[gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
So I'm told debian has one of these types of MLs, probably where the flames burn bright enough to have earned a star designation from the IAU. Given what's been going on lately, and with calls from myself and others (i.e., mcummings) to get back on track and actually like, you know, develop something, I think it's high time we create this list ourselves. What goes on it?, why the flames of course. Every last ember, hot coal, glowing developers, and any kittens having reached critical mass. We leave the new developer introductions on -dev, but any developer leaving and wanting to say goodbye, should consider posting their bit on -politics, because that's lately been the reason for leaving. Anything hot button, hot topic, divisive, non-development, etc. Especially license debates. Ohhh yes, the license debates definitely belong here. This'll probably kill -dev off completely, unless we start developing again. But hey, I for once wouldn't mind a quiet gentoo-dev folder in my thunderbird client. So who's up for it? We can even divide ourselves into Red Devs and Blue Devs! Blue Devs will, of course, be liberal, very energy conservative (i.e., no Octanes for you guys!), Pro-Choice (Portage or Paludis or Pkgcore, it's a dev's right to choose!), and most importantly, they'll favour any legislation from the Council that bans devs from smoking. You know, the kind of smoldering that happens before a dev bursts into flames? And the Red Devs? Well, they'll be on the other side of the fence. They'll blow the electric bill like the space shuttle burns fuel. They'll also be Anti-Portage (it's Paludis/Pkgcore or else). And the flames? We're talking Firebats from StarCraft here. Need a light? See, this is fun already! We can hold debates where one side rips the other, conventions where the egos of one side get inflated bigger than the Hindenburg (and lots of confetti is thrown about), And maybe even a few scandals, like discovering one die-hard Blue Dev secretly runs a 8-way Opteron system with a 15-disk RAID6 array and 5 CRT monitors, or something. We will have to fill a few positions, though. We'll need a flip-flopper for starters (the one dev who randomly changes his opinion when cornered). We'll also need a dev who skipped the Freenode War a year or two ago (when Bantown attacked, and they ran away screaming because of the netsplits and Squits and lilo impersonators). And maybe a dev who secretly dabbles in another OSlike Wind...err, Ubuntu! So anyways, I'm all for this list, humour aside. It's blatantly obvious people need a place to vent at times, and I think that by separating the politics from the technical discussion, it might help in some way. Yes, it'll also be the source of many problems too. I can't envision what they might be, but I know they'd exist. Anyways, thoughts? --Kumba -- Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere. --Elrond -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kumba wrote: So I'm told debian has one of these types of MLs, probably where the flames burn bright enough to have earned a star designation from the IAU. Given what's been going on lately, and with calls from myself and others (i.e., mcummings) to get back on track and actually like, you know, develop something, I think it's high time we create this list ourselves. Anyways, thoughts? --Kumba I like the idea. - -- Luis F. Araujo araujo at gentoo.org Gentoo Linux -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGZ6p3aTNpke9pJcURAkiEAJ0YK3dO0h4182ZHLN91NTK8YiKzBACfbdji XYxB8IyKtqcvjMA+jIJxp3Q= =X3lK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
On 6/7/07, Kumba [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyways, thoughts?
--Kumba
+1
possible alternative names: gentoo-soap, gentoo-gossip ( not to be
confused with net-im/gossip )
And just for fits and giggles, the occasional person can start a fake
flame war just to keep us on our toes as to whats a flame war, and
whats just devs moaning for the simple sake of moaning. =P
Just one q, ... is there like a green team?, not much a fan for blue's
or reds atm ( well, not in my country anyway, colours do seem to be a
little country specific sometimes)
^^;
--
Kent
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x|
print enNOSPicAMreil [EMAIL PROTECTED][(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}'
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kumba wrote: And maybe a dev who secretly dabbles in another OSlike Wind...err, Ubuntu! I thought this position has been already filled :) - -- Vlastimil Babka (Caster) Gentoo/Java -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGZ7RLtbrAj05h3oQRAgicAKCnwCpAjx7F5YiDUsBWfwfBpNiGwACeM8ou ZBE6/M41qXeJ6ZUc68tvKGg= =KmFY -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
Kumba wrote: So anyways, I'm all for this list, humour aside. It's blatantly obvious people need a place to vent at times, and I think that by separating the politics from the technical discussion, it might help in some way. Yes, it'll also be the source of many problems too. I can't envision what they might be, but I know they'd exist. I'm ok with it, just I'd like to have it available as gentoo-fortune please. (btw I'd like to see the quotebot back from the old ages!) lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
On Thursday 07 June 2007 09:10:41 Kent Fredric wrote: On 6/7/07, Kumba [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyways, thoughts? --Kumba +1 +1 here too possible alternative names: gentoo-soap, gentoo-gossip ( not to be confused with net-im/gossip ) gentoo-soap, lol! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
Kent Fredric wrote: possible alternative names: gentoo-soap, gentoo-gossip ( not to be confused with net-im/gossip ) Please, please, make it gentoo-circuits [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_My_Circuits Yours faithfully, -jkt -- cd /local/pub more beer /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: gsl
Christian Faulhammer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I propose to create a new global USE flag: As there was no objections (mcummings does not count), I did so. V-Li -- http://www.gentoo.org/ http://www.faulhammer.org/ http://www.gnupg.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proctors - improve the concept or discard it?
Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 01:08 +0100, George Prowse wrote: from http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/coc.xml Look at the Council logs from the CoC being approved and the ones since. We asked for real guidelines so we could specifically avoid this sort of problem from happening. Then the council are to blame for having the CoC readily available under their *own* project pages. It has your's and most of the council's names as reviewers and after 3 months nothing has been said about it. The lack of activity and where it is situated make it look like it is official policy. All this is immaterial anyway because even if it had been extensively discussed at length then the proctors would still have acted the same, or would you have preferred that they held a meeting first and then a focus group and then a coffee morning before trying to stop a thread descending into anarchy? I cant see it would have gone any different to 1) warning. 2) if ignored then act -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proctors - improve the concept or discard it?
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:15:58 +0100 George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All this is immaterial anyway because even if it had been extensively discussed at length then the proctors would still have acted the same If that really were the case, it would just be an even stronger argument for disbanding them. or would you have preferred that they held a meeting first and then a focus group and then a coffee morning before trying to stop a thread descending into anarchy? The thread descended into anarchy because of the proctors. I cant see it would have gone any different to 1) warning. 2) if ignored then act Perhaps if the proctors had discussed things first, they wouldn't have made two major screwups that resulted in Gentoo losing yet another developer. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proctors - improve the concept or discard it?
