Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Tuesday 06 March 2007, Grant Goodyear wrote: If I understand the process correctly, spb et al are writing their best vision of an ebuild spec, while trying to strike a reasonable compromise between what portage does and what it should be doing, but once they're done it's going to be submitted to the Council and the community to be analyzed, commented upon, and accepted in part, in whole, or not at all by the Council. If they take too long, or their work is too paludis-biased, or if people just don't trust the authors, then nothing is preventing anybody else from writing a competing spec. I actually know so, but as it seems that much work to write, it is quite a hurdle for someone else to step up with an alternative. It might be tempting to ignore a bias. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgpk6cZyx7lLG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting (plus glep27)
On Sunday 04 March 2007, Mike Kelly wrote: My glep 27 implementation is essentially complete, though without making some changes to PAM and shadow, it won't really function for ROOT!=/ with a GNU userland. Because of this, I don't really deem it ready for general use yet. i dont think pam needs changes and i think the required changes to shadow would be trivial ... post a bug please to get like a --chroot flag added -mike pgphpuqCMOKYf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: No, it's that you're dead set on derailing it and being as unhelpful as possible. You have absolutely nothing to contribute, as evidenced by every previous time you've gotten involved with anything I've done, and given how badly you tried to screw up GLEP 42 and how much of my time you wasted doing so, I really don't want to deal with your noise ever again. You also have a lot to gain by wrecking the process, and your past behaviour has shown that you'll stoop to any kind of dirty trickery and abuse of the system that you think you can get away with rather than having a proper technical discussion. Ciaran, could you please do this in private. We don't need pissing contests and flamefests on this list. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgpdayJ6857k1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sunday 04 March 2007, Andrej Kacian wrote: Dňa Sat, 3 Mar 2007 20:46:35 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] napísal: On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is it a developer-only privilege? You just made that up. To co-lead a Gentoo project? You need to be a dev to do that. I couldn't join any projects even as a member until I became a dev, and I created the distro. You are effectively co-leading (likely leading) PMS as a non-dev - worse than that, as someone who has been explicitly removed from a dev role. Daniel, could you please stop that? You're being ridiculous and just wasting everyone's time with this. The guy wants to do some work on PMS, let him do it - in my opinion he's one of the most qualified people to do it. That remainst to be debateable. It is however also true that he is a party with a vested interest in the process. As such we must be warry of what we allow. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgpCYS0DOWj7a.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Simon Stelling wrote: Daniel Robbins wrote: 1) Any material created by Gentoo developers, as part of an official Gentoo Project, needs to have copyright assigned to the Gentoo Foundation, whether or not it is currently included in the Portage tree. This protects all of our collective contributions against misuse, which is why it is policy. Except that in many European countries you can't even re-assign your copyright. Oops. Only the moral copyright. You can reassign everything else. Or irrevocably license it or similar. It is not actually an issue at all. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgphaDr9SBWEN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:27:00 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That remainst to be debateable. It is however also true that he is a party with a vested interest in the process. As such we must be warry of what we allow. Everyone involved has a vested interest. If they weren't interested they wouldn't be involved. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Paul de Vrieze wrote: [Tue Mar 06 2007, 02:27:00PM CST] That remainst to be debateable. It is however also true that he is a party with a vested interest in the process. As such we must be warry of what we allow. I think you (and many others, including drobbins) have missed something important here. I'm noticing an implicit assumption that spb and crew are writing The Gentoo EAPI-0 Spec (TM), and that once they're done it will be the official document describing the official ebuild spec. None of that is actually true, as far as I can tell. If I understand the process correctly, spb et al are writing their best vision of an ebuild spec, while trying to strike a reasonable compromise between what portage does and what it should be doing, but once they're done it's going to be submitted to the Council and the community to be analyzed, commented upon, and accepted in part, in whole, or not at all by the Council. If they take too long, or their work is too paludis-biased, or if people just don't trust the authors, then nothing is preventing anybody else from writing a competing spec. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgprLo6wEs8x2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 02:12 -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote: I'm also very interested to find out about this. I would be disappointed to find that the Foundation has chosen to not fulfill or neglect one of the key purposes for which it was created. Copyright assignment was pretty much dropped by the previous trustees. The current trustees are working on a better solution to this, but are currently focused more on reincorporation in a friendlier state for our project. -- 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] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 02:20:48 -0500 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The EAPI=0 document was supposed to be a QA project. What it is now, I have no idea. A QA subproject which has not yet released a public draft. What the Council is interested in is a specification of expected behavior of an EAPI=0 compatible package manager. Which is exactly what PMS is. We asked for a specification. If the PMS team is unable or unwilling to provide us with what we asked under the terms we asked for it We're working to provide it. So far, I haven't been asked for it under any particular terms other than at some point in the future, and we realise that it will take a while to finish. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 16:56 +, Stephen Bennett wrote: On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 02:20:48 -0500 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The EAPI=0 document was supposed to be a QA project. What it is now, I have no idea. A QA subproject which has not yet released a public draft. Now, yes. We asked for a specification. If the PMS team is unable or unwilling to provide us with what we asked under the terms we asked for it We're working to provide it. So far, I haven't been asked for it under any particular terms other than at some point in the future, and we realise that it will take a while to finish. Yes. What we want to discuss is a possible timeline for completion, and what resources you may need to get it done within the agreed timeline. Notice that I used timeline, instead of deadline. It was done on purpose really just to shut people the hell up. We're not out to get anybody, we're just wanting to make sure we're all on track and moving forward. -- 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] Some council topics for March meeting
