Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Thu, 04 May 2006 16:29:56 -0700 Michael Kirkland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This leads to people trying to maintain a frankenstinian /etc/portage/package.keywords file, constantly adding to it and never knowing when things can be removed from it. If you use specific versions in the package.keywords file (i.e. do =category/package-version-revision ~arch instead of category/package ~arch, this doesn't happen. You just need to watch for downgrades in case a ~arch version is removed without ever going stable, and every so often go through it looking for package versions that have been superseded. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages that need maintainers
On Thu, 4 May 2006 21:20:48 -0500 spradlim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a question that I havn't been able to find that is somewhat related to the following email. I know and understand Linux very well. I also know how ebuilds work. So how do I go about maintaining packages and getting them into portage. For example I would like to maintain a munin, munin-plugin, and tightvnc ebuild. Where can I find this information. I don't know where to start. Gentoo Developer Handbook, Becoming a developer http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=1chap=2 In the first instance, do the work on bugzilla. Look for open bugs for existing packages, and post fixes/patches there. For packages not currently in portage, raise a new bug. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote: If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest, then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago, and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't compile or breaks badly in so many places. This is rubbish: I'm now using 3.5.2 have had no problems whatsoever; nor did I have problems earlier with 3.5.0 3.5.1 . -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban Community Studies TRANSIT`-O--O---' University of Toronto -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
Michael Kirkland wrote: I think the problem is that Gentoo is falling into the same sandtrap the Debian project has been mired in forever. arch and ~arch are polarizing into stable, but horribly out of date, and maybe it will work. This leads to people trying to maintain a frankenstinian /etc/portage/package.keywords file, constantly adding to it and never knowing when things can be removed from it. I would suggest opening a middle ground tag, where things can be moved to from ~arch when they work for reasonable configuration values, but still have open bugs for some people. That way, people who prefer stability over the latest features can run arch, and everyone who bitches about packages being out of date can run the middle tag, and ~arch can be kept for testing. I really, really agree here. I know this seems like a flamewar but it is starting to annoy me. There are several packages that are several months behind the official releases. I am going to name some of them: Firefox 1.5: 5 months (the entire world uses it now, in stable) KDE 3.5.2: 1.5 months (I know our devs get prereleases, so we had this time) Xorg 7: 5 months I know we have a lot of work to do, but I have some concerns. How long are we going to maintain old packages? KDE 3.4.3 is no longer supported by the KDE developpers. Firefox extensions for 1.0 are becoming extinct. You are also getting a lot of work trying to fix bugs in old software. Most probably you are starting to backport bugfixes, is this the way we want things to go? I understand you don't care about how many users you have, Gentoo is not a bussiness. But if I try to convince users about the current situation that is hard. I can't explain this, I really can't. My only answer is put it in /etc/portage/package.keywords. But that one is growing very fast... One nice thing for users would be the addition of more metabugs for recent packages. I'd like to know why some packages are not stable, and I am not the only one. Adding a metabug instead of closing all requests for stabilization with wontfix/wontresolve is much more userfriendly. Once again, I love to use Gentoo but I don't understand the current situation. I have the feeling that I'm not the only user so I posted these comments in order to discuss them. Hopefully you don't mind trying to explain it all... Bart -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