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Perhaps if the proctors had discussed things first, they wouldn't have made two major screwups that resulted in Gentoo losing yet another developer. Might I suggest that anybody who is waiting for one last straw go ahead and take a month or two off right now and save everybody the drama? If I felt like I was in a position on a project where I was so fed-up that if anything serious happened I'd just quit, and I wasn't being paid at all, I'd take a vacation. Relax! Come back with an idea of why it is I'm participating in the project in the first place. It would be better for myself and the project than doing something that will upset a lot of people and which I might regret down the road. It might be harder in the real world if you need a steady income, but most of us at Gentoo have the liberty of taking time off without much of a drop in income... :) If the proctors overstepped their bounds I'm sure the council will talk to them about it in the appropriate forum, and straighten things out. Some general positive contribution as to what role if any proctors should have is also a good thing. I've really only seen two roles advocated in this series of posts: 1. They're essentially doing the right thing already - short-term bans are OK to enforce cooldown periods and stop off-topic flames. 2. They really aren't needed at all. The few posts that don't fall into those categories haven't really suggested anything else in-between as an alternative. Personally I tend to fall into category #1 - maybe with the addition of sending private warnings before enforcing bans. A better solution might be closing threads, but this probably isn't all that practical to accomplish in a mailing list without moderating the list with approval of all posts. If somebody has a practical suggestion as to how the proctors can fulfill their mission without causing problems, I'm sure they're open to it. I'm not sure I'd call the CoC a failure so much as a work in progress - it may already be causing an improvement in bugzilla or elsewhere even if not obviously on this list. In any case, there really isn't anything in the CoC that isn't generally good-policy, so just having it acts as a warning to those who might later need to be dealt with simply for being super-obnoxious. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New (old) Developer: Deedra Waters (dmwaters)
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:08:48PM +0200, Christian Heim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's my pleasure to welcome back Deedra Waters (also known as dmwaters on IRC). Welcome back Deedra :) tomaw pgp4cdwpBVWlW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 02:19:55 -0400 Kumba [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So I'm told debian has one of these types of MLs, probably where the flames burn bright enough to have earned a star designation from the IAU. Given what's been going on lately, and with calls from myself and others (i.e., mcummings) to get back on track and actually like, you know, develop something, I think it's high time we create this list ourselves. Do you really think people would voluntarily use it? That's an honest question, maybe people are fair enough to do it, but I have serious doubts about it. It's of no use if people have to be told to move threads from -dev to that new list. Marius -- Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proctors - improve the concept or discard it?
On Thu, Jun 7, 2007 at 12:20:07 +0200, George Prowse wrote: [...] before trying to stop a thread descending into anarchy? I wish it was descending into anarchy. Which is a highly organized social system, and doesn't have anything to do with chaos. Anarchy is just a system where there is no authority which hasn't been freely accepted (and freely as in you can refuse it without any consequence, not freely as in you can refuse it but then you won't be part of this project). So please, let's pay attention to the meaning of the words we are using. /Alexandre -- http://aperturefirst.effraie.org pgpheJYWbLG6G.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Non-Dev Contributors and the Tree
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ...or, Trees and Tree Climbers: Shaking up the tree Parts of this argument have been raised before. If this particular angle has already been addressed, kindly point me to the archive so I can see whether I have anything new and original to add or not. Please desist from simply flaming this as a seen it, declined it deal. I was listening to last night's recording of the Linux Link Tech Show, during which one of the Fedora leads was interviewed. During the course of his talk, he mentioned that Fedora had a 1000+ contributors, with only about 250 (ish) actual Fedora developers with commit rights to the final tree. This got me thinking about how Gentoo has historically handled contributors and the tree, and made me wonder if there weren't a better way that would help bolster direct community involvement without simultaneously overtaxing our existing infrastructure. One of Gentoo's flaws, and I can say this because I have been guilty of doing this at least once in the dim past, is that our work-from tree is the same one that the mirrors are reading and people are downloading to their desktops. A mistake in committing to CVS ruins it for everyone, with rapid (and rabid) users getting bit right after a --sync. We've done a good job of catching and correcting these incidents - but wouldn't it be nice if they couldn't happen as easily? One of the comments I hear frequently from active users is that they would love to be able to help maintain a package, or assist with what we do, but have neither the time nor the energy to become a full dev. Sure, we have the various overlays, bugzilla, and the home grown solutions that some teams have come up with, but there isn't a cohesive, unified approach to the issue of maintaining by proxy that I am aware of. What I would like to propose is that we have an official (yes, official) cvs overlay that is used by developers *and* contributors to commit new ebuilds and changes to. Mirrors would still pull, as they always have, from the gentoo-x86 cvs repo. Official Gentoo developers would then be able to take from the overlay and commit to the main tree at will, but have a common stomping ground for contributors and developers to work in without fear of breaking the rest of the tree. We reward those users (pardon the terms if you find that condescending, its not intended as such) with the drive and passion, but not the means, resources, or time, by making them contributors to this overlay, where they can make cvs commits. This overlay wouldn't necessarily need to be the whole of the tree, either. Some areas, such as profiles, could be absent, as well as select projects (perhaps the kernel and toolchain portions?). These contributors wouldn't need to have a flood of @gentoo.org email addresses - they are only contributors who, for whatever reason, are not actually full scale developers. What's the advantage to the developer community? I'm glad you asked :) I see a few benefits right from the start. First, it frees up some of the developers from the 'grind' of the bump-test-commit cycle. We (the Gentoo developers) didn't come here to be ebuild monkeys. We came here, gave our energy and time, so that we could help shape and make something out of this product. The bump and grind is a necessary part of it, but too often, especially for teams managing large segments (perl team being, obviously, no exception), that bump-test-commit cycle becomes the only thing you are ever doing. This might mean some developers, who joined Gentoo solely for the ability to commit new ebuilds and maintain a small segment of the tree, decide to downgrade themselves to contributor status. That isn't a bad thing, and I wouldn't suggest that it be compulsory either. But it would also mean that we would be opening the doors for those folks that actually want to help with the maintenance without the pressure and requirements of being a dev. Perhaps the definition and role of a dev would need to be modified, enhanced even, under this new guise, but I don't believe that to be a bad thing. What about the infrastructure requirements? Well, hopefully, A) we're scaled so that if we had a 1000 developers with cvs access we'd be ok anyway (in which case, under this proposal, there would be little difference - 1000 cvs accounts is a 1000 cvs accounts, no matter which way you slice it), and B) we'd only be talking about the *actual* cvs end of the house, not anything that would affect the mirrors. I wouldn't suggest that this additional cvs root be opened to the user community at large, or that the mirrors be asked to dup it as well. Since in my (limited?) vision this would only be a segment, albeit a sizable segment, I'll grant, it shouldn't exceed any of the current thresholds we have. As developers, we are already accustomed (and if not, what exactly are you maintaining in the tree??) to using a cvs checkout as an overlay. This would simply be adding another
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proctors - improve the concept or discard it?
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:15:58 +0100 George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All this is immaterial anyway because even if it had been extensively discussed at length then the proctors would still have acted the same If that really were the case, it would just be an even stronger argument for disbanding them. You have to be joking, their actions were 100% what they should have been: thread was going downhill - they gave a warning - people ignored it - they acted. If you dont want to adhere to the rules, dont post to the list. or would you have preferred that they held a meeting first and then a focus group and then a coffee morning before trying to stop a thread descending into anarchy? The thread descended into anarchy because of the proctors. No, the threat descended into anarchy because of your opportunistic nature. Every thread where there is a possibility of getting back at the Gentoo heirachy you jump in with both feet and pull your coven in with you. Trying to get back at various people and groups in Gentoo because you feel embarrassed by your exclusion is no way for an adult to act, this isn't like carbon trading, you cant offset any good you do with the bad I cant see it would have gone any different to 1) warning. 2) if ignored then act Perhaps if the proctors had discussed things first, they wouldn't have made two major screwups that resulted in Gentoo losing yet another developer. That may have been the case if they acted inappropriately but as I have said, a warning and then a 24hr cooling off is all that is needed, the thread would have stopped dead then. You must start to realise that whenever a touchy subject is brought up and you intervene the decibel level goes up 10x by virtue of the fact that the pro-Ciaran and anti-Ciaran groups will immediately jump in with their voice. If you were really on these lists to help then you would keep quiet unless it is a 100% technical post so maybe the best idea is for you to teach yourself when to bite your lip. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proctors - improve the concept or discard it?
