stand against this egregious waste > of time. > I've had some conversations with devs personally and on irc. Most complain about how overworked they are or how little time they have. Something like this will remove a burden from their plates. The "risk" aspect has been covered in other posts far more eloquently than I could (see Christel's post for example). What WOULD be a risk is adding a profile to the main tree with this overlay. snip... > >> Again, I think you need to consider your audience for o.g.o. The newbie >> won't be there or be syncing to o.g.o. The server admin probably would >> not be there either for updating a production machine. I think the main >> audience for o.g.o. would be the power user, or the wannabe power user >> or certain project teams, or people with a particular interest or need >> in a project not hosted on the main tree -- that is people who actively >> need sunrise's services. > > You're absolutely right. We need to think of the audience. The > overlays.gentoo.org project was touted as a way to foster the community > and to help *developers* develop things that might be intrusive to the > portage tree, as well as allow for easier non-developer contributions. > It was *never* touted as a place where we would allow dumping of > half-correct, unsupported, and only marginally quality ebuilds for mass > user consumption. > I never inferred this to be the case and I think were you to be a little less constrictive in your thinking, or chatted with the leads, you may see things differently. I think you read much more into this that there really is. >> And, looking at this from a broader perspective, I see this as a real >> enhancement to gentoo. Offering an experimental tree for packages not >> intended or not wanted in the main tree. This is an added benefit, it >> demonstrates a policy of inclusion, not exclusion. It shows a >> willingness to push the envelope and give certain packages a home where >> they would not normally get one. > > It also shows that we're not concerned with quality or providing a > consistent experience where things are meant to work together. It shows > our complete lack of commitment to the safety of our users. It shows > that we really are nothing more than a bunch of ricers that will take > the quick and easy approach, rather than doing things right. > I disagree. I think another user commented that gentoo has a reputation for not being current. I see how this is the case. Part of it has to do with being a source based distro. Part of it has to do with the stabilization process. However, part of it has to do with some projects just not getting in. I think sunrise will help that and show a concern for the user community and a desire to embrace and include. > No thanks... Well, I respect your opinions, though I think it is a bit tight. -- Peter -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