060505 Jakub Moc wrote: Philip Webb wrote: 060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote: If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest, then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago, and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't compile or breaks badly in so many places. This is rubbish: I'm now using 3.5.2 have had no problems whatsoever; nor did I have problems earlier with 3.5.0 3.5.1 . Oh, sure it's complete rubbish... there are only ~40 bugs open right now about KDE 3.5 (on a quick and definitely incomplete search). The fixed/upstream ones would definitely be well over 100, don't have any good query for that. Well, if you're going to wait for all bugs with all KDE packages on all platforms to be fixed, you'll never stabilise any new KDE version. It's time developers started thinking a bit more like users: which version of KDE do you use everyday ? http://tinyurl.com/rg55l 122121 x86-64 ; 121270 can't reproduce (twice); 114860 kmail (I don't use Kmail, which is 1 modular package). I don't have time to go through them all, but that's the 1st 3 I picked. These are not reasons to keep the majority of KDE packages in ~x86 . But yeah, you know better, no problems whatsoever. :P Yes, I know better: I haven't had any problems with any of the KDE packages which I have installed with versions 3.5.0 3.5.1 3.5.2 . It's time the developers started listening to users in this area: we really do appreciate your volunteer work, but without users that work would all be pointless. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban Community Studies TRANSIT`-O--O---' University of Toronto -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 09:20:08AM +0200, Bart Braem wrote: Michael Kirkland wrote: I think the problem is that Gentoo is falling into the same sandtrap the Debian project has been mired in forever. arch and ~arch are polarizing into stable, but horribly out of date, and maybe it will work. This leads to people trying to maintain a frankenstinian /etc/portage/package.keywords file, constantly adding to it and never knowing when things can be removed from it. I would suggest opening a middle ground tag, where things can be moved to from ~arch when they work for reasonable configuration values, but still have open bugs for some people. That way, people who prefer stability over the latest features can run arch, and everyone who bitches about packages being out of date can run the middle tag, and ~arch can be kept for testing. I really, really agree here. I know this seems like a flamewar but it is starting to annoy me. There are several packages that are several months behind the official releases. I am going to name some of them: Disclaimer: I maintain none of the packages you mentioned, so these are possible reasons, there may be other more important reasons that I didn't think of. Firefox 1.5: 5 months (the entire world uses it now, in stable) The ebuild itself causes problems with LINGUAS because of a portage bug (or limitation). And on IRC just yesterday two devs complained about Firefox because for one, 1.5 was unacceptably slow, and for another 1.5.0.3 took 100% CPU. Additionally, the latest stable is 1.0.8, which was released less than a month ago; the 1.0 versions are still maintained. KDE 3.5.2: 1.5 months (I know our devs get prereleases, so we had this time) kdelibs-3.5.2 needed fixes and workarounds for miscompilations and crashes less than a month ago, according to the changelog. Xorg 7: 5 months Strange behaviour for some with virtual/x11 being provided when it shouldn't be, causing missing dependencies for other ebuilds, and compilation issues. I know we have a lot of work to do, but I have some concerns. How long are we going to maintain old packages? KDE 3.4.3 is no longer supported by the KDE developpers. Firefox extensions for 1.0 are becoming extinct. You are also getting a lot of work trying to fix bugs in old software. Most probably you are starting to backport bugfixes, is this the way we want things to go? I understand you don't care about how many users you have, Gentoo is not a bussiness. But if I try to convince users about the current situation that is hard. I can't explain this, I really can't. My only answer is put it in /etc/portage/package.keywords. But that one is growing very fast... One nice thing for users would be the addition of more metabugs for recent packages. I'd like to know why some packages are not stable, and I am not the only one. Adding a metabug instead of closing all requests for stabilization with wontfix/wontresolve is much more userfriendly. Searching for open and recently closed bugs about the packages in question can help a lot in figuring out reasons packages aren't marked stable. As for metabugs, they would help if the package maintainers feel software is almost ready to go stable and just want to finish up the remaining issues, but in other cases, why? How does it help? Once again, I love to use Gentoo but I don't understand the current situation. I have the feeling that I'm not the only user so I posted these comments in order to discuss them. Hopefully you don't mind trying to explain it all... Bart -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