Alexandre Buisse wrote: On Thu, Jun 7, 2007 at 12:20:07 +0200, George Prowse wrote: [...] before trying to stop a thread descending into anarchy? I wish it was descending into anarchy. Which is a highly organized social system, and doesn't have anything to do with chaos. Anarchy is just a system where there is no authority which hasn't been freely accepted (and freely as in you can refuse it without any consequence, not freely as in you can refuse it but then you won't be part of this project). So please, let's pay attention to the meaning of the words we are using. /Alexandre Anarchy is when the individual as a law unto himself and there are no rules to force him to act appropriately - suitable word for the situation, thankyou. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proctors - improve the concept or discard it?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote: snip various good infos The Code of Conduct was written with the hopes that its existence would help to curb the flamewars and other general nastiness between people within the community. The proctors were created to enforce the Code of Conduct. Their mandate was to be very fast moving and to try to keep flames from spreading. For some time, I was working with the proctors. I ended up disliking the bureaucratic direction they were taking and chose to have myself removed from the group. Since that time, I have pretty much felt that the proctors *have* taken it upon themselves to single out and target particular individuals. Whether this was intentional or not is really beside the point. The perception is all that really matters, as it is all that gets propagated to the world. I think this is something that people seem to forget. It doesn't matter what the real truth is for anything. All that matters to the world is what they perceive. If the perception is that Gentoo is nothing but a bunch of guys waiting to flame people, it doesn't matter that there might be 98% of the developer pool that has never engaged in a flamewar. (Numbers completely made up...) Not everyone had your perception either - in fact, it would appear that a lot of people have the same perception as me, which is that Neddy saw the potential of this thread to do exactly what has happened, and asked for people to NOT post for 24 hours. Certain individuals decided to respond anyways due to that being their nature, and they got banned. Suddenly because those people have a tendency to do this proctors are out to get them - perpetrated by the fact that it is them doing the same thing time and again, it is *NOT* singling anyone out, it is simply responding and attempting to curtail their efforts yet again. So while you have a certain perception - which appears to be the same as the ones the CoC was used against, whether that is good or bad, I have no idea - doesn't mean that *everyone* has your perception. While preventing it is a good goal in itself, writing a CoC based on an actual case which has only recently occurred, usually leads to this result and damages the whatever good intentions were involved because other people will see the similarities as well. The Code of Conduct wasn't written in response to a particular case. The timing suggests that it was written against Ciaran. It wasn't. I know this will sound a bit harsh, but if we really were trying to just get rid of Ciaran, we would have just banned him and been done with it. There wouldn't have been a point in creating yet another project and staffing it. The goal *was* and still *is* to reduce the flames, no matter what parties are involved. More than that, it puts a strain on those who are entrusted with enforcing the CoC because they will try, with the best motives, to prevent anything like that happening again. And they will do it, as the proctors stated themselves, pro-actively. No, re-actively. If it were proactive, it would be done before the flames started. The proctors *have* tried to react as quickly as possible. The problem is that there are no published guidelines, and decisions from the proctors are completely arbitrary to any outside observer. I think they've failed. Again, I don't think that the guys didn't have the best intentions, and I know that some people took my voicing of their failure as a direct personal assault. It wasn't meant that way, but I'm not going to apologize for my observations. I see no point in apologizing for what *I* perceived, even if it does hurt a few feelings. I just think people are being overly-sensitive. It's Gentoo's curse. Overly sensitive? Perhaps you should go re-read your email. And yes, I do believe an apology IS in order. Of course, my beliefs mean nothing, I am a lowly developer, you are a high and mighty council member who is above reproach for your actions. The problem is, though: In an asynchronous communications medium, you simply cannot pro-actively do anything without bordering on what some like to call censorship. You can only *re*act in such a situation. Even *trying* to act pro-actively will lead to unrest as we've only very recently seen it. If we accept my hypothesis of asynchronous communication and the implications I described, we come to the conclusion that reaction is the most likely way not to open Pandora's Box. Attempts to become more proactive were dismissed. One such attempt was to enforce bans on all mediums. For example, if someone is banned for 24 hours for their actions on IRC, they should be banned from all of our media. Why? Because there's nothing keeping the person from just moving next door and starting more problems. We've even seen it happen in at least one occasion that I am aware of with this list and the
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proctors - improve the concept or discard it?
Hello Chris! I'm shortening your mail greatly and respond to only a few aspects because the two of us seem to agree on a great deal of those points you made. On Thursday, June 7, 2007 01:45:43 AM Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Proctors] Well, they've been asked to write guidelines for Council approval, as well as changes to the Code of Conduct. Neither of which have been done. I'm well aware of that. Of course, one could argue that the council should have a) set a fixed date for those tasks and b) monitored the progress. :-) Why do we need the -dev mailing list? How much real development (or even discussion about it) happens on the mailing list? Rarely any. We still need it, though, because it's the only development-related mailinglist that everyone may at least read. That said, before I became a dev I've read this list but I've never posted to it because I felt it was inappropriate. I've contacted either individual devs or herds and that worked fairly well. Users have lots of ways to communicate with us - our mail aliases, the other mailinglists, the forums and what not. So let's make this list read-only for anyone but devs and staff (as was suggested by others here as well) and keep it. Most of the traffic on this list is political in nature and simply doesn't belong on this list. Since we've pretty much shown over the past couple years that the development list isn't being used properly, why have it? Because devs will need a place to vent sometimes. -core is not the list for such purposes. Furthermore, we generally don't need to hide (and we shouldn't either) from our users. Thus, there should be a mailinglist for all to read. Just like we have #gentoo-dev on IRC. I mean no disrespect to people's age, but I think part of the problem why we have such a hard time, collectively, acting like adults is we aren't adults. Thank you for bringing this up. I didn't want to state it that clearly because some will feel it's unfair but I think that's indeed one of the problems. It isn't their fault, it is just simply a lack of life experience. We simply cannot reasonably expect everyone to act like a level-headed thirty year old computer professional. Exactly. About ten to twelve years ago, I often reacted like Ciaran, too. Twice, I was almost fired because of that. Fortunately for me, there were two colleagues who were willing to tolerate me anyway and by just treating me much friendlier and more patiently than I did treat them, I've learned there are better ways to handle frustration and latent aggressions. I have heard people say that our lack of being paid developers compounds this, as we have people from all walks of life. The latter I definitely consider one of our strengths because we're *not* all from the isolated ebony towers of university. We're from all over the world and from all professions. but I do know that paid developers tend to be older and more professional. After all, if they constantly acted like a tool, they'd be fired. Of course. Developer Relations has gone through a few good spots intermixed with lots of failures. Yes, I agree. Of course, both of our views are highly subjective and some others may, as subjectively, feel that it's exactly the other way round. I have always felt that a properly-running distribution should have the need for a group whose purpose is to resolve internal conflict. I'm guessing you meant to write should NOT have? We will always need recruiters, but the existence of a group just to make the 300 or so of us play nice together shows that our culture is broken. No, I don't think so. The fact that we all come from different cultures, are aged from 15 or so up to 70 (? Neddy, correct me if I'm wrong. ;-) ) makes it impossible to avoid conflicts among ourselves. Thus, we'll always need some people to mediate. Granted, personally, I don't need DevRel. I just ignore those who annoy me or I'll let them know what I think about them directly without making a public fuss about it. We can't expect that from others, though. Do we really need an entire team for dealing with one former dev in case he goes too far? Or could we just agree to ignore him if he again behaves inappropriately (or what some of us *feel* might be inappropriate)? This was targetted at the proctors again, not DevRel. I should have made that clear, sorry. When I first read the CoC I had just read about the entire Ciaran-incident on the respective bugs, Forums, mailinglists, blogs and many other sources. CoC, while not bad in itself, seemed (and still seems) to me like a Lex Ciaran - a document with that what I had just read clearly in mind and targetted at preventing it. The Code of Conduct was written with the hopes that its existence would help to curb the flamewars Yes, I know. I was sceptical about that when I first heard of it and I still am. :) The perception is all that really