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:49:10 -0500 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What we want to discuss is a possible timeline for completion, and what resources you may need to get it done within the agreed timeline. Notice that I used timeline, instead of deadline. It was done on purpose really just to shut people the hell up. We're not out to get anybody, we're just wanting to make sure we're all on track and moving forward. And, now that what was actually meant has been clarified, I'll be more than happy to provide relevant information and answer questions the Council might have related to the matter. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On 3/5/07, Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:49:10 -0500 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What we want to discuss is a possible timeline for completion, and what resources you may need to get it done within the agreed timeline. Notice that I used timeline, instead of deadline. It was done on purpose really just to shut people the hell up. We're not out to get anybody, we're just wanting to make sure we're all on track and moving forward. And, now that what was actually meant has been clarified, I'll be more than happy to provide relevant information and answer questions the Council might have related to the matter. 300 messages, two developers, and 17 cups of coffee later.. :) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Josh Saddler wrote: [Mon Mar 05 2007, 03:51:08PM CST] Technical point here -- the devmanual has never been in GuideXML; it was converted from RST into docbook. Oh! My apologies. Thanks, g2boojum -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpjgai88V6hv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Josh Saddler wrote: Technical point here -- the devmanual has never been in GuideXML; it was converted from RST into docbook. Was it? IIRC it was a custom GuideXML-like format, but certainly not a Docbook. A quick glance at the Docbook DTD [1] and the devmanual itself [2] seems to confirm that... Signed, your friendly local GuideXML monkey. :) [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/5.0b5/dtd/docbook.dtd [2] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/devmanual/trunk/text.xml?content-type=text%2Fplain Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub more beer /dev/mouth -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Jan Kundrát wrote: Josh Saddler wrote: Technical point here -- the devmanual has never been in GuideXML; it was converted from RST into docbook. Was it? IIRC it was a custom GuideXML-like format, but certainly not a Docbook. A quick glance at the Docbook DTD [1] and the devmanual itself [2] seems to confirm that... The following excerpt from the 'Contributing to This Document' page [1] states that it is DevBook, not DocBook or GuideXML, although it appears to be similar to the latter. This document is produced using the DevBook XML build system. You can download a snapshot of the system as well as the relevant XML files from Subversion. You can also view the XML of any page by replacing index.html with text.xml in the URL. If you'd rather just work with plain text, that's fine too — the formatting can be easily done by someone else (meaning, us). [1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/appendices/contributing/index.html -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Dňa Sat, 3 Mar 2007 20:46:35 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] napísal: On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is it a developer-only privilege? You just made that up. To co-lead a Gentoo project? You need to be a dev to do that. I couldn't join any projects even as a member until I became a dev, and I created the distro. You are effectively co-leading (likely leading) PMS as a non-dev - worse than that, as someone who has been explicitly removed from a dev role. Daniel, could you please stop that? You're being ridiculous and just wasting everyone's time with this. The guy wants to do some work on PMS, let him do it - in my opinion he's one of the most qualified people to do it. Why does it matter whether or not he has write access to the portage tree CVS module (work on PMS doesn't require any commits there anyway) ? Don't start again about the dubious official status of Gentoo developership - since when is volunteer work about political (yes, political) status? Just. Drop. It. Regards, -- Andrej Kacian ticho at gentoo org Gentoo Linux developer - net-mail, antivirus, sound, x86 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 11:40:39AM -0800, Josh Saddler wrote: zOMG Cabal conspiracy!!1oneone! So, who'se conspiring against you now? Devrel? The Council? Oh...*Brian* this time. Or just anyone whom you've never liked or has disagreed with you about anything? Oh wait, I bet you think we're supposed to take your cries of conspiring and derailing *seriously*. Bottom line is you're not going to prevent him from having a say in the matter, anymore than someone could prevent you from having a say in PMS. Stop being so dramatic. OMG he only wants to attack me and my pet project! And here's reason foo that --uh, several others just poked holes in-- but oh well! That's all in *your* head. The rest of us note with mild bemusement that you've yet to provide any kind of backup for your wild he said she said tirades, though if you do want to show some evidence, kindly do so off-list. Keep your spewing on-topic: technical issues, not on your personal issues. Stop making useless comment. -- Alexander Færøy Bugday Lead Alpha/IA64/MIPS Architecture Teams User Relations, Quality Assurance pgpa8KXEK1rkT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 20:46:35 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To co-lead a Gentoo project? You need to be a dev to do that. I couldn't join any projects even as a member until I became a dev, and I created the distro. You are effectively co-leading (likely leading) PMS as a non-dev - worse than that, as someone who has been explicitly removed from a dev role. He's not leading it. He's writing parts of it under my lead, despite the fact that he's probably better qualified technically than I am to lead it. Again, you're not just submitting a patch but architecting the strategic direction for package manager interoperability which has strategic implications for Gentoo, and is more than just a user-submitted contribution. Nope. He's documenting the existing situation for package manager interoperability. Wherever PMS goes against existing practise it's been discussed either on -dev or with the portage developers past and present. Again, he's not influencing future direction this way. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Daniel Robbins wrote: On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is it a developer-only privilege? You just made that up. To co-lead a Gentoo project? You need to be a dev to do that. I couldn't join any projects even as a member until I became a dev, and I created the distro. You are effectively co-leading (likely leading) PMS as a non-dev - worse than that, as someone who has been explicitly removed from a dev role. And you know this because? Stick to the facts. Ciaran is not leading the project as the current project lead has already expressed someone in this thread. I have committed patches to PMS so I have some experience in the matter. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Daniel Robbins wrote: On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is it a developer-only privilege? You just made that up. To co-lead a Gentoo project? You need to be a dev to do that. I couldn't join any projects even as a member until I became a dev, and I created the distro. You are effectively co-leading (likely leading) PMS as a non-dev - worse than that, as someone who has been explicitly removed from a dev role. The Gentoo Java project has many users contributing to it and I wouldn't have it any other way. I thought you wanted to work on something in the gentoo-x86 like amd64 keywording and as such would require CVS access? There is no point in joining the amd64 team unless you can actually commit keywords (of course arch testers but there is a process for that). Also by definition PMS is not an official Gentoo project as there is not a project or sub project page for it in http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 20:46:35 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is it a developer-only privilege? You just made that up. To co-lead a Gentoo project? I'm not co-leading it. You keep making things up. Stop doing that. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 08:46:35PM -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote: [snip] Would you be kind enough to stop hijacking the thread ? You are responsible for this last flame... just quit it please. - ferdy -- Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín Gentoo Developer (Alpha,net-mail,mutt,git) 20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4 pgpSAwjNUZqqe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:17:56 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, again, since you are participating as a key member in an official Gentoo project, which is a developer-only privilege, you should either have your dev access reinstated or be removed from the project. This is incorrect. The full implication here is that only devs can contribute significantly to Gentoo - which would be a big backwards step, and something we have gone through a fair amount of heart-ache to avoid. We have evolved various ways in which users can contribute valuable work; not just by posting into bugzilla (which was the only mechanism available when I joined, shortly after you left I think) but also working alongside proxy devs, or working in with devs in overlays, working as Arch Testers and so on. Personally I work with several people who are not Gentoo devs, but are _critically_ important to the work that I do for Gentoo. After all, although we call ourselves developers, really we're integrators. Today, being a dev (which essentially means having commit access to Gentoo repositories) is mostly about taking responsibility for what is finally committed. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Today, being a dev (which essentially means having commit access to Gentoo repositories) is mostly about taking responsibility for what is finally committed. FWIW, FreeBSD has a long and glorious history of proxy-maintainership in their ports tree -- that model seems to work pretty well for them. Thanks, Marty -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
In defense of my confusion, certainly appears from the perspective of the gentoo-dev ml that you are leading at the very least the day-to-day management of the project. But if I am wrong, I *sincerely* apologize. Let me see if I have all the facts right. Summary Of PMS: PMS is a project that is not an offical Gentoo project, but is controlled by a Gentoo developer (spb), is hosted on external infrastructure, does not have a Gentoo Foundation copyright. The council may try to impose a deadline on PMS but it is a non-Gentoo project and thus out of its scope of influence in all areas besides areas of mutual coordination. Significant contributions to PMS are coming from Ciaran, someone who has been explicitly banned from Gentoo development, but this is OK as it is not a Gentoo project. The specification is designed to document that functionality that ebuilds can rely on. Paludis, a non-Gentoo project lead by Ciaran, will likely be the first conformant implementation, after which the process will begin to get it adopted as official policy for Gentoo ebuilds, via the Council and QA. As such, it will likely have long-term impact on the way that Gentoo writes ebuilds. I *think* I have all that right? OK, I will accept this. If that's the case, I'm suggesting the following tweak to the plans. a) move PMS discussion off this list Rationale: it's not an official Gentoo project. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Interested Gentoo devs can subscribe to a PMS list hosted on non-Gentoo infrastructure. It's also not worth keeping PMS on this list for a number of reasons, and confuses people (me included) as to whether it is an official Gentoo project. b) You (Ciaran) should unsubscribe from this list. Rationale: You (Ciaran) have already been explicitly banned from Gentoo development yet are acting as the project's official spokesman on this list which is clearly a Gentoo development list. I am asking that you have a basic respect for your removal from Gentoo, despite your personal feelings, which to me means that you are not involved as a developer on a day-to-day basis and not working directly with other Gentoo developers - except those that might want or need to work with you on non-Gentoo projects (who can then freely interact with you on non-Gentoo lists.) This should not impede your work or that of PMS, as interested parties can just subscribe to those non-Gentoo lists. In fact I expect this will help to accelerate PMS development dramatically. From the perspective of Gentoo developers, it should also reduce flames and hard feelings on this list, and allow Gentoo devs to have a Gentoo-esque environment for Gentoo projects that is fully governed by devrel and that Gentoo developers can be comfortable in. Ciaran, everyone: My overarching goal is that *boundaries are respected*, whatever they might be (in this case they were damn confusing to figure out.) They exist for a reason, and whether or not you agree with them they should be respected. I apologize to anyone I might have offended in my effort to figure these out. Really. Sorry. That being said, I think my suggestions make *TOTAL SENSE* for both. I hope that even those people who got irritated with me understand where I was coming from and will seriously consider my suggestions in this email. Let's take some quick and decisive action to get Gentoo and PMS going in the right direction again, please. *That* is what I have been trying to do, with the priority placed on getting Gentoo going in the right direction. -Daniel On 3/4/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 20:46:35 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is it a developer-only privilege? You just made that up. To co-lead a Gentoo project? I'm not co-leading it. You keep making things up. Stop doing that. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Daniel Robbins wrote: Rationale: You (Ciaran) have already been explicitly banned from Gentoo development yet are acting as the project's official spokesman on this list which is clearly a Gentoo development list. I am asking that you have a basic respect for your removal from Gentoo, despite your personal feelings, which to me means that you are not involved as a developer on a day-to-day basis and not working directly with other Gentoo developers - except those that might want or need to work with you on non-Gentoo projects (who can then freely interact with you on non-Gentoo lists.) There is a difference between being banned from Gentoo development and losing developer status. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
OK. If that's not possible, I'll push for the banned from gentoo development status as it obviously makes sense, will help Gentoo, and will not impact PMS. If Ciaran is sticking around on this list using PMS as a pretext to insult various people and projects, then this is more than acceptable grounds to be banned from gentoo development IMO and thus allow my suggestion to be put into action. Really, I don't see any reason for any party to fight my suggestion, as it would benefit everyone. If people are truly concerned about productivity, then I would expect them to support it. -Daniel On 3/4/07, Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Daniel Robbins wrote: Rationale: You (Ciaran) have already been explicitly banned from Gentoo development yet are acting as the project's official spokesman on this list which is clearly a Gentoo development list. I am asking that you have a basic respect for your removal from Gentoo, despite your personal feelings, which to me means that you are not involved as a developer on a day-to-day basis and not working directly with other Gentoo developers - except those that might want or need to work with you on non-Gentoo projects (who can then freely interact with you on non-Gentoo lists.) There is a difference between being banned from Gentoo development and losing developer status. Regards, Petteri -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Hello Daniel On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 10:32:40AM -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote: If people are truly concerned about productivity, then I would expect them to support it. To me it seems that you aren't concerned about productivity, otherwise you wouldn't top-post. Please stop doing it and learn how to quote properly. I'm not going to comment on anything else in this thread. Thanks, Michael -- Gentoo Linux developer, http://hansmi.ch/, http://forkbomb.ch/ pgpXuerbQ7fXe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Dňa Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:32:40 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] napísal: Really, I don't see any reason for any party to fight my suggestion, as it would benefit everyone. If people are truly concerned about productivity, then I would expect them to support it. I am concerned about PMS to be done right, and I think Ciaran is one of the most qualified people to do it (as I already stated). Therefore I disagree with your attempts to ban him from gentoo development, as it would hurt Gentoo, instead of increasing productivity. I'm not going to actively fight your suggestion though, because I have packages to maintain and only limited time, which you're already cutting into with your nonsensical notions about boundaries. -- Andrej Kacian ticho at gentoo org Gentoo Linux developer - net-mail, antivirus, sound, x86 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:03:54 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In defense of my confusion, certainly appears from the perspective of the gentoo-dev ml that you are leading at the very least the day-to-day management of the project. No, as I've already told you, I'm just the one who hasn't decided to ignore all this pointless noise yet. PMS is a project that is not an offical Gentoo project, but is controlled by a Gentoo developer (spb), is hosted on external infrastructure, does not have a Gentoo Foundation copyright. PMS is a QA subproject. It even has a subproject page now. The council may try to impose a deadline on PMS but it is a non-Gentoo project and thus out of its scope of influence in all areas besides areas of mutual coordination. The Council imposing a deadline upon PMS would have exactly the same effect as the Council imposing a deadline upon anything else. Significant contributions to PMS are coming from Ciaran, someone who has been explicitly banned from Gentoo development Untrue. I haven't been banned from Gentoo development, and I've been contributing to plenty of things for a long time. The specification is designed to document that functionality that ebuilds can rely on. Paludis, a non-Gentoo project lead by Ciaran, will likely be the first conformant implementation, after which the process will begin to get it adopted as official policy for Gentoo ebuilds, via the Council and QA. The first conformant implementation will likely be Portage, unless Portage has some particularly nasty bugs that take a long time to fix. Paludis will likely be the first conformant *independent* implementation. An independent implementation is generally considered necessary for something to be a proper standard rather than a description of a program. I *think* I have all that right? OK, I will accept this. If that's the case, I'm suggesting the following tweak to the plans. a) move PMS discussion off this list That would be great. There has been absolutely nothing of value received from people discussing PMS on this list. Moving it onto a list where the PMS project lead can remove people who contribute nothing to the discussion would be very helpful. It's also not worth keeping PMS on this list for a number of reasons, and confuses people (me included) as to whether it is an official Gentoo project. If you're confused, it's because you didn't do your research before jumping in with all your accusations. b) You (Ciaran) should unsubscribe from