Lares Moreau wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 18:19 +0100, Simon Stelling wrote:
My point is, either you have to generalize each project's goal to a real
triviality or you have to define a goal which doesn't match some
project's goals. Conclusion: Let it be.
Maybe we are looking at this problem the wrong way. Instead of trying
to have Gentoo be the distro, perhaps Gentoo can be thought of as a
provider of infrastructure and tools to allow 'sub-distros' to flourish.
THere are many projects which now are trying to pull Gentoo in many
different directions, such as bianary distro vs. enterprise distro. If
we remove "Gentoo as distro" from out thinking and replace it with
"Gentoo as provider of tools and infrastucture", These two seemingly
contradictory goals can each flourish in their own way.
Haveing sub-distros, lack of a better term, is not new to Gentoo.
Hardened has their own LiveCD, profile and tools. I feel this can be
nurtured. Allowing the Binanary group to move in one direction, and
'tweakers' in an other, and die-hard security people in yet another,
while not severely conficting with each other.
Maybe what we need is a clearer definition of what each herd does? I am
considering writing a GLEP about this, having each herd answer three
questions periodicly (say 6mths).
- What do we want to do?
- How are we going to get there?
- How to we measure success?
and /maybe/ add a section about current devs and AT/HTs.
Just a thought.
I like your idea of having gentoo not being a distro, but moreso a
collection of tools. Mostly because gentoo's method of dealing with
problems (problems that binary distros tend to have, like keeping
software uptodate) are handled in a way thats just a tad more managable,
plus when multiple repo support gets added, its just another way that
gentoo can be customized and reflavored.
+1 for that thinking
Tux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