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
Christian Parpart wrote: +1 here too possible alternative names: gentoo-soap, gentoo-gossip ( not to be confused with net-im/gossip ) gentoo-soap, lol! And these are the Flames of our Lives... --Kumba -- Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere. --Elrond -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: phasing out app-accessibility/festival
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 William Hubbs wrote: Hi all, app-accessibility/festival has not done a release upstream in some time. We currently have several bugs against this package, including one security bug. Since a lot of blind people are now using espeak as their software speech synthesizer, and the new version of emacspeak (version 26, which will be in portage pretty soon) can support espeak, I would like to know this. Once emacspeak 26 is in the tree, I would like to move festival out of accessibility, or remove it from the tree. If there is a reason to keep festival in the tree, can someone please contact me and take over the package? Hi William, Could you point me to a noob's guide to espeak? I cannot seem to get it to output any speech. voyageur on IRC stated that it worked for him via 'aoss espeak hello world' - however, I don't have aoss. I inteded to test against kismet, but without being able to get it working standalone, I can't get it working with kismet. Thanks~! - -- Steev -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGaA6p1c+EtXTHkJcRAg7DAJ9XRzZq8E0P6t9ygRQYEA7Zue4hRQCfSjPp QZFMpdnz75s+4UVb/3Xl7xE= =Wk3L -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
Howdy all, I just bumped into something I feel is a Portage and PMS bug. Since I believe in concrete use cases, I'll just go with that. Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper upstream name and name referenced in every single doc in the world is ntfs-3g. I tried to rename the package however, Portage does not let me since it is invalid naming. marienz and genone informed me it's invalid with PMS as well. The version I was trying to add is ntfs-3g-1.516. Logically Portage and PMS should only consider any data after the LAST - as the version information. Now in the cpv scheme of things, it's not undeterministic because the following two entries would be the only valid entries: sys-fs/ntfs-3g =sys-fs/ntfs-3g-1.516 Either way, that's my beef. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
Luca Barbato wrote: I'm ok with it, just I'd like to have it available as gentoo-fortune please. (btw I'd like to see the quotebot back from the old ages!) Oh, I could easily see the quote package for gentoo-politics (or whatever its called) raising much laughter (among other things). And yes, the quote bot needs to return! So I can stop storing quotes in my bot hiding off on another network :P --Kumba -- Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere. --Elrond -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
Marius Mauch wrote:
Do you really think people would voluntarily use it? That's an honest question,
maybe people are fair enough to do it, but I have serious doubts about it. It's
of no use if people have to be told to move threads from -dev to that new list.
Most of what I wrote was tongue-in-cheek, but the point was that -dev is far too
often filled with non-technical issues that ultimately result into flame wars of
the likes that'd humble mighty Troy herself. It is also our primary list for
discussion of all-things gentoo, and so the -dev moniker doesn't even really fit
right now.
By separating the technical and non-technical, and allowing people to
voluntarily subscribe to the -politics one or not (since -dev is basically a
requirement for devship), My hope is that -dev finally gets back on track as
being purely technical. That is, PMS discussions, ebuild additions/removals,
new developer intros, why quoting variables like ${S} is safer than not quoting
them in ebuilds, questions about bash-fu, and so on. These belong on -dev.
The rest, the non-technical, can go elsewhere, IMHO, and people are free to
subscribe to it if they wish to participate in the discussions there or not. I
myself would likely stay off that list, because I care more about technical
things. I live ~30mi outside of the DC Beltway; I get enough politics as it is.
Think about it -- I'm 30mi away from Wolf Blitzer. Scary stuff man.
--Kumba
--
Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead
Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands
do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere. --Elrond
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
Doug Goldstein wrote: Howdy all, I just bumped into something I feel is a Portage and PMS bug. Since I believe in concrete use cases, I'll just go with that. Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper upstream name and name referenced in every single doc in the world is ntfs-3g. I tried to rename the package however, Portage does not let me since it is invalid naming. marienz and genone informed me it's invalid with PMS as well. The version I was trying to add is ntfs-3g-1.516. Logically Portage and PMS should only consider any data after the LAST - as the version information. Now in the cpv scheme of things, it's not undeterministic because the following two entries would be the only valid entries: sys-fs/ntfs-3g =sys-fs/ntfs-3g-1.516 Either way, that's my beef. It seems my issue has been brought up in bug #174536 [1]. Sorry for the noise. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174536 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Non-Dev Contributors and the Tree
On Thursday, June 7, 2007 01:43:45 PM Michael Cummings wrote: ...or, Trees and Tree Climbers: Shaking up the tree You forgot about the tree huggers! ;-) I mostly agree with your arguments but seeing what we have in the Sunrise overlay I don't think we need another one. Today, people can get involved by submitting ebuilds to (and maintaining them in) Sunrise rather easily. As easily as devs can take ebuilds from there and add them to the official tree. What would/should be different compared to that if we implemented your suggestion? Best regards, Wulf pgpGz0EXJEFcT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
Marius Mauch wrote: Do you really think people would voluntarily use it? That's an honest question, maybe people are fair enough to do it, but I have serious doubts about it. It's of no use if people have to be told to move threads from -dev to that new list. We might need some sort of enforcement for that particular purpose. While I think that behavior proctors are inappropriate, I think that people with ability to say move this thread to gentoo-politics or else.. for non-technical threads, as well as stop failing to use logic in your technical discussion or else... with power to temporarily ban people for non-compliance could be a useful thing. Marius -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
070607 Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: people with ability to say move this to gentoo-politics or else.. for non-technical threads, as well as stop failing to use logic in your technical discussion or else... with power to temporarily ban people for non-compliance could be a useful thing. I've also previously thought a 'gentoo-pol' list wb an improvement, leaving 'gentoo-dev' for genuine development discussions announcements. The former should have fairly free speech, but some users/devs might choose not to subscribe, if the noise tended to outweigh the messages. Its principal attraction wb to relieve '-dev', as you describe. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban Community Studies TRANSIT`-O--O---' University of Toronto -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: Marius Mauch wrote: Do you really think people would voluntarily use it? That's an honest question, maybe people are fair enough to do it, but I have serious doubts about it. It's of no use if people have to be told to move threads from -dev to that new list. We might need some sort of enforcement for that particular purpose. While I think that behavior proctors are inappropriate, I think that people with ability to say move this thread to gentoo-politics or else.. for non-technical threads, as well as stop failing to use logic in your technical discussion or else... with power to temporarily ban people for non-compliance could be a useful thing. Marius No can do - temporarily banning is a bad thing, its censorship, and we can't have that, no sir. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGaDc51c+EtXTHkJcRAlS4AJ9iUXc8uMBSJa0CRzzL5IrbIjvRagCfYoNv BC0ftD75Sm5yFvRBPBoj2Dw= =EHWQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:50:02 -0500 Steev Klimaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No can do - temporarily banning is a bad thing, its censorship, and we can't have that, no sir. It's censorship when it's being done one-sidedly in order to skew an argument based upon the prejudices of those doing the banning. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:50:02 -0500 Steev Klimaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No can do - temporarily banning is a bad thing, its censorship, and we can't have that, no sir. It's censorship when it's being done one-sidedly in order to skew an argument based upon the prejudices of those doing the banning. Or if it's done to you. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:50:02 -0500 Steev Klimaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No can do - temporarily banning is a bad thing, its censorship, and we can't have that, no sir. It's censorship when it's being done one-sidedly in order to skew an argument based upon the prejudices of those doing the banning. Correct you are, your technical knowledge is still sharp as a tack. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