Philip Webb wrote: But yeah, you know better, no problems whatsoever. :P Yes, I know better: I haven't had any problems with any of the KDE packages which I have installed with versions 3.5.0 3.5.1 3.5.2 . It's time the developers started listening to users in this area: we really do appreciate your volunteer work, but without users that work would all be pointless. It's been explained many times that the fact that *you* didn't have any problems whatsoever is completely *irrelevant*, at least until *you* are the only Gentoo KDE user. Please, read what other people have said and don't waste our time with completely invalid arguments. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On 05/05/06, Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Philip Webb wrote: 060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote: If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest, then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago, and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't compile or breaks badly in so many places. This is rubbish: I'm now using 3.5.2 have had no problems whatsoever; nor did I have problems earlier with 3.5.0 3.5.1 . Oh, sure it's complete rubbish... there are only ~40 bugs open right now about KDE 3.5 (on a quick and definitely incomplete search). The fixed/upstream ones would definitely be well over 100, don't have any good query for that. http://tinyurl.com/rg55l But yeah, you know better, no problems whatsoever. :P KDE 3.4 has at least 31 open bugs on a quick and incomplete search. http://tinyurl.com/mzzoo -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
Bart Braem wrote: Xorg 7: 5 months Can't stabilize till portage 2.1 is stable. Doesn't matter how many open bugs we've got, or how well it works. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Friday 05 May 2006 01:11, Jakub Moc wrote: Philip Webb wrote: But yeah, you know better, no problems whatsoever. :P Yes, I know better: I haven't had any problems with any of the KDE packages which I have installed with versions 3.5.0 3.5.1 3.5.2 . It's time the developers started listening to users in this area: we really do appreciate your volunteer work, but without users that work would all be pointless. It's been explained many times that the fact that *you* didn't have any problems whatsoever is completely *irrelevant*, at least until *you* are the only Gentoo KDE user. Please, read what other people have said and don't waste our time with completely invalid arguments. The vast majority of KDE users, Gentoo or no, are not having problems with KDE 3.5. Does it not make sense for the defaults to accommodate the majority, with workarounds for the minority, rather than the other way around? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Friday 05 May 2006 09:20, Bart Braem wrote: KDE 3.5.2: 1.5 months (I know our devs get prereleases, so we had this time) Now I think we really explained that well enough, we're working to mark it stable as soon as we can. *We don't care if you wanted it stable yesterday, it will be stable when it's ready to go stable.* And before people start thinking we got 3.5.2 months before it was released, the prereleases are three days before final release, they are _not_ for testing purposes, they are for binary distributions to prepare packages and for us to prepare ebuild, and a build run kind of test to make sure there are no obvious problems. Although modular, KDE 3.5 has to go stable _at once_ and if KMail is totally broken, or has major feature loss (it had), we can't go stable. Now, we're going to stable this as soon as it's possible, but making us lose time on this is something you don't want, as that takes time to the bugs resolution. If you really want, you use ~arch directly, I'm doing that since I started using Gentoo, and works as a charm for me. -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE pgpMzCgd5jtjT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages that need maintainers
On Fri, May 5, 2006 at 10:02:10 +0200, Daniel Goller wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The following packages require a new maintainer, some might just be absorbed into their herds w/o a direct maintainer leaving them to the teams maintaining those herds, others might face extinction w/o a direct maintainer. If no one objects, I can take ./dev-util/ketchup -- Hi, I'm a .signature virus! Please copy me in your ~/.signature. pgptOVAmnDvj2.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
Jeff Rollin posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 05 May 2006 06:28:53 +0100: Or maybe we could move to a fixed release cycle. Debian uses 18 (?) months, but maybe a 3- or 6-month release cycle would suit us better Actually, Gentoo already has that, altho the period is still getting tweaked occasionally. That's what the 200X.Y releases are, with the LiveCDs and stages, and the PackagesCD with its precompiled stuff, for those who want to go that route. In 2004, there were four quarterly releases, 2004.0-2004.3. In 2005, they reduced that to two semi-yearly releases, 2005.0 and 2005.1 (with a 2005.1-r1 coming out soon after, with limited changes fixing limited bugs). In 2006, the target is again two releases, the first of which, 2006.0, has already occurred. Thus, it looks as if the 6-month cycle seems to be suitable for the time being. Of course, one of the big benefits to Gentoo is that it's not the jerky upgrade/wait/upgrade cycle other distributions tend toward, but more a continuously upgraded system, with the periodic snapshot releases simply being exactly that, snapshots of the tree that have been fairly well tested on a particular arch and found to work reasonably well as a place to start. Once the system is up and going, the assumption is that folks will update at least a time or two