Re: [gentoo-dev] New Developer: Alexis Ballier (aballier)
Hello ! Thanks to everybody for the warm welcomes ! Is where the soap come from, isn't it? Yes it is, but I'm affraid I can't tell you the differences between this soap and other ones even if I'm using it because it sounds like good old stuff. And Bouillabaisse if you like soups =) Err... hey, don't call bouillabaisse a soup ! It's much more than that ! I'm not born in Marseille, but if you tell that to a real Marseillais, you'll get flammed ! In fact, bouillabaisse is more about the fish you eat with it than the soup itself, but yes, it's a kind of soup ;) (Writting this, I made a typo s/kind/king/... that may be due to the proverb : proud like a marseillais ) Welcome I was just waiting for you to unmask yet another ffmpeg snapshot ^^; Yay, let's do it and deal with the api changes ! Hopefuly, most of them have already been fixed ;) Welcome, I hope you'll have some serious fun (though I'm not sure bumping ffmpeg qualifies...). Well, it's always fun to have the bleeding edge softwares to work perfectly ;) Since, I'm in the US, I assume you mean that this Mar-Say place is in Freedomia. So welcome to our newest Freedom-man. Hehe yeah, freedomia, where you're (in fact, going to be) not anymore allowed to smoke in pubs... /me notes : do not talk about politics ;) Well perhaps he'd be interested in joining the ml team (dev-lang/ocaml is in the ml herd). Obviously it's not quite as glorious as Haskell, but at least it's functional. ;-) Why not, however, I must admit I've not been using ocaml for a (too?) long time now, but if you need a hand here, I'll be there ! He's currently finishing his master degree in computer science (another one :P) and will be a PhD student next year. Yay, another one. I wonder how many gentoo devs have a PhD or are in the process of trying to get one... Hehe it's better to wonder how many than why there are so many ;) By the way, since I've been asked that, I've now finished the master and started my PhD, and for the bad news, I'll be off for some days starting tomorrow due to some workshops :/ Alexis. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
Roy Bamford wrote: Dropping support for x86 i686 is a debate we need to have some time I suppose, its a question of when. There is clearly only a few users, besides myself using systems that old, since there were very few forums posts about the original 2006.1 x86 media not workign on P1 and AMD k6 based systems. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is using a pentium mmx as a router, so you better think twice about it :P -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
Peter Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:57:54 +0200: It was only a suggestion, not a decision. Of course, there are only a little number of this early systems. i686 would be really nice, i386 would be nice, too ;-) Anybody doing Gentoo on even a Pentium original is going to be compiling for awhile unless they do GRP only, and that's inadvised as GRP isn't security updated until the next release, six months later! A couple years ago when I first started with Gentoo and was on the main user list, I believe I saw a thread where a couple folks claimed to have done it on 486 mainly to be able to say they'd done so, taking weeks of course to do it, even compiling 24/7, but a 386? IMO there are better ways to spend your years... g Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point. Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks of compiling. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could try it on 386 if they wanted, but I don't believe it's worth supporting below 686 at this point. That's personally. I'm sure there are folks that would argue we should at least support 586, but I simply don't believe it's worth it. -- 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 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 11:13, Duncan wrote: Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point. Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks of compiling. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could try it on 386 if they wanted, but I don't believe it's worth supporting below 686 at this point. That's personally. I'm sure there are folks that would argue we should at least support 586, but I simply don't believe it's worth it. There are plently of people using VIA C3 class chips which are i586 in their home servers because they are cheap, but more importantly very quiet as they don't require CPU fans. -- Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/Linux Developer (baselayout, networking) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
Am Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:13:41 + (UTC) schrieb Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Anybody doing Gentoo on even a Pentium original is going to be compiling for awhile unless they do GRP only, and that's inadvised as GRP isn't security updated until the next release, six months later! Don't forget that you can easily create binary packages on a different machine and then share them across a network. At least that's what I'm doing here with my i486 machines :) -- Jens Pranaitis Oberhausen, Germany JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Hash: FBEB CC96 1781 197C 539E 2DFA 3E2D 80E0 F4F7 45F4 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:13:41AM +, Duncan wrote: Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point. Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks of compiling. Bollocks. I run a print/samba/backup box at work which is a pentium II 400. Compiling glibc takes 3 hours here and while it may not be the fastest box around it is enough to fulfill its duty. It also beats my desktop (a pentium 3 866) every time i do upgrade operations involving recompiling (bigger parts of) the system, simply because it has way less packages installed (e.g. no X, mozilla-*, openoffice, etc). So basically i should probably switch over my desktop if it was about compile times - but honestly i don't care about them a lot anyway. Also, there is no binary distribution i find as attractive as Gentoo and know how to manage that well. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could try it on 386 if they wanted, but I don't believe it's worth supporting below 686 at this point. That's personally. I'm sure there are folks that would argue we should at least support 586, but I simply don't believe it's worth it. Which kind of support are you speaking of? As for installation media, i really don't care. I fully agree i686 is dying out and if the release media is built built for i686 only i have no problem with that either. If you really want to put Gentoo on a i586 there are a other ways to do it, too, but i don't think we should stop supporting i586 in general. cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org pgpgFK3iXNWm9.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:19:46 +0100: There are plently of people using VIA C3 class chips which are i586 in their home servers because they are cheap, but more importantly very quiet as they don't require CPU fans. Good points both you and Jens. -- 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 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
Wernfried Haas wrote: On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:13:41AM +, Duncan wrote: Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point. Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks of compiling. Bollocks. I run a print/samba/backup box at work which is a pentium II 400. Compiling glibc takes 3 hours here and while it may not be the Uhh, P2 is i686, which falls squarely into the realm of supported and reasonable :) -- Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project Today's lesson in political correctness: Go asphyxiate on a phallus -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
Simon Stelling wrote: Roy Bamford wrote: Dropping support for x86 i686 is a debate we need to have some time I suppose, its a question of when. There is clearly only a few users, besides myself using systems that old, since there were very few forums posts about the original 2006.1 x86 media not workign on P1 and AMD k6 based systems. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is using a pentium mmx as a router, so you better think twice about it :P But when was the last time you reinstalled it? :) -- Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project Today's lesson in political correctness: Go asphyxiate on a phallus -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 07:13:39AM -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote: Uhh, P2 is i686, which falls squarely into the realm of supported and reasonable :) Oh my goodness, i forgot to upgrade my cflags/chost/foo then when i put the disk from the old pentium into this one then. Think of all those optimizations! ;-) cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org pgpTtgCoz30M4.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo World Domination. a 10 step guide
Natanael Copa wrote: What you didn't need to be a gentoo dev to be a package maintainer? Lets say anyone could be marked as maintainer in an ebuild. When there is a bug, the package maintainer fixes the bug and submits an updated ebuild/patch whatever. This person has no commit access. That makes a lot of sense, to me at least. Then a committer, a gentoo-dev (someone with little more experience), just take a quick look at it and commit it. Which would be similar to a proxy-dev, I guess, but if you're drawing people into helping maintain ebuilds that could only be a good thing. It'd be easier to run as well. (Maybe some scripts to check eg rm -fR / stuff.) This way fewer dev with commit access is needed, and more people from community are able to offload the dev's. This would also make the threshold lower for people to become a maintainer. FWIW I think it's a good idea. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Last rites for $package ...
Or you haven't talked to me or Beandog at all; since he has been working on this a while (now with upgraded tools!). what i'd like to see is a system, to which one would give a package name, which then handles the removal (almost) automatically. that way devs would have an easier time actually removing some cruft and you guys would be freed from typing the same stuff over and over. this system could be responsible for sending the out last rites mails, masking the packages in package.mask etc... enrico would get his database for free, both listing those that are pending removal as well as a history of removals including the reason plus a pointer to the corresponding bug... This sounds like an excellent idea. Do the `upgraded tools' already automate this process? After all, that's what computers are good at- automating workflow. don't know if that is what you are aiming at, but currently the process of removing a package is a true chore and i admire your dedication to it. (a big THANKS btw) ++ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Last rites for $package ...