Doug Goldstein wrote: Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper upstream name and name referenced in every single doc in the world is ntfs-3g. I tried to rename the package however, Portage does not let me since it is invalid naming. marienz and genone informed me it's invalid with PMS as well. The version I was trying to add is ntfs-3g-1.516. Logically Portage and PMS should only consider any data after the LAST - as the version information. Would this cause problems anywhere if we had the following? sys-fs/ntfs/ntfs-3g.ebuild and sys-fs/ntfs-3g/ntfs-3g-1.516.ebuild Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:32:40 -0400 Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug Goldstein wrote: Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper upstream name and name referenced in every single doc in the world is ntfs-3g. I tried to rename the package however, Portage does not let me since it is invalid naming. marienz and genone informed me it's invalid with PMS as well. The version I was trying to add is ntfs-3g-1.516. Logically Portage and PMS should only consider any data after the LAST - as the version information. Would this cause problems anywhere if we had the following? sys-fs/ntfs/ntfs-3g.ebuild and sys-fs/ntfs-3g/ntfs-3g-1.516.ebuild Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You don't know unless you actually check the tree. Marius -- Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
maillog: 07/06/2007-19:42:45(+0200): Marius Mauch types On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:32:40 -0400 Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug Goldstein wrote: Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper upstream name and name referenced in every single doc in the world is ntfs-3g. I tried to rename the package however, Portage does not let me since it is invalid naming. marienz and genone informed me it's invalid with PMS as well. The version I was trying to add is ntfs-3g-1.516. Logically Portage and PMS should only consider any data after the LAST - as the version information. Would this cause problems anywhere if we had the following? sys-fs/ntfs/ntfs-3g.ebuild and sys-fs/ntfs-3g/ntfs-3g-1.516.ebuild Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You don't know unless you actually check the tree. Isn't sys-fs/ntfs-3g the atom and =sys-fs/ntfs-3g-1.516 the CPV? -- / Georgi Georgiev/ Meader's Law: Whatever happens to you, it / \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ will previously have happened to everyone \ / http://www.gg3.net/ / you know, only more so. / -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Non-Dev Contributors and the Tree
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 07:43 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote: What I would like to propose is that we have an official (yes, official) cvs overlay that is used by developers *and* contributors to commit new ebuilds and changes to. Mirrors would still pull, as they always have, from the gentoo-x86 cvs repo. Official Gentoo developers would then be able to take from the overlay and commit to the main tree at will, but have a common stomping ground for contributors and developers to work in without fear of breaking the rest of the tree. We reward those users (pardon the terms if you find that condescending, its not intended as such) with the drive and passion, but not the means, resources, or time, by making them contributors to this overlay, where they can make cvs commits. This overlay wouldn't necessarily need to be the whole of the tree, either. Some areas, such as profiles, could be absent, as well as select projects (perhaps the kernel and toolchain portions?). These contributors wouldn't need to have a flood of @gentoo.org email addresses - they are only contributors who, for whatever reason, are not actually full scale developers. I'm just asking, but isn't this exactly what Sunrise is supposed to be? Isn't this the reason it was approved by the previous Council? -- 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] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
Marius Mauch wrote: On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:32:40 -0400 Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug Goldstein wrote: Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper upstream name and name referenced in every single doc in the world is ntfs-3g. I tried to rename the package however, Portage does not let me since it is invalid naming. marienz and genone informed me it's invalid with PMS as well. The version I was trying to add is ntfs-3g-1.516. Logically Portage and PMS should only consider any data after the LAST - as the version information. Would this cause problems anywhere if we had the following? sys-fs/ntfs/ntfs-3g.ebuild and sys-fs/ntfs-3g/ntfs-3g-1.516.ebuild Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You don't know unless you actually check the tree. Marius I thought that was the whole point of =. That identifies CPV instead of an atom. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 02:04:08PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You don't know unless you actually check the tree. I thought that was the whole point of =. That identifies CPV instead of an atom. If you look the DEPEND/RDEPEND portion of ebuilds, there are a lot of deps just declared as CAT/PN, with no version numbering. I think this might be a clearer version of what you are trying to say. 1. Given a string S that is 'X' 2. If S starts with an operator (=,,=,=,), then S MUST have a version number on the end. S is of the form: CAT/PN-PV(-PR), where both CAT and PN may contain a -. PR is optional, and must be of the form /^-r[[:digit:]]+$/ 3. If S does not start with an operator, then S is of the form: CAT/PN, where CAT and PN may contain a -. 4. If the first character was a !, then remember that, strip the ! from S, and repeat from 2. 5. If you reach this point, you have something that is not valid. This means if somebody specified: sys-fs/ntfs-3g-1.516 The CAT is 'sys-fs' and the PN is 'ntfs-3g-1.516' which does not exist. I can't see any logical problems with the above. It probably makes things a lot easier in many places. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer Council Member E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpPl6V57wdcg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 02:57:28 +0900 Georgi Georgiev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: maillog: 07/06/2007-19:42:45(+0200): Marius Mauch types Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You don't know unless you actually check the tree. Isn't sys-fs/ntfs-3g the atom and =sys-fs/ntfs-3g-1.516 the CPV? No, that's the point. It could be the (simple) atom for the sys-fs/ntfs-3g package or it could be the CPV describing sys-fs/ntfs/ntfs-3g.ebuild. Marius -- Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Non-Dev Contributors and the Tree
On Thursday, June 7, 2007 08:34:37 PM Vlastimil Babka wrote: Well the difference is that AFAIK Sunrise is just for maintainer-wanted stuff that's not in the tree yet, but Michael talks about (rev)bumps of stuff that's already in tree. AFAIK, if the maintainer agrees, it's fine to have other stuff in Sunrise, too. I've tried to get a user maintain a live ebuild there for fvwm for example, taviso agreed to it, Sunrise agreed - it's just the user who's lazy why that's not already reality. :-) Personally I think that project/herd overlays with non-dev contributors already work well (at least for Java team) and don't see much benefit in some overlay for everything. Same here for the KDE overlays. The most active contributor is a user, not any dev. :-) Best regards, Wulf pgpavPLTyMqbd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 02:04:08PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You don't know unless you actually check the tree. I thought that was the whole point of =. That identifies CPV instead of an atom. If you look the DEPEND/RDEPEND portion of ebuilds, there are a lot of deps just declared as CAT/PN, with no version numbering. I think this might be a clearer version of what you are trying to say. 1. Given a string S that is 'X' 2. If S starts with an operator (=,,=,=,), then S MUST have a version number on the end. S is of the form: CAT/PN-PV(-PR), where both CAT and PN may contain a -. PR is optional, and must be of the form /^-r[[:digit:]]+$/ 3. If S does not start with an operator, then S is of the form: CAT/PN, where CAT and PN may contain a -. 4. If the first character was a !, then remember that, strip the ! from S, and repeat from 2. 5. If you reach this point, you have something that is not valid. This means if somebody specified: sys-fs/ntfs-3g-1.516 The CAT is 'sys-fs' and the PN is 'ntfs-3g-1.516' which does not exist. I can't see any logical problems with the above. It probably makes things a lot easier in many places. That's exactly what I'm saying. CPV (Category/Package/Version) requires =, =, , = to begin it. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