this list. Rationale: You (Ciaran) have already been explicitly banned from Gentoo development Untrue. yet are acting as the project's official spokesman on this list which is clearly a Gentoo development list. Also untrue, as you have been told several times. I am asking that you have a basic respect for your removal from Gentoo, despite your personal feelings, which to me means that you are not involved as a developer on a day-to-day basis and not working directly with other Gentoo developers - except those that might want or need to work with you on non-Gentoo projects (who can then freely interact with you on non-Gentoo lists.) Funnily enough, I'm working quite happily with more Gentoo developers that most other Gentoo developers, both on official Gentoo projects and on external projects. This should not impede your work or that of PMS, as interested parties can just subscribe to those non-Gentoo lists. In fact I expect this will help to accelerate PMS development dramatically. If accelerating PMS development is your goal, I suggest you stop commenting upon it... This thread has become a massive waste of time thanks mainly to your input. *That* is what I have been trying to do, with the priority placed on getting Gentoo going in the right direction. I think you need to step back and admit that at present, you're not familiar enough with how Gentoo is operating to provide any kind of input on that sort of topic. Give yourself time to get back into the flow of things, learn what projects like PMS are *before* you start jumping in on discussions. Apologise to everyone whose time you wasted by making them read this thread if you like, but more importantly don't do it again. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:32:40 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really, I don't see any reason for any party to fight my suggestion, as it would benefit everyone. If people are truly concerned about productivity, then I would expect them to support it. If people are truly concerned about productivity, they might want to take a look at the names and development methods associated with Gentoo projects that actually deliver... In the mean time, Daniel, I'm going to ask once more that you drop your personal crusade to do whatever it is you think you're doing here. It's wasting everyone's time and annoying a lot of people. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sun, 2007-03-04 at 12:55 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: The Gentoo Java project has many users contributing to it and I wouldn't have it any other way. Users contributing is one thing. A former dev that was kicked now contributing as a user is quite different IMHO. One strike is not the same as no strikes. (Neutral comment, not on any side) -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 10:32:40AM -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote: OK. If that's not possible, I'll push for the banned from gentoo development status as it obviously makes sense, will help Gentoo, and will not impact PMS. If Ciaran is sticking around on this list using PMS as a pretext to insult various people and projects, then this is more than acceptable grounds to be banned from gentoo development IMO and thus allow my suggestion to be put into action. Really, I don't see any reason for any party to fight my suggestion, as it would benefit everyone. If people are truly concerned about productivity, then I would expect them to support it. Banning Ciaran *is* going to hurt PMS as he's been asking many questions related to PMS lately on -dev ML and the discussions have generally been very good imo. Regards, Bryan Østergaard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Dňa Sun, 04 Mar 2007 13:24:32 -0500 William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] napísal: The Gentoo Java project has many users contributing to it and I wouldn't have it any other way. Users contributing is one thing. A former dev that was kicked now contributing as a user is quite different IMHO. No, in this context it is exactly the same. -- Andrej Kacian ticho at gentoo org Gentoo Linux developer - net-mail, antivirus, sound, x86 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: It's wasting everyone's time and annoying a lot of people. This sniplet was brought to you by the almighty Flaming Guide [1]: | One thing is to frequently refer to us or our. Pretend like people | are with you on this, so the uncertain ones will flock to your side! | | Code listing 1.6: Usage of plurality | email: Stop wasting our time! [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~chriswhite/docs/flame.html -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Ciaran, What I do know is that you should not be allowed to insult random developers like Jakub when it suits you. If things get slightly more unpleasant or unproductive for a brief period of time while I find an appropriate mechanism to remove you from this list (due to AWOL project leadership,) I consider that time well spent. You clearly should not be here. If anyone should apologize, the Gentoo project leadership should apologize for not removing you from the list sooner. This project is screwed if people who act like you are allowed to stick around. Since you seem to agree with me that your participation on this list has been a waste of your time, I await an announcement of a separate PMS list hosted on non-Gentoo infrastructure on which you will discuss your work, as well as your timely unsubscription from this list. -Daniel On 3/4/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:03:54 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In defense of my confusion, certainly appears from the perspective of the gentoo-dev ml that you are leading at the very least the day-to-day management of the project. No, as I've already told you, I'm just the one who hasn't decided to ignore all this pointless noise yet. PMS is a project that is not an offical Gentoo project, but is controlled by a Gentoo developer (spb), is hosted on external infrastructure, does not have a Gentoo Foundation copyright. PMS is a QA subproject. It even has a subproject page now. The council may try to impose a deadline on PMS but it is a non-Gentoo project and thus out of its scope of influence in all areas besides areas of mutual coordination. The Council imposing a deadline upon PMS would have exactly the same effect as the Council imposing a deadline upon anything else. Significant contributions to PMS are coming from Ciaran, someone who has been explicitly banned from Gentoo development Untrue. I haven't been banned from Gentoo development, and I've been contributing to plenty of things for a long time. The specification is designed to document that functionality that ebuilds can rely on. Paludis, a non-Gentoo project lead by Ciaran, will likely be the first conformant implementation, after which the process will begin to get it adopted as official policy for Gentoo ebuilds, via the Council and QA. The first conformant implementation will likely be Portage, unless Portage has some particularly nasty bugs that take a long time to