Steve Long wrote: Or you haven't talked to me or Beandog at all; since he has been working on this a while (now with upgraded tools!). what i'd like to see is a system, to which one would give a package name, which then handles the removal (almost) automatically. that way devs would have an easier time actually removing some cruft and you guys would be freed from typing the same stuff over and over. this system could be responsible for sending the out last rites mails, masking the packages in package.mask etc... enrico would get his database for free, both listing those that are pending removal as well as a history of removals including the reason plus a pointer to the corresponding bug... This sounds like an excellent idea. Do the `upgraded tools' already automate this process? The 'upgraded tools' was in regards to the GPNL project; since Beandog was using portageq to import metadata into the database; this turned out to be a bad idea (slow as all hell). The upgraded portion was Marien writing some funky pkgcore voodoo to do the metadata import in about three minutes. Phreak and I have some scripts that automate portions of the removal process (including adding stuff into the treecleaner overlay!) but I know I'm not using em (not what I would call production ready yet). I don't like automated E-mails all that much, tbh. Right now my script just generates the text for the e-mail and I read it over and add comments and then paste it into my client ;) Some people stated that they liked more comments than just masked for bug #XX' so I try to provide those; a tool just won't cover it in that aera. Also there is no history of removals other than the ebuilds go into the treecleaner project overlay; which I guess provides a revision history for removals by default (cool!). -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
The point is that if you build Gentoo to be developer-friendly rather than user-friendly, Gentoo will be replaced by something else. User-centric design is why Gentoo is/was different from everything else. Take away choices that people want and you take the Gentoo philosophy out of Gentoo itself. Kari Hazzard On Monday 09 October 2006 5:45 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote: That's only true if you assume Gentoo developers are in this for the users and not for themselves and their own personal satisfaction. Thanks, Donnie -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Monday 09 October 2006 6:30 pm, Alec Warner wrote: I concur with Donnie here; Gentoo exists not because of Users, but because of (a subset of active) Developers. It isn't a statement that is meant to trash users (because you are quite helpful in many instances). But the naive thought that Gentoo revolves around users iswell, naive. Gentoo was here before there were thousands of users, in the unlikely event that you all switch distros, Gentoo will probably still be here. It will not, however, have anywhere near as many developers, nor will it have more than a fraction of the resources now available to it. Users are the reason people sponsor Gentoo, users are the reason people know Gentoo exists, whether you realise it or not. To make another argument; if I go buy a RHEL3 box set and then complain because the liveCD doesn't have some key programs (lets say cryptsetup-luks statically compiled so I can boot off of a USB key and encrypt my / partition), is the onus on them to release a new CD just for me? Hell I'm a paying customer! But they don't care. Well, that's simply bad customer service. Don't constrict your support organ because someone else's support organ operates poorly. That doesn't help anyone, not users, not devs. In any event, when was the decision made to kill the Universal LiveCD for x86 and replace it with the installer? I'd like to read the discussion. Kari Hazzard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 23:30 -0400, Kari Hazzard wrote: User-centric design is why Gentoo is/was different from everything else. Take away choices that people want and you take the Gentoo philosophy out of Gentoo itself. If the design was in any way user-centric, then that was a side-effect of the design being developer-centric. The choices are all about enabling development and developers. The Gentoo philosophy is about empowerment -- we provide a platform for you to do what you want with it. That's our only promise, all the rest is just gravy. Rel. Eng. and others do what they do because, at its root, that's what they *want* to do -- that's how they exercise their own empowerment. Feel free to join in the fray and exercise your own :) Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On 10/10/06, Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the design was in any way user-centric, then that was a side-effect of the design being developer-centric. The choices are all about enabling development and developers. The Gentoo philosophy is about empowerment -- we provide a platform for you to do what you want with it. That's our only promise, all the rest is just gravy. Rel. Eng. and others do what they do because, at its root, that's what they *want* to do -- that's how they exercise their own empowerment. Feel free to join in the fray and exercise your own :) Or, to put it another way ... ... One aspect of the Gentoo Way(tm) is this: if you don't like how part of Gentoo works, the thing to do is to volunteer to become a developer, and work from the inside to change it. Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