between snapshot releases, with many updating twice weekly to daily. The more frequently you update, generally, the smoother the updates will be, because it won't be such a big jump all at once. Within that system, what's stable at the particular snapshot date gets tested and included in the stages, and live and packages CDs. There is of course some push to get stuff stable by a particular release, but that pressure hits Gentoo sponsored and targeted projects like portage and baselayout the hardest, with the vast majority of packages affected more by the timing and releases upstream than by Gentoo's snapshot releases. That's part of what makes Gentoo Gentoo. To change it changes the Gentoo we know into something else -- /not/ the Gentoo we know. I doubt you'll find much support for significant change among Gentoo devs /or/ users, because after all, if they didn't like it, they'd not have chosen Gentoo in the first place, as that's one of the defining characteristics that makes Gentoo what it is. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
I understand you don't care about how many users you have, Gentoo is not a bussiness. But if I try to convince users about the current situation that is hard. I can't explain this, I really can't. My only answer is put it in /etc/portage/package.keywords. But that one is growing very fast... One nice thing for users would be the addition of more metabugs for recent packages. I'd like to know why some packages are not stable, and I am not the only one. Adding a metabug instead of closing all requests for stabilization with wontfix/wontresolve is much more userfriendly. I read and see that your intentions are good. The KDE team is currently made of about 3 semi active people. Our speed is simply limited by the amount of time and resources we have to put into maintenance. I won't argue stability and ~keywords and whatnot, as it's somewhat of a matter of opinion and interpretation. But I will say this: if anyone feels as though something has stalled or wants some explanation as to why the distribution isn't moving in a certain direction, then your message should be tagged with the following words: How can I help? Get involved. It's the only way you will truly understand the magnitude of a project like Gentoo. KDE is a very small slice of the whole thing, and yet it still requires a LOT of time. We're always looking for help. If you need a place to start, pick out a bug report and try and fix it. You might spend 3-4 hours chasing the answer. 3-4 hours. Can you imagine sitting in front of your computer for 3-4 hours to solve a problem for someone you don't know for no compensation? And you may never even figure it out! So let's rephrase why doesn't Gentoo have ZZZ into how can I help Gentoo have ZZZ?. Become empowered. That's what will keep the distribution great. Caleb My guess is that KDE 3.5.2 is probably ready for stabilization, but nobody has the time to do it at the moment. That's purely a guess, though. Feel free to open a stabilization tracker bug for it so we do have a place to discuss it. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
Philip Webb posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 05 May 2006 03:37:06 -0400: That's very much my own impression. I am now using ~x86 versions of Vim Vim-core Gvim Cdargs Openoffice Eix Euses Gqview Gwenview Portage Firefox Galeon Htop KDE -- all of which which I use regularly -- Abiword Gnumeric Koffice Gnugo Qgo Qalculate-kde (which I rarely use). I have had no problem with any of them. My solution is a line in .bashrc : 'alias emergeu='ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~x86 emerge' , which allows me to emerge a testing version on a specific occasion. The package.keywords alternative is silly, as there's no reason anyone would want to do it regularly for a package, as opposed to occasionally when -- increasingly -- stabilisation is late. I do a weekly 'eix-sync' check the list of packages which have changed, then decide which ones to update; I never do 'emerge world'. I keep an upto-date file with a line for each package I have installed, incl date, version the main dependencies it satisfies (if any): this is my alternative to 'world', which is clumsy causes problems. I have been doing this since I started using Gentoo in Oct 2003 have never had any problem with Portage or packages as a result. Here, I simply use ~amd64 for my entire system, and rarely have problems. When I do, that's what those backup snapshot partitions I keep around are for. Gentoo is really fairly conservative with ~arch. That does /not/ mean the package is broken, or the upstream package is unstable. Rather, it means the upstream package is reasonably stable, and the Gentoo ebuild is known to work and is tested at least by the Gentoo maintainer. Really broken packages and packages known to have very serious issues on Gentoo aren't ~arch at all, but are instead hard-masked, either with the -* keyword, or with an entry in package.mask. Given these facts, I'm of the opinion that most of those running stable that are calling for faster package stabilization, should really be running ~arch. That's doubly true for those