fix. Paludis will likely be the first conformant *independent* implementation. An independent implementation is generally considered necessary for something to be a proper standard rather than a description of a program. I *think* I have all that right? OK, I will accept this. If that's the case, I'm suggesting the following tweak to the plans. a) move PMS discussion off this list That would be great. There has been absolutely nothing of value received from people discussing PMS on this list. Moving it onto a list where the PMS project lead can remove people who contribute nothing to the discussion would be very helpful. It's also not worth keeping PMS on this list for a number of reasons, and confuses people (me included) as to whether it is an official Gentoo project. If you're confused, it's because you didn't do your research before jumping in with all your accusations. b) You (Ciaran) should unsubscribe from this list. Rationale: You (Ciaran) have already been explicitly banned from Gentoo development Untrue. yet are acting as the project's official spokesman on this list which is clearly a Gentoo development list. Also untrue, as you have been told several times. I am asking that you have a basic respect for your removal from Gentoo, despite your personal feelings, which to me means that you are not involved as a developer on a day-to-day basis and not working directly with other Gentoo developers - except those that might want or need to work with you on non-Gentoo projects (who can then freely interact with you on non-Gentoo lists.) Funnily enough, I'm working quite happily with more Gentoo developers that most other Gentoo developers, both on official Gentoo projects and on external projects. This should not impede your work or that of PMS, as interested parties can just subscribe to those non-Gentoo lists. In fact I expect this will help to accelerate PMS development dramatically. If accelerating PMS development is your goal, I suggest you stop commenting upon it... This thread has become a massive waste of time thanks mainly to your input. *That* is what I have been trying to do, with the priority placed on getting Gentoo going in the right direction. I think you need to step back and admit that at present, you're not familiar enough with how Gentoo is operating to provide any kind of input on that sort of topic. Give yourself time to get back into the flow of things, learn what projects like PMS are *before*
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 13:03:39 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If anyone should apologize, the Gentoo project leadership should apologize for not removing you from the list sooner. This project is screwed if people who act like you are allowed to stick around. One more time. Please stop with the personal attacks, threats and deliberate outright lies. Calm down, step back and realise your position within the project and stop trying to abuse your former status. So far within this thread, you've managed to launch groundless attacks against me, a whole bunch of other Gentoo developers, the Council, the Foundation and devrel. If you don't cut this out I'll escalate this to the appropriate parties rather than let this pointless noise carry on even longer than it already has. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On 3/4/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you've managed to launch groundless attacks against me, a whole bunch of other Gentoo developers, the Council, the Foundation and devrel. Well, I think it's a good thing to question whether the Council, the Foundation and devrel are really doing their jobs. If you read some of your previous emails you'll find that you agree with me. Hopefully someone(s) will eventually wake up and start moving this project in the right direction. I'm going to resign and focus on more meaningful uses of my time, as I find the project unbearable at the moment and it would take a tremendous amount of my time to get it to the point where I would actually enjoy being here. -Daniel -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 07:32 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: I'm also curious as to why people should be expected to assign copyright to a group that is known for licence violations and removing attribution from documents. How does this protect anything? Yeah, you cry foul when people paint you with an overly broad brush. Is it known? As far as I remember, the issue was acknowledged when brought up, and then fixed. The issue hasn't come up again with your docs. It hasn't come up with any other thing. So how exactly, is this group known for doing these things? Honestly, it doesn't seem like you even read your own mails. It's like you pop a pill and go off into la-la-land where everyone is out to attack you, and the only one allowed to say anything with sweeping generalisations without justifications is you. If anyone said anything remotely in this vein about you or yours, you'd be off on so many tangents, nobody could keep count. And you'd be asking for endless justification after justification of every little syllable. You would actually gain back some respect if you behaved the way you expect everyone else to behave. If you wouldn't want this sort of brush to be used on you, how are you getting off using it yourself? Grow up. Seemant -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Seemant Kulleen napsal(a): On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 07:32 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: I'm also curious as to why people should be expected to assign copyright to a group that is known for licence violations and removing attribution from documents. How does this protect anything? Yeah, you cry foul when people paint you with an overly broad brush. Is it known? As far as I remember, the issue was acknowledged when brought up, and then fixed. The issue hasn't come up again with your docs. It hasn't come up with any other thing. Erm, to be precise here, noone has removed any ciaranm's attributions from devmanual, they've all been moved to the end of the document originally, so that people wouldn't be forced to scroll across one page worth of contributors to get to the actual content of devmanual. And of course this was a great occasion to start screaming about license violation and demand bigger fonts on devmanual frontpage. [1] As said, grow up. [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150231#c5 -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:03:54 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a) move PMS discussion off this list That is the whole joke here: It was more or less you who started this discussion. The original mail was Mike mentioning something about a deadline on the PMS project as agenda item for the next council meeting, and Ciaran as a person involved in that project asked what that item was really about (as the council didn't set deadlines previously AFAIK). Then the problems started when Mike more or less refused to answer that question and things went out of control when you got involved and the question of is PMS a Gentoo project came up (not blaming you, but that was the trigger from my POV). Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 00:08:40 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, you cry foul when people paint you with an overly broad brush. Is it known? As far as I remember, the issue was acknowledged when brought up, and then fixed. The issue hasn't come up again with your docs. It hasn't come up with any other thing. Erm, to be precise here, noone has removed any ciaranm's attributions from devmanual, they've all been moved to the end of the document originally, so that people wouldn't be forced to scroll across one page worth of contributors to get to the actual content of devmanual. Nnope. All credits except for one name (of someone whose contributions were limited to a few sentences) were removed from the front page entirely, completely in violation of the licence. Repeated requests to the editor to fix it were ignored, so I escalated it to the appropriate party -- wherein certain people in positions of authority tried as hard as they could to claim that there was no licence violation and that following the licence wasn't important. Instead of getting fixed as soon as I notified anyone of the issue, it was dragged out for ages for political reasons. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 00:08:40 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erm, to be precise here, noone has removed any ciaranm's attributions from devmanual, they've all been moved to the end of the document originally, so that people wouldn't be forced to scroll across one page worth of contributors to get to the actual content of devmanual. Nnope. All credits except for one name (of someone whose contributions were limited to a few sentences) were removed from the front page entirely, completely in violation of the licence. Erm yes, you wanted bigger fonts on a front page, already said that multiple times (plus everyone can read the bug). Noone removed any credits from the doc itself, they were moved to a different place for the reason I've stated above. Stop this already, we've been thru this once and that's been really enough, I fail to see why are you bringing up this issue here again and abusing it for completely false generalisations (as quoted by seemant in his mail). -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Daniel Robbins wrote: Ciaran, What I do know is that you should not be allowed to insult random developers like Jakub when it suits you. If things get slightly more unpleasant or unproductive for a brief period of time while I find an appropriate mechanism to remove you from this list (due to AWOL project leadership,) I consider that time well spent. You clearly should not be here. No, you sir, should not be here. I've been a 'developer' since before you left us for Microsoft. I've read the -dev and -core since that time, only chiming in from time to time but this frankly is crazy. Daniel, you left and are now back. Ciaranm never left, but was forced out by idiots but still contributes. Please sit down for a week and read what has transpired since you left. Ciaranm may not be an angel, and probably ranks up there as one of the grumpiest people I know, but I've worked with him in the past and he has not crossed me. He is defending himself on this list against you, because you seem fit to declare some bi-polar view of Gentoo. Sorry bucko, Gentoo is no longer yours so stop treating it as yours. I call for a ban of Danial Robbins from Gentoo for the express purpose of ending flame fest before it tears Gentoo apart. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
I already removed myself from Gentoo - no need. Will be unsubscribing from -dev at the end of the day. On 3/4/07, bret curtis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Daniel Robbins wrote: Ciaran, What I do know is that you should not be allowed to insult random developers like Jakub when it suits you. If things get slightly more unpleasant or unproductive for a brief period of time while I find an appropriate mechanism to remove you from this list (due to AWOL project leadership,) I consider that time well spent. You clearly should not be here. No, you sir, should not be here. I've been a 'developer' since before you left us for Microsoft. I've read the -dev and -core since that time, only chiming in from time to time but this frankly is crazy. Daniel, you left and are now back. Ciaranm never left, but was forced out by idiots but still contributes. Please sit down for a week and read what has transpired since you left. Ciaranm may not be an angel, and probably ranks up there as one of the grumpiest people I know, but I've worked with him in the past and he has not crossed me. He is defending himself on this list against you, because you seem fit to declare some bi-polar view of Gentoo. Sorry bucko, Gentoo is no longer yours so stop treating it as yours. I call for a ban of Danial Robbins from Gentoo for the express purpose of ending flame fest before it tears Gentoo apart. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
bret curtis napsal(a): No, you sir, should not be here. I've been a 'developer' since before you left us for Microsoft. I've read the -dev and -core since that time, only chiming in from time to time but this frankly is crazy. This sniplet was brought to you by the almighty Flaming Guide [1]: snip Another way to handle things is with experience. Come up to the plate with your 10 years work and bash them down with it! Code listing 1.5: Experience email: I've been doing this for 10 years, so even though your logic is sound, shutup! /snip [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~chriswhite/docs/flame.html Ciaranm never left, but was forced out by idiots Well done, nice insult of lots of people. Really helpful. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: I'd like it spelt out please. stop playing games So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects like Portage USE deps, a Portage GLEP 42 implementation, a Portage GLEP 23 implementation, a stable Portage API, tree-wide GPG signing and things that users really care about? Is PMS really more important than any of these? i'd rate all of these as less important than an EAPI=0 spec except for the GPG signing ... robbat i believe is looking into that the portage people have things marked for EAPI=1 which are sitting indefinitely (some features which for sure i want to use myself), but we cant really tag EAPI=0 final until we have a spec now can we ? Sure you can. It's easy to say ebuilds that need to rely upon features x, y and z must use EAPI=1, and for everything else continue as has been done in the past until someone says otherwise. perhaps that would work short term, but the council shouldnt generally be focusing on the short term reviewing deadlines doesnt mean it's due tomorrow, it means we have a good way of guaging overall progress and to make sure things are getting done -mike pgpbgnLlPgWPN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: There is absolutely nothing Paludis specific in PMS. Nor is there anything Pkgcore specific, and