Duncan wrote: Anybody doing Gentoo on even a Pentium original is going to be compiling for awhile unless they do GRP only, and that's inadvised as GRP isn't security updated until the next release, six months later! A couple years ago when I first started with Gentoo and was on the main user list, I believe I saw a thread where a couple folks claimed to have done it on 486 mainly to be able to say they'd done so, taking weeks of course to do it, even compiling 24/7, but a 386? IMO there are better ways to spend your years... g Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point. Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks of compiling. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could try it on 386 if they wanted, but I don't believe it's worth supporting below 686 at this point. That's personally. I'm sure there are folks that would argue we should at least support 586, but I simply don't believe it's worth it. A couple of years ago (when we were still using gcc-2.95 I used to run gentoo on my server machine which was a pentium-60 (with fdiv bug). While it took a while to compile the bigger packages it was certainly workable. I did it because I didn't have a better machine, not to be able to say I did it. Paul -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
Kari Hazzard wrote: [Mon Oct 09 2006, 10:30:40PM CDT] User-centric design is why Gentoo is/was different from everything else. Take away choices that people want and you take the Gentoo philosophy out of Gentoo itself. Heh. You might want to read drobbins' Making the distribution articles (see http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/list.xml) sometime. Many of the original design decisions were intended to facilitate a very small number of developers in assembling and maintaining a sizeable meta-distribution. I think many of those decisions were quite inspired, but user-centric is a bit much, I think. All that said, we're not really trying to make things vastly harder on people. Many of the complaining e-mails I've read in this thread have complained without any specifics. If instead they were to say I'm wondering how I'll do 'blah' w/ the new CD, could somebody let me know the best way to do this, I suspect that everybody would be happier. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpc4H0PoXf44.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo World Domination. a 10 step guide
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:09:06 +0200 Natanael Copa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What you didn't need to be a gentoo dev to be a package maintainer? Lets say anyone could be marked as maintainer in an ebuild. When there is a bug, the package maintainer fixes the bug and submits an updated ebuild/patch whatever. This person has no commit access. Then a committer, a gentoo-dev (someone with little more experience), just take a quick look at it and commit it. This already happens on some packages (in particular where the upstream author is happy to maintain the Gentoo ebuild). One very important thing is for the Gentoo proxy dev to be listed in metadata.xml (as well as the non-Gentoo maintainer). The Gentoo dev takes formal responsibility for any commits. The trick is to find a Gentoo dev who is prepared to proxy for you; that involves a trust relationship between the dev and the maintainer. The amount of work the dev has to do depends on how well the maintainer follows the Gentoo ebuild rules. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
Not going to happen. I'm many things, but a software developer is not one of them. I generally prefer to work on things like design and user psychology than actually being involved in the coding of it. You don't want me producing code for the project, trust me on that one. -- Kari Hazzard On Tuesday 10 October 2006 10:28 am, Seemant Kulleen wrote: If the design was in any way user-centric, then that was a side-effect of the design being developer-centric. The choices are all about enabling development and developers. The Gentoo philosophy is about empowerment -- we provide a platform for you to do what you want with it. That's our only promise, all the rest is just gravy. Rel. Eng. and others do what they do because, at its root, that's what they *want* to do -- that's how they exercise their own empowerment. Feel free to join in the fray and exercise your own :) Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 03:45, Kari Hazzard wrote: On Monday 09 October 2006 6:30 pm, Alec Warner wrote: I concur with Donnie here; Gentoo exists not because of Users, but because of (a subset of active) Developers. It isn't a statement that is meant to trash users (because you are quite helpful in many instances). But the naive thought that Gentoo revolves around users iswell, naive. Gentoo