finding they have an ever-growing package.keywords and/or those calling for a middle keyword. In point of fact, ~arch /is/ that middle keyword, because the really unstable packages are hard-masked and not in ~arch in the first place. Actually, I run selected hard-masked packages as well. Particularly with things like gcc, which is slotted and easily managed with gcc-config or eselect compiler, it's quite easy to run hard-masked stuff in parallel. Something like xorg isn't as easy to run in parallel as it's not slotted, but even there, given FEATURES=buildpkg, if one has the time and motivation to test a masked version, it's relatively painless to revert to an old version if the test doesn't work out so well (with the caveat of course that one keeps backups, as one should anyway, in case something goes /really/ wrong -- it IS hard-masked packages we are talking about now, after all). Again, I don't see the problem. Stable is there for those that want it. ~arch is there for those that want something newer, with a bit of extra risk. Hard-masked-for-testing packages are very often there for those who REALLY want bleeding edge -- along with the associated increase in risk. If folks don't like how far behind stable is, and are willing to risk not only their own systems with the package in its current state, but the systems of everyone else running stable (which is what requesting faster stabilization actually comes down to), they shouldn't be running stable after all, but the middle keyword, that being ~arch. That way, they get their newer, mostly stable programs, while everyone who /really/ wants stable doesn't end up with the risk of stabilizing the package too fast. Of course, note that package.keywords works both ways. Folks running ~arch as their regular keyword can set specific packages to arch (stable) in package.keywords too. Again, Gentoo is very flexible in that regard -- some might say insanely flexible, but it works, if people would only read the docs and follow them as appropriate. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Friday 05 May 2006 08:32, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote: If you use specific versions in the package.keywords file (i.e. do =category/package-version-revision ~arch instead of category/package ~arch, this doesn't happen. Hardcoding specific ~arch versions or revisions unless absolutely needed is a bad idea. Remember that we don't do GLSA's for testing stuff. If bleeding edge, then bleeding edge. Carsten pgpNXSLqBYpEO.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
Caleb Tennis wrote: Get involved. It's the only way you will truly understand the magnitude of a project like Gentoo. KDE is a very small slice of the whole thing, and yet it still requires a LOT of time. We're always looking for help. If you need a place to start, pick out a bug report and try and fix it. You might spend 3-4 hours chasing the answer. 3-4 hours. Can you imagine sitting in front of your computer for 3-4 hours to solve a problem for someone you don't know for no compensation? And you may never even figure it out! So let's rephrase why doesn't Gentoo have ZZZ into how can I help Gentoo have ZZZ?. Become empowered. That's what will keep the distribution great. Caleb My guess is that KDE 3.5.2 is probably ready for stabilization, but nobody has the time to do it at the moment. That's purely a guess, though. Feel free to open a stabilization tracker bug for it so we do have a place to discuss it. You know, that's why I came here. I opened a bug (#132213) where I suggested to open a stabilization tracker bug if necessary and the bug was closed. I was referred to this thread... I feel that if more packages would have a stabilization tracker bug things would be more clear for users. That would make it a lot easier to help solve bugs. I users start asking for more stable packages you can refer them to those bugs. And then they can help. And most probably I would help more too. I don't have much spare time either, but if I want something done in my distribution and I can help I would do that faster. Bart -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
Bart Braem posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 05 May 2006 10:43:28 +0200: Donnie Berkholz wrote: Bart Braem wrote: Xorg 7: 5 months Can't stabilize till portage 2.1 is stable. Doesn't matter how many open bugs we've got, or how well it works. Thanks for the explanation. Not that I really like it but I understand that portage 2.1 is a large upgrade... That of course begs the question of portage 2.1 stabilization. FWIW, as a (mostly) lurker on the portage-devel group/list, I believe it's safe to say that 2.1-rcs are coming real soon now. There's an active discussion at the moment on whether to base -rc1 on -pre10, which introduced some code cleanups, -pre9, before those cleanups but after the intro of manifest2 (a big target feature that needs included, but that will mean a bit longer to stabilize), or -pre7, before manifest2. Whatever the decision, portage trunk is now feature-frozen until the split is made, so the 2.1 stabilization process is now started. The target is stabilization of 2.1 for Gentoo 2006.1, penciled in for release this (northern hemisphere) summer (July-ish, AFAIK). Assuming that target is hit, Donnie should be able to say whether xorg 7 should stabilize at the same time and be ready for 2006.1 as well, or whether it'll be slightly behind, perhaps 30-days or so -- IOW, whether its 30 day stabilization is in parallel to or occurs after the 30-day stabilization of portage 2.1. In any case, given his statement above and the events from portage-devel, a reasonably safe prediction should be that they'll both be stable by the end of the (northern hemisphere) summer, with a target of mid-summer. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