Steev Klimaszewski wrote: Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: Marius Mauch wrote: Do you really think people would voluntarily use it? That's an honest question, maybe people are fair enough to do it, but I have serious doubts about it. It's of no use if people have to be told to move threads from -dev to that new list. We might need some sort of enforcement for that particular purpose. While I think that behavior proctors are inappropriate, I think that people with ability to say move this thread to gentoo-politics or else.. for non-technical threads, as well as stop failing to use logic in your technical discussion or else... with power to temporarily ban people for non-compliance could be a useful thing. Marius No can do - temporarily banning is a bad thing, its censorship, and we can't have that, no sir. I'll presume this to be irony. Oh. Sorry, can't have that on this list today. Please ban yourself for 24hours. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
On Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2007, Doug Goldstein wrote: That's exactly what I'm saying. CPV (Category/Package/Version) requires =, =, , = to begin it. So you'd like to change every foo/bar occurrence (and that's the common case) to =foo/bar-0 !? Completely out of line, imho. I don't understand what the fuzz is about. sys-fs/ntfs3g is absolutely fine. Fighting for the little - is nonsense. Carsten signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
Carsten Lohrke wrote: On Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2007, Doug Goldstein wrote: That's exactly what I'm saying. CPV (Category/Package/Version) requires =, =, , = to begin it. So you'd like to change every foo/bar occurrence (and that's the common case) to =foo/bar-0 !? Completely out of line, imho. I don't understand what the fuzz is about. sys-fs/ntfs3g is absolutely fine. Fighting for the little - is nonsense. Carsten No. We are talking about differentiating between ntfs version 3g and ntfs-3g. foo/bar is completely valid to reference a package. foo/bar-3 should be treated as category foo, package bar-3. Currently that is not the case and is not allowed. =foo/bar-3 would be foo, package bar, version 3 as it still is. Carsten, no offense but I think you totally misunderstood the scope of what I was trying to convey and Robin explained in better detail. Essentially, we mentioned something that would not change the tree AT ALL. It would just clarify the ambiguity of versioning slightly. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 19:42:45 +0200 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You don't know unless you actually check the tree. Is there any place in the tree where a dep atom and a CPV are both accepted? Should there be? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2007, Doug Goldstein wrote: That's exactly what I'm saying. CPV (Category/Package/Version) requires =, =, , = to begin it. So you'd like to change every foo/bar occurrence (and that's the common case) to =foo/bar-0 !? Completely out of line, imho. I don't understand what the fuzz is about. sys-fs/ntfs3g is absolutely fine. Fighting for the little - is nonsense. Um no. IF one specifies sys-foo/bar-3g you expect it to be a atom, else you have to prefix it with = to be a CPV. If i choose to specify sys-utils/bar then i get any version of bar, which is fine. If i choose to specify sys-utils/bar-3 and bar-3 is not a valid atom, repoman cries at me. Thus, you can continue using the tree just fine :) HTH, -- Regards, Matti Bickel Encrypted/Signed Email preferred pgpKkjqgEdTea.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:04:17 -0400 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's exactly what I'm saying. CPV (Category/Package/Version) requires =, =, , = to begin it. Nope. Something that starts with an operator is a versioned atom. A CPV is used in other places when a specific version is required, for example in package.provided. I guess people aren't that familiar with the term as it's mostly an API thing, on the user-interface side (or ebuild-interface side) one generally doesn't deal with CPVs. Basically an atom is a selector that returns a list of CPVs, and by prefixing a CPV with an operator you get an atom, but they are still completely separate things. Maybe that helps to clear some of the confusion. -- Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:28:26 -0700 Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 4. If the first character was a !, then remember that, strip the ! from S, and repeat from 2. 5. If you reach this point, you have something that is not valid. Sorry, but I completely fail to understand what that's supposed to mean. Where does the ! come from? This means if somebody specified: sys-fs/ntfs-3g-1.516 The CAT is 'sys-fs' and the PN is 'ntfs-3g-1.516' which does not exist. Exist and valid are two different things, which is the whole issue here. With the restriction we can validate without checking for existance, without it we'd have to rely on existance to check if something is a valid atom or a valid CPV. I can't see any logical problems with the above. It probably makes things a lot easier in many places. Can't say anything about that before I understand what you tried to say ;) Marius -- Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:31:44PM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote: On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 19:42:45 +0200 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You don't know unless you actually check the tree. Is there any place in the tree where a dep atom and a CPV are both accepted? An ebuild's PROVIDE list. Should there be? Probably not. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: Steev Klimaszewski wrote: Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: Marius Mauch wrote: Do you really think people would voluntarily use it? That's an honest question, maybe people are fair enough to do it, but I have serious doubts about it. It's of no use if people have to be told to move threads from -dev to that new list. We might need some sort of enforcement for that particular purpose. While I think that behavior proctors are inappropriate, I think that people with ability to say move this thread to gentoo-politics or else.. for non-technical threads, as well as stop failing to use logic in your technical discussion or else... with power to temporarily ban people for non-compliance could be a useful thing. Marius No can do - temporarily banning is a bad thing, its censorship, and we can't have that, no sir. I'll presume this to be irony. Oh. Sorry, can't have that on this list today. Please ban yourself for 24hours. Not irony, sarcasm, and no sir, I will not ban myself. The proctors could have though, but not since no one will listen to them and they have been completely undermined and made obsolete by an overzealous council member. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:33:21 +0200 Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An ebuild's PROVIDE list. Nnnnope. Not legal. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:33:21 +0200 Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An ebuild's PROVIDE list. According to PMS at least, PROVIDE only allows category/package, with no versioning. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
On Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2007, Doug Goldstein wrote: Carsten, no offense but I think you totally misunderstood the scope of what I was trying to convey Yeah, sorry, should have had read your initial email carefully. Taking anything before the last - as version information is indeed a Portage bug. Carsten signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:40:20PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:33:21 +0200 Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An ebuild's PROVIDE list. Nnnnope. Not legal. The question was Is there any place in the tree where a dep atom and a CPV are both accepted? Look at the last word. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:52:39 +0200 Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:40:20PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:33:21 +0200 Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An ebuild's PROVIDE list. Nnnnope. Not legal. The question was Is there any place in the tree where a dep atom and a CPV are both accepted? Look at the last word. If it's not legal, it doesn't matter whether or not it's accepted by fluke. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 23:31:38 +0200 Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the question is whether it's accepted, what matters is whether it's accepted. If you're interested in legality, ask whether it should be accepted, not whether it is. spb did that in the same message, and I responded negatively to that. I'm really not seeing your point here. If Portage currently happens to, say, disable sandbox if an ebuild sets GIVE_ME_A_COOKIE=yes globally, it does not mean that ebuilds may rely upon this behaviour, nor does it mean that Portage cannot change in such a way that breaks this behaviour. The acceptance question is relevant only for legitimate behaviour; things accepted by fluke aren't considered accepted. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:38:49 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Portage currently happens to, say, disable sandbox if an ebuild sets GIVE_ME_A_COOKIE=yes globally, it does not mean that ebuilds may rely upon this behaviour, nor does it mean that Portage cannot change in such a way that breaks this behaviour. The acceptance question is relevant only for legitimate behaviour; things accepted by fluke aren't considered accepted. However, the fact that Portage currently accepts it is tangentially related to the matter at hand, because it's a piece of code that may get confused by this sort of ambiguity. Fortunately it's (relatively speaking) trivial to fix, because the ambiguity only happens due to behaviour that shouldn't really be there. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Proctors - improve the concept or discard it?