was here before there were thousands of users, in the unlikely event that you all switch distros, Gentoo will probably still be here. It will not, however, have anywhere near as many developers, nor will it have more than a fraction of the resources now available to it. Users are the reason people sponsor Gentoo, users are the reason people know Gentoo exists, whether you realise it or not. You miss the point entirely. Unpaid software authors do it because they want to use the software themselves. Those authors that publish their source generally do so because they see it as an overall waste of time for the proverbial wheel to be reinvented by others. I'd say they also do it because they are happy in the thought that 9 times out of 10 they'll find some other author has published source to achieve a new goal of their own saving them from having to reinvent the wheel themselves. So how does this fit in with sponsors and volumnuous resources? Well, it doesn't. But then, it was never meant to. So called end users that don't give back to the project (giving resources is a way of giving back, by the way) make of more than 99% of those that utilize the resources provided by sponsors. Sponsoring is essentially payed advertising that wasn't done with dollars (or yen, etc) and has a generally high risk return. If referring to the sponsor a dev program, it's still a similar give-take scenario. It either falls into the above scenario (that is, a lesser funded dev needs highly supported hardware to continue his regular work, gets it and blogs about it) or it falls into the category of poorly supported hardware - or both categories. In the case of the latter category, the dev is likely just looking for the learning experience when taking the hardware and building up support for it. It's all about win-win situations. I don't know what the original post was about. I only read this one because I concur with Donnie here caught my eye. But whatever was being asked for in the original post (I'm assuming that this sub-thread started with somebody asking for something?), would the dev get anything back for satisfying the request other than a less stressful time perusing their inbox? To make another argument; if I go buy a RHEL3 box set and then complain because the liveCD doesn't have some key programs (lets say cryptsetup-luks statically compiled so I can boot off of a USB key and encrypt my / partition), is the onus on them to release a new CD just for me? Hell I'm a paying customer! But they don't care. Well, that's simply bad customer service. Don't constrict your support organ because someone else's support organ operates poorly. That doesn't help anyone, not users, not devs. The initial premise for Alec's argument above is just wrong as when you go out and buy a RHEL3 box set you're not actually buying the software contained within. What you're buying is a set of installation CDs and an X month/year support contract. When you purchase Gentoo CDs, you're buying a set of installation CDs only. When you're downloading Gentoo, you're not purchasing anything. I'll try to answer your response to his invalid point, though. Whichever product you buy, the licenses for the software contained therein almost never place any requirements on the licenser, rather only on the licensee. This is true even when it comes to Microsoft, Apple, etc. If you actually go and read most of the commercial licenses, it boils down to This software is provided AS IS - except that you can't make copies, resell, use on more than one computer or by more than one person, etc. In any event, when was the decision made to kill the Universal LiveCD for x86 and replace it with the installer? I'd like to read the discussion. I have a feeling the discussion took place about 18 months ago on -core, but I'm not sure as to the answer to this. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 03:45, Kari Hazzard wrote: stuff/ After writing the last response, another thought came to mind that I figured I should post - and should probably be set out in a user's guide to posting on dev mailing lists. I had the thought that users likely feel that it's okay to repeatedly post arguments for their point of view because they often see developers doing it. There is a very obvious parallel between users and developers in these threads in that both are lazy and thus want things done their own way in order to make their lives easier. The important difference is that (usually :/) at least some of the developers of each point of view are willing to implement the whole lot themselves. What they are arguing about is how much effort they see will be needed in the long term. Even in the case where a developer with a conflicting point of view is not willing to do the work now, the developer will argue for the point of view as they can see themselves having to redo it later on anyway. In the open source world, the driving theme is that there is often something good enough to not require reinventing the wheel but, in the end, if you want a job done right, you've got to do it yourself. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: RFC: Last rites for $package ...