Carsten Lohrke wrote: KDE 3.5.2: 1.5 months (I know our devs get prereleases, so we had this time) Still open issues, some upstream, some Gentoo related. Also the KDE team lost members the last months and is unfortunately not that active since a while. All the whining leaves me with the feeling that I'm less interested to work for you. The question What can I do? I do never hear. Stop whining, but decide to help or give another distro a try. These are your choices. (As I mentioned in another post, I did ask for a metabug to help.) I have other OSS I work on. The what can I do question is not relevant here because I simply can not make the commitment. I posted this questions as a user, not all users have the time. And I'll try to repeat: I'm not whining, I'm just asking for a reason. I did not know that some developpers left recently and now I understand the situation. I did not know Gentoo had those problems. So my suggestions: - Document the use of ~arch better. It seems to me that the arch tree is more stable now and that the idea of ~arch which was very broken years ago is now more stable. (I'm a user since 1.4rc3) - Open more metabugs that document the requirements of stabilization for the largest packages. Report about that policy to all users and actively ask them to cooperate there. Bart -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Thu, 04 May 2006 16:29:56 -0700 Michael Kirkland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would suggest opening a middle ground tag, where things can be moved to from ~arch when they work for reasonable configuration values, but still have open bugs for some people. More work for devs, yay!/sarcasm Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Fri, 5 May 2006 13:20:09 +0200 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 05 May 2006 08:32, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote: If you use specific versions in the package.keywords file (i.e. do =category/package-version-revision ~arch instead of category/package ~arch, this doesn't happen. Hardcoding specific ~arch versions or revisions unless absolutely needed is a bad idea. Remember that we don't do GLSA's for testing stuff. If bleeding edge, then bleeding edge. I disagree. Your argument is for not using ~arch at all, rather than an argument against keeping control of what you have from ~arch. If I want something from ~arch, it's for one of two reasons: 1) There's a feature/fix that I need now 2) I want to try out a new version of something for fun I certainly don't want to take everything from ~arch; that way leads to regular system instability. In practice, I tend to do: =category/package-version* ~arch so that I pick up -rN bumps on unstable versions as this should mean that the maintainer considers the change necessary for users of that version. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Friday 05 May 2006 15:23, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote: I disagree. Your argument is for not using ~arch at all, rather than an argument against keeping control of what you have from ~arch. No. My argument is that category/ebuild is much better than =category/ebuild-x*. If and only if there's a problem with the former, you should take the latter into account and monitor the ebuild changes closely. In practice, I tend to do: =category/package-version* ~arch so that I pick up -rN bumps on unstable versions as this should mean that the maintainer considers the change necessary for users of that version. So you won't get security updates, when this means it is a version bump. And this is most often the case. Unless you _always_ read the ChangeLogs and referenced bugs of all ebuilds you run testing, this is not safe. Carsten pgpjltTGPFPD2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Fri, 5 May 2006 16:38:57 +0200 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 05 May 2006 15:23, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote: I disagree. Your argument is for not using ~arch at all, rather than an argument against keeping control of what you have from ~arch. No. My argument is that category/ebuild is much better than =category/ebuild-x*. If and only if there's a problem with the former, you should take the latter into account and monitor the ebuild changes closely. From my perspective, category/package is worse. It means once a package goes ~arch, it never becomes arch again. My approach means that when I've gone ~arch to get something only available in that version, it