Steev Klimaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:37:05 -0500: Not everyone had your perception either - in fact, it would appear that a lot of people have the same perception as me, which is that Neddy saw the potential of this thread to do exactly what has happened, and asked for people to NOT post for 24 hours. Certain individuals decided to respond anyways due to that being their nature, and they got banned. Suddenly because those people have a tendency to do this proctors are out to get them [] Agreed. I believe I responded to one post in the thread, an entirely favorable response I don't believe anyone will have an issue with, BTW, because it showed up higher in my thread list than did the please don't post for 24-hours proctors' request. Then I got to the proctor's request and felt a bit badly, that I had posted without yet seeing it. Had I been banned for 24-hours as a result, with a (probably form, given the number of folks it would apply to) response to the effect that everyone posting was getting it, I'd have certainly been frustrated, but would have understood (tho admittedly it might have taken me a fair bit of that 24 hours /to/ understand). Anyway, I think it has been 24-hours /now/, so I don't feel badly about posting again now... not that there was anything I felt strongly and clearly enough to post on in the interim. Attempts to become more proactive were dismissed. One such attempt was to enforce bans on all mediums. For example, if someone is banned for 24 hours for their actions on IRC, they should be banned from all of our media. Why? Because there's nothing keeping the person from just moving next door and starting more problems. We've even seen it happen in at least one occasion that I am aware of with this list and the forums. more snippage of good informations I know I am planning on bringing up discussion on this at the next Council meeting and we'll simply go from there. Good to know that it will be discussed. Agreed. From my perspective, I think the proctor thing is a good idea, and contrary to some, I'm /not/ of the opinion it has been deliberately used against certain people. The problem, and I remember many people saying so at the time, was that the idea wasn't subject to the usual time limit impositions that most proposals go thru. If it wasn't a response to the specific situation, and I'll trust Chris that it wasn't, it sure SEEMED like it was, and that it was rammed thru without proper debate and discussion. That's really sad, IMO, because what's happening is what I believe a lot of people could have predicted would happen, given the way it was rammed thru. What /was/ a great proposal in principle, ended up with a crappy implementation, without official public guidelines, with no way to answer allegations of favoritism (which were CERTAIN to come up) as a result of the lack of guidelines, perhaps with a bit of favoritism demonstrated, not deliberately, but /because/ of the same lack of guidelines... etc. If it was /not/ a response to the specific incident, why then the rush? Why was it rammed thru as if the continuance of time itself was at stake? Had it been done in the normal orderly way, the process itself would have taken care of these issues we are now dealing with, at least to the point there would have been some guidelines, some sort of answer that could be given referencing the official guidelines as to whether there was favoritism or not. Whatever. What's done is done, and we're living with the consequences. I'm glad to see the decision is going to be reexamined. As I stated above, I'm in favor of the idea. It's just the birth of it that wasn't right. Regardless of that, hopefully, our new baby isn't going to be thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak. I'm honestly not sure it's possible now, but I'd love to see a proctor's project that could stand up with confidence and point not only to direct council authorization, but public guidelines also blessed by the council, so they could act with confidence, clear in the knowledge that they are within properly established guidelines, and that any challenge as to favoritism (deliberate or not) or the like can be met equally confidently. Perhaps this baby, bastard tho he might have started, will now be given the chance to grow into a mature and respected member of the community. =8^) -- 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 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Non-Dev Contributors and the Tree
Wulf C. Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:50:54 +0200: I mostly agree with your arguments but seeing what we have in the Sunrise overlay I don't think we need another one. Today, people can get involved by submitting ebuilds to (and maintaining them in) Sunrise rather easily. As easily as devs can take ebuilds from there and add them to the official tree. What would/should be different compared to that if we implemented your suggestion? The difference, as I read the proposal, is that while Sunrise is about packages that are /not/ in the main tree yet (if it's moved to the tree, it's out of sunrise, tho it might move to another overlay if appropriate), this proposal would extend that to packages that are in the tree as well. (Vetted) users could commit to in-tree packages, but only in the (main) development overlay. It'd be Sunrise, but just as devs watch what's going on there with the eventual goal of getting some of the ebuilds into the tree, so here, devs would watch and make commits to the (mirrored) tree from the development overlay. I've not read the rest of the responses yet, but the question I had was... OK, but won't that result in either (a) developers getting /more/ bump/test/grind, not less, since more of it would be taking commits already made by users and applying them to the mirrored tree (the committing users get more of the creativity, the devs end up being just shuttle monkeys, vetting then shuttling from the dev tree to the mirrored tree), or (b) the mirrored tree eventually falling seriously behind? IMO there may need to be mechanisms to prevent it from going one way or the other, as I don't otherwise see the proposed situation of dev then mirrored tree as being stable over time -- it'll lean toward a or b above. -- 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 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proctors - improve the concept or discard it?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 18:10 +0200, Wulf C. Krueger wrote: On Wednesday, June 6, 2007 05:29:47 PM Grant Goodyear wrote: I'm sure they have the best intentions but I've never seen any clear guidelines for them. They use their best judgement what to handle and what not to but due to language barriers, cultural differences etc. it's difficult to judge. Well, they've been asked to write guidelines for Council approval, as well as changes to the Code of Conduct. Neither of which have been done. As it stands now, there are no publicly available guidelines that I am aware of for the proctors. Yes, there are no approved guidelines. That doesn't mean that there was no discussion about that. However, during that process, the little feedback that came from the council seemed to indicate that in the end those guidelines didn't needed to be approved by the council - the proctors could just discuss them and present them as a matter of fact. Chris, I should probably say this in private, but since you were the one to opt for public discussion, I would like to rekindle your memory that you decided to abandon the proctors@ alias during the discussion because you felt you were being attacked - I would argue that you were being *touchy*. After that, I sent a mail directly to you asking for your opinion - I never got any reply. For anyone interested in the type of discussion that was taking place at the team, at least my contribution, please check the gentoo archives: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-proctors/ Furthermore, where do we need them? The Forums are moderated by an, IMHO, excellent team. IRC is more or less self-moderated. That basically leaves the mailinglists and among those, the