the only Portage specific content is where we feel it's necessary to explain *why* something is a particular way when that why is down to a Portage quirk. that's fine ... that means we're back to figuring out the deadlines for the project perhaps - instead of talking deadlines, a more cooperative approach could be taken. How about the people involved report on the progress of PMS (at the council meeting)? (what would happen if a deadline is not upheld anyhow?) I really think PMS is important to Gentoo and i don't like scaring people off by putting unwarrented pressure on them. -mike pgp6Lf2L8iJ7v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 03:09:33 -0500 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: I'd like it spelt out please. stop playing games No, I'm being entirely serious here. Everything I've heard about what PMS is supposed to achieve has been discussing distant future goals. There's never been any serious justification for immediacy. If there really is such a need, and it's not just brought about by certain people being dicks and having nothing better to do than moan about any project that has me or spb involved, then I'd like to hear it so that I can reprioritise things. So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects like Portage USE deps, a Portage GLEP 42 implementation, a Portage GLEP 23 implementation, a stable Portage API, tree-wide GPG signing and things that users really care about? Is PMS really more important than any of these? i'd rate all of these as less important than an EAPI=0 spec except for the GPG signing ... robbat i believe is looking into that Why? What value does PMS deliver to end users? How is whatever it delivers more valuable than features that users want and need? I really want a proper answer to this. If there's some value to be found in having PMS ready in the short term that I'm missing then I want to hear it so that I can spend more time working on PMS and less on other things. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: If there's some value to be found in having PMS ready in the short term that I'm missing then I want to hear it so that I can spend more time working on PMS and less on other things. where did anyone say short term ? in fact, the portion of my previous e-mail you cut covered this -mike pgpsk7pftamTC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 01:26:07 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you appear to act as the project lead for PMS. No, I'm just the one who isn't yet sufficiently jaded by the whole people who don't know what PMS is jumping in and trying to derail it thing to have given up discussing it in public yet. Who is the project lead then? spb. Also, you are at least a developer of PMS, if not the lead. If PMS is an official Gentoo project, then since when can official Gentoo projects have non-dev devs? How many non-developers contribute to the tree? How many non-developers have submitted patches for Portage or eselect? I'd be interested to see where this policy is documented. The licence requirements are in the social contract; what about copyright? As far as I'm aware, copyright requirements are only imposed upon the tree... The Foundation was created to hold the copyrights for all Gentoo source code and documentation, logos, etc. I assigned the copyright of all Gentoo source code and documentation to the Gentoo Foundation for this purpose. This purpose (among others) is documented at http://foundation.gentoo.org. But there's no requirement that copyright be assigned to the Foundation, as far as I can see... At least, not for people who didn't sign the draconian agreement that also meant that they had to hand over all their hardware to the Foundation upon request... In the event of a copyright violation, the Foundation is able to hire a lawyer and act on behalf of all the copyright assignors. Without the assignment this is very difficult to do. If you would like to be able to have Gentoo enforce the terms of its licenses, then this is important. The FSF does the same thing. You know all this already. If you disagree with this approach, I certainly understand. This is a myth perpetuated by the FSF for political reasons. There have been plenty of successful defences (usually out of court) of projects with huge numbers of copyright holders -- consider Linux, for example. I'm also curious as to why people should be expected to assign copyright to a group that is known for licence violations and removing attribution from documents. How does this protect anything? Copyright assignment (first to Gentoo Technologies, Inc., then to Gentoo Foundation, Inc.) has *ALWAYS* been Gentoo policy. Where is this documented? As far as I'm aware, there are two copyright requirements: * The ebuilds in the tree requirement, which is documented in various places * The all developers must sign a legal assignment form requirement, which was scrapped long ago. 1) Any material created by Gentoo developers, as part of an official Gentoo Project, needs to have copyright assigned to the Gentoo Foundation, whether or not it is currently included in the Portage tree. This protects all of our collective contributions against misuse, which is why it is policy. Where is this requirement documented? 2) Any material not assigned to the Gentoo Foundation cannot be considered an official Gentoo Project. It would not fall under the umbrella/scope of the development project that is Gentoo, which is in part a legal structure to protect our collective work, (code, logos, etc.) and would be considered a third-party project. Where is this requirement documented? How do you account for the official Gentoo projects that do not follow this requirement? I'd be really surprised - flabbergasted, really - if this has changed. But at this point I almost wouldn't be surprised. :) Again, so far as I'm aware, the only non-tree copyright assignment that was a requirement was for developers who signed the long-abolished hideous legal document. If there are requirements to the contrary that I've missed then I'd like to see them -- as the main copyright holder for at least one official Gentoo project, this is something that is extremely relevant to me. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 03:34:49 -0500 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: If there's some value to be found in having PMS ready in the short term that I'm missing then I want to hear it so that I can spend more time working on PMS and less on other things. where did anyone say short term ? in fact, the portion of my previous e-mail you cut covered this A deadline implies short term to me. In my understanding, short term is something where there's a deadline or similar requirement, and long term is sometime in the future, but no hurry. The dictionary [1] tends to agree: short-term adj 1. of, for or extending over a limited period. But, if you'd rather I didn't use that term: If there's some value to be found in having PMS ready by a particular date that I'm missing then I want to hear it so that I can spend more time working on PMS and less on other things. [1] Collins English Dictionary