Alec Warner wrote: Steve Long wrote: This sounds like an excellent idea. Do the `upgraded tools' already automate this process? The 'upgraded tools' was in regards to the GPNL project; since Beandog was using portageq to import metadata into the database; this turned out to be a bad idea (slow as all hell). The upgraded portion was Marien writing some funky pkgcore voodoo to do the metadata import in about three minutes. pkgcore does seem to have a lot going for it. Phreak and I have some scripts that automate portions of the removal process (including adding stuff into the treecleaner overlay!) but I know I'm not using em (not what I would call production ready yet). I don't like automated E-mails all that much, tbh. Right now my script just generates the text for the e-mail and I read it over and add comments and then paste it into my client ;) Some people stated that they liked more comments than just masked for bug #XX' so I try to provide those; a tool just won't cover it in that aera. Agreed, but isn't your time quite valuable? I understand that people /like/ more comments, but where is the actual *need* for that? Part of the process (from what I've read) is decision making based on how long it's been since a pkg was last updated in the tree, and how long it's had outstanding bugs. (As well as upstream issues etc.) If you had that info in an email as part of an automated process (which your crew would still have to actually approve, and you can still add a couple of lines about the maintainer or whatever) then the reasons would be clear. And let's face it, anyone who's bothered is still going to get the same level of warning. If they want to follow it up, then you can get into a discussion. Also there is no history of removals other than the ebuilds go into the treecleaner project overlay; which I guess provides a revision history for removals by default (cool!). Yes indeedy. Computers make things _easier_! My £2 worth ;) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 19:50 -0400, Caleb Cushing wrote: from the ones that are on the mirrors. so what is the hangup? I doubt it's storage space and bandwidth. Uhh... it *is* storage space. In fact, the space usage on our donated mirrors is one of the primary motivators to have us decrease our space requirements, especially as things seem to be increasing in size all on their own every release. Not only that, but there's also the time required to build things and test them. The Universal CD has always been the one thing that was the hardest to get tested. With the amount and quality of testing that we're receiving, we simply have to cut certain things. No amount of complaining will change this. The only thing that will change it is for us to get more *quality* testers. We had 35+ Release Testers for 2006.1, of which, about 7 were providing quality feedback. I don't know if the rest even tested anything. What it all boils down to is would you rather have a wide range of shoddy release materials that may or may not work between different releases, but supports all of the insane combinations of things you would want to do, or would you rather have a few high quality release materials that are well-tested? Release Engineering has decided that higher quality media is better than lots of diverse low-quality media, and nobody is going to convince us otherwise. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 10:13 +, Duncan wrote: Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point. That's pretty much our target. Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks of compiling. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could try it on 386 if they wanted, but I don't believe it's worth supporting below 686 at this point. That's personally. I'm sure there are folks that would argue we should at least support 586, but I simply don't believe it's worth it. There's a difference between support and ability. You will retain the ability to install on i686 machines. We just don't want to support it. This means we aren't going to be pushing out lots of new media for them. I have a set of legacy media that I plan on pushing out. It is all built with the 2006.1 snapshot. The media is an installcd, a stage set (stage1/2/3) for x86 compiled against the no-nptl profile, a stage set for i586 compiled against the 2006.1 profile, and a stage set for i586 compiled against the no-nptl profile. I don't plan on upgrading these until we switch over to the new multiple-inheritance profiles, at which point, I'll likely build a set of stages again for legacy hardware. The stages won't be supported, but they'll be available. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 12:52 +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote: Bollocks. I run a print/samba/backup box at work which is a pentium II 400. Compiling glibc takes 3 hours here and while it may not be the snipping the rest since a Pentium 2 *is* i686 Which kind of support are you speaking of? As for installation media, i really don't care. I fully agree i686 is dying out and if the release media is built built for i686 only i have no problem with that either. If you really want to put Gentoo on a i586 there are a other ways to do it, too, but i don't think we should stop supporting i586 in general. Nobody has said that. So long as glibc/gcc/etc still work on i586, we'll still provide the ability to use it on those machines. That doesn't mean we'll support it. It's like GCC 2.x, which is still in the tree. It's there. It's usable. It's totally unsupported. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 23:30 -0400, Kari Hazzard wrote: The point is that if you build Gentoo to be developer-friendly rather than user-friendly, Gentoo will be replaced by something else. User-centric design is why Gentoo is/was different from everything else. Take away choices that people want and you take the Gentoo philosophy out of Gentoo itself. However, all developers are users first. If you have an itch to scratch that the current development team isn't meeting, then get involved. There are lots of ways to do that. Regards, Paul -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 23:30 -0400, Kari Hazzard wrote: The point is that if you build Gentoo to be developer-friendly rather than user-friendly, Gentoo will be replaced by something else. ...and? You seem to think that Gentoo being developer-friendly would be a change in the current way we do things. User-centric design is why Gentoo is/was different from everything else. Take away choices that people want and you take the Gentoo philosophy out of Gentoo itself. I can tell you that in the three years that I've been a developer, not once have I done user-centric design. I have always done what I think is the best way to do something. I am not alone, I know. It's pretty simple. We design a system that *we* want to use. If others benefit from it, then great. Apparently, this works pretty well since we have thousands upon thousands of users. On Monday 09 October 2006 5:45 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote: That's only true if you assume Gentoo developers are in this for the users and not for themselves and their own personal satisfaction. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 12:28:10PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: Which kind of support are you speaking of? As for installation media, i really don't care. I fully agree i686 is dying out and if the release media is built built for i686 only i have no problem with that either. If you really want to put Gentoo on a i586 there are a other ways to do it, too, but i don't think we should stop supporting i586 in general. Nobody has said that. So long as glibc/gcc/etc still work on i586, we'll still provide the ability to use it on those machines. That doesn't mean we'll support it. It's like GCC 2.x, which is still in the tree. It's there. It's usable. It's totally unsupported. That's exactly what i can perfectly live with (i do even have a real i586 box that's not a pentium 2 ;-) ), thanks for clearing it up. cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org pgpzFHtMe4JH7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] treecleaner masking
malc wrote: media-video - Can I take this one? I've got a jahshaka-2.0 ebuild here ready to rock. please submit it and let us have fun too =) lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:40:01AM -0400, Kari Hazzard wrote: Not going to happen. I'm many things, but a software developer is not one of them. I generally prefer to work on things like design and user psychology than actually being involved in the coding of it. You don't want me producing code for the project, trust me on that one. Perhaps get involved in userrel then? Plenty of ways to get involved without necessarily producing code directly -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] ocfs-tools masked for removal
People should be using ocfs2 now. ocfs-tools no longer compiles (bug #135473) and hasn't had an upstream release for more than 2 years. I've masked it for removal in 30 days. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-portage-dev] Max parallelization setting
Resending to portage dev ml to solicit comments...
Thoughts welcome, since it's an issue that must be dealt with to
sanely do efficient parallelization (monkeying with make.conf and
hardcoding vals isn't much of a solution).
Zac- comments? You seem to have totally missed the original email ;)
-
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 12:27:13 -0700
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
From: Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Setting number of parallel builds for other
build-systems than 'make'
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 09:52:14AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Tiziano Müller wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi everyone
It seems that setting the number of parallel builds using '-jN' does not
only work for make, but also for scons and bjam (and maybe others as well).
Since it isn't save to assume that '-jN' is the only option in MAKEOPTS,
some filtering is needed.
Now, SCONSOPTS (BJAMOPTS respectively) could be added to make.conf and used
whenever one of those build-systems is being used. But we would probably
have to add a ...OPTS for every build-system.
What do you think? Better ideas?
I think adding it for each build system is probably a good idea,
nobody's guaranteeing option-level compatibility with make. Optionally
falling back to using the few valid MAKEOPTS might be a nice addition.
I might be daft (likely), but why not just introduce a var indicating
max parallelization instead? Tweak portage to push that setting into
MAKEOPTS=${MAKEOPTS+${MAKEOPTS} } -j${PARALLELIZATION}.
Might sound daft, but -j is hardcoded parallelization; if you're
trying to run 3 build processes, the original var of -j isn't all that
useful, nor will the hardcoded -j# var set for 3 package build
processes be useful if you're doing a single build.
Depending on number of seperate package build processes possible, the
# of build processes allocated per build process needs to vary
(essentially).
Now... that's a bit ahead of what portage is doing atm, but folks
*will* parallelize portage building (see bug 147516 if in doubt), so
its not too far out.
Getting back to the actual topic, set this var, it's a raw int that a
scons/bjam eclass can use to easily set appropriate var with the
parallelization requested, thus unifying this particular knob; more
importantly, it gives them a way to do what they're after while
exposing a knob that the pkg manager can easily fiddle with for global
parallelization needs.
Only downside to it I see is that it requires mangling the pkg manager
to translate the parallelization setting into MAKEOPTS+=-j#; can't
really get around that however due to the fact MAKEOPTS is already
forced in installed configuration though.
Thoughts?
~harring
pgpZOWWRmNkmO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Max parallelization setting
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 03:20:55AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
I might be daft (likely), but why not just introduce a var indicating
max parallelization instead? Tweak portage to push that setting into
MAKEOPTS=${MAKEOPTS+${MAKEOPTS} } -j${PARALLELIZATION}.
The idea sounds good, but I'm not clear on all the details. It
seems like there are several distinct parts:
1) Ebuild maintainter sets a metadata variable to indicate the level
of parallelization possible in a build.
RESTRICT moreso indicating if it's parallelizable or not.
2) Gentoo user sets a configuration option indicating the maximum
level of parallelization spread across multiple builds at a given time.
3) Package manager uses the user's config to allocate an appropriate
PARALLELIZATION at build time, based on 1 and 2 above. Then the
src_compile() function of the ebuild translates PARALLELIZATION into
the appropriate build system flags (possibly with the help of an
eclass function).
Not necessarily src_compile, but close enough; the details of how
MAX_PARALLELIZATION gets shoved in is semi package specific, although
it's kind of implicit at this point that -j# for MAKEOPTS would likely
be directly fooled with.
For other build systems, rely on eclasses handling it; for MAKEOPTS,
would be preferable to do the same imo, but that's not an easy
transition.
Mind you since there isn't a way to adjust the allowed slices
(essentially) while a compile is underway, this won't hit 100%
utilization- further, src_install still abides by MAKEOPTS, but it's
not like -jN is going to help much there.
That said, it's better then the current crapshoot required for trying
to do parallel builds; either you have to monkey patch make.conf
everytime, or try env overrides for it, both of which aren't
incredibly friendly/simple if you're just trying to do an upgrade that
abuses your duo/quad.
~harring
pgpZKzky1JHbB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Max parallelization setting
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:04:57 -0700
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I might be daft (likely), but why not just introduce a var indicating
max parallelization instead? Tweak portage to push that setting into
MAKEOPTS=${MAKEOPTS+${MAKEOPTS} } -j${PARALLELIZATION}.
Might sound daft, but -j is hardcoded parallelization; if you're
trying to run 3 build processes, the original var of -j isn't all
that useful, nor will the hardcoded -j# var set for 3 package build
processes be useful if you're doing a single build.
Depending on number of seperate package build processes possible, the
# of build processes allocated per build process needs to vary
(essentially).
Seems useful as *alternative* to the low level vars, but shouldn't
replace them (so if the low level vars are set they override the global
setting). So the order in your MAKEOPTS assignment above would have to
be reversed (assuming sequential option parsing).
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.
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