only one that *might* arguably need supervision could be -dev. For the record, the council's reply to the proctors about this was that the CoC should be enforced *everywhere*. I mean no disrespect to people's age, but I think part of the problem why we have such a hard time, collectively, acting like adults is we aren't adults. A very good number of our developers are in the high school/college age range. This means their life experience isn't as high as a more seasoned adult. They have no real experiences dealing with adults in adult situations. They're simply used to how things are done with people their age. It isn't their fault, it is just simply a lack of life experience. We simply cannot reasonably expect everyone to act like a level-headed thirty year old computer professional. I have heard people say that our lack of being paid developers compounds this, as we have people from all walks of life. I don't think that I believe that, but I do know that paid developers tend to be older and more professional. After all, if they constantly acted like a tool, they'd be fired. I understand this reasoning and can in part agree with it, although there's always some exceptions - a few people seem they'll be mentally 5 year olds, even when they get to their 70s. - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGaIqAcAWygvVEyAIRAugMAJ41bV10X0J4AGOAcXLrpkMcg3lGQACfRL4Z 0ZUsy3/V0HuB1c2bQEfyYkU= =jE4+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Non-Dev Contributors and the Tree
Duncan wrote: The difference, as I read the proposal, is that while Sunrise is about packages that are /not/ in the main tree yet (if it's moved to the tree, it's out of sunrise, tho it might move to another overlay if appropriate), this proposal would extend that to packages that are in the tree as well. Thanks for the clarification. (Vetted) users could commit to in-tree packages, but only in the (main) development overlay. It'd be Sunrise, but just as devs watch what's going on there with the eventual goal of getting some of the ebuilds into the tree, so here, devs would watch and make commits to the (mirrored) tree from the development overlay. Makes sense, although it does sound like sunrise could be extended for this purpose. Of course i have nfc about how sunrise works behind-teh-scenes.. I've not read the rest of the responses yet, but the question I had was... OK, but won't that result in either (a) developers getting /more/ bump/test/grind, not less, since more of it would be taking commits already made by users and applying them to the mirrored tree (the committing users get more of the creativity, the devs end up being just shuttle monkeys, vetting then shuttling from the dev tree to the mirrored tree), Hmm good point. I was thinking it might fit more with the suggestion for users[1] to be involved with patches etc. This all sounds like the wine triage thing[2] tho, which would need perhaps a more streamlined usage of bugzilla so that discussions don't take place there, but on the m-l (see the recently linked FOSS book about this exact issue.) Of course discussions with no useful purpose need to be proactively filtered.. or (b) the mirrored tree eventually falling seriously behind? IMO there may need to be mechanisms to prevent it from going one way or the other, as I don't otherwise see the proposed situation of dev then mirrored tree as being stable over time -- it'll lean toward a or b above. Well it's always a balancing act, but neither of those poles sounds attractive. Personally i think use of Deskzilla and development of a Free equivalent would really help, along with useful posts like yours of course ;) Regards, igli #friendly-coders @ irc.freenode.org We're still here for you. ;D [1] Solely in the interests of avoiding self-mutilation by the more fragile members of this community ;p [2] http://kegel.com/wine/qa/#triage -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: phasing out app-accessibility/festival
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 08:56:58AM -0500, Steev Klimaszewski wrote: Hi William, Could you point me to a noob's guide to espeak? I cannot seem to get it to output any speech. voyageur on IRC stated that it worked for him via 'aoss espeak hello world' - however, I don't have aoss. I inteded to test against kismet, but without being able to get it working standalone, I can't get it working with kismet. Hi Steev, The only documentation I know of for espeak is on the home page and also gets installed in /usr/share/doc when you emerge the package. What are aoss and kismet? I haven't worked with those. Thanks, - -- William Hubbs gentoo accessibility team lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGaMekblQW9DDEZTgRAoLhAJ9NsKSe3xVvpmVBWp3Y0n6mxgnGPwCgqoNO +UhiysKTsTwot6Ou7z5Kma4= =0uYa -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: We might need some sort of enforcement for that particular purpose. While I think that behavior proctors are inappropriate, I think that people with ability to say move this thread to gentoo-politics or else.. for non-technical threads, as well as stop failing to use logic in your technical discussion or else... with power to temporarily ban people for non-compliance could be a useful thing. IMHO, any enforcement needs to come from the developer community themselves. We have to be careful when designating small groups of people with power, because the dark side of power is that can can be misused. The model of developers collectively enforcing works well already: the Portage Tree. While we've had small mishaps here and there, largely, the honesty system used on the tree has worked quite well. I think that can easily extend to keeping -dev technical in nature only. After all, it already works for the wayward users who posts a -user question to -dev. Just a simple, courteous note that such a question is better asked on -user, and off they go. Nothing precludes the same response for a fellow developer posting a non-technical mail into -dev. But anyways, we've got unanimous support so far, so next up: What to call it. My two choices are gentoo-politics or gentoo-project. After looking at debian-project a bit, I think there's no harm in recycling the same moniker[1] for our use as well. Amusingly enough, there's even a thread on their ML today about discussion of of-topic topics. The rest of the content there seems to be right in line with what's been on here too as of late. So, what should we call it? Vote on this! I think the current popular names are the following (in no particular order, just what I've already seen suggested): gentoo-politics gentoo-circuits gentoo-soap gentoo-project gentoo-gossip [1]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/ --Kumba -- Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere. --Elrond -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
070607 Kumba wrote: what should we call it? Vote on this! If users have votes ... gentoo-politics ... that gets mine: let's keep it quite clear what it is. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban Community Studies TRANSIT`-O--O---' University of Toronto -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
Doug Goldstein wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Steev Klimaszewski wrote: No can do - temporarily banning is a bad thing, its censorship, and we can't have that, no sir. It's censorship when it's being done one-sidedly in order to skew an argument based upon the prejudices of those doing the banning. No that would be *permanently* banning an account from posting with undue cause. Not for 2 weeks or 3 months, but permanently. Even in such an eventuality the poster is free to use another email address. Stalin would turn in his grave.. ;) imo others would protest blatant censorship quite vociferously. After all, look how they react to a 24-hour mute on *one* thread. amne would no doubt have insight into this, as would jmb, but oh dear, we seem to have lost all that experience over one thread. *gg* Or if it's done to you. Careful; what some see as an accurate description of behaviour, others see as ad-hominem. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
