As an "outsider" reading that summary the message *I* read is that there
is some strain over fitting the development model into "stable", "~",
and "package.mask". I think I see people basically saying that they
have differing views over what qualifies for each level?
Perhaps part of the solution is to review the current list of "levels"
of stability? Debian for example use several levels with something
like: stable, unstable, testing, development (or whatever they are
called). Perhaps something more like that would be useful for gentoo?
I do know as a user it can be quite frustrating trying to find the
ebuild for a package and having to dig around bugs.gentoo, and some
other website, then patch up a dodgy ebuild found on some website, etc,
etc. Perhaps it would be more useful to have "development quality"
ebuilds straight from portage (labelled as dangerous and unstable of
course) and then I could more easily file back patches to fix problems
that I find, and development would be more centralised...?
Also, as someone who has submitted a few patches and some ebuilds and
then seen nothing happen to them and my offers to act as maintainer have
gone unresponded I also wonder if there is some way to make better use
of casual contributors like me? (I'm not bitter, it's just that I feel I
could contribute more, but don't know how to?)
Good luck. I'm a big gentoo fan. I hope this extends gentoos lead even
further!
All the best
Ed W
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