becomes arch once the package gets stabilised or a later version is stabilised. In practice, I tend to do: =category/package-version* ~arch so that I pick up -rN bumps on unstable versions as this should mean that the maintainer considers the change necessary for users of that version. So you won't get security updates, when this means it is a version bump. And this is most often the case. Unless you _always_ read the ChangeLogs and referenced bugs of all ebuilds you run testing, this is not safe. First, I'll get the security updates when (1) the relevant updated package goes stable, which is usually pretty quickly, or (2) notification is made in gentoo-announce (which must be the correct place to get such notifications). Secondly, Up-to-date on GLSAs != safe. Not by a long shot. Further, missing GLSAs does not necessarily mean I'm vulnerable. That's what the detail is for in the GLSAs; so I can make a judgement call on whether I need to worry about a vulnerability or not. Lastly, if there are versions of a package in ~arch that have known security flaws, my understanding is that they either get patched with a -rN bump, or they get removed from the tree in favour of a later version that is not vulnerable. Either way, I get notification when I next do an update. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 15:23 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote: In practice, I tend to do: =category/package-version* ~arch ~category/package-version ~arch *grin* -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Friday 05 May 2006 20:37, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote: First, I'll get the security updates when (1) the relevant updated package goes stable, which is usually pretty quickly, or (2) notification is made in gentoo-announce (which must be the correct place to get such notifications). That they go stable quickly is a bet and not always true. When there never was an stable ebuild, there won't be an announcement. Secondly, Up-to-date on GLSAs != safe. Not by a long shot. Further, missing GLSAs does not necessarily mean I'm vulnerable. That's what the detail is for in the GLSAs; so I can make a judgement call on whether I need to worry about a vulnerability or not. It's a difference, if you can trust on a security team taking care or if you have to do it all yourself. That there will never be 100% perfect security is a different topic. Lastly, if there are versions of a package in ~arch that have known security flaws, my understanding is that they either get patched with a -rN bump, or they get removed from the tree in favour of a later version that is not vulnerable. Either way, I get notification when I next do an update. That previous ebuilds get removed is another bet, I wouldn't make. You claim Up-to-date on GLSAs != safe (which isn't wrong of course), but base your dealing with possible vulnerabilities on assumptions. That doesn't match. Carsten pgpgVn7uk3Atu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Friday 05 May 2006 02:14, Philip Webb wrote: 060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote: If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest, then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago, and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't compile or breaks badly in so many places. This is rubbish: I'm now using 3.5.2 have had no problems whatsoever; nor did I have problems earlier with 3.5.0 3.5.1 . Your lucky, Kmail crashes daily.. Akregator is buggy too. I have seen lots of stuff. Jeff pgpV8NDHyHCZc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
Philip Webb wrote: My solution is a line in .bashrc : 'alias emergeu='ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~x86 emerge' , Don't do that. Try to do a search on why is ACCEPT_KEYWORDS emerge bad. which allows me to emerge a testing version on a specific occasion. The package.keywords alternative is silly, as there's no reason anyone would want to do it regularly for a package, Please RTFM [1]. You'll learn that you are allowed to use (not limited to) versioned identifiers, for example. [1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=3chap=3#doc_chap2_sect2 Cheers. -jkt -- cd /local/pub more beer /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-portage-dev] feature suggestions
Here's a suggestion for two portage features that I would appreciate. Please tell me if this is the wrong list. I would like to have a system where ebuilds are classified such that when updating a package, I can tell whether this is a security patch or critical bugfix or new feature release or whatever. Thus, I could set up automatic updates that check only for critical patches and do not install every tiny new fancy thing. Also, a system would be nice, where authors of a package or the ebuild maintainers could supply a message to the user along with the ebuild, for example to warn them of massive numbers of reverse dependencies that are going to be broken by the update (- libexpat! I would have chosen a different time for the update if I had known what I had to update after that). Best regards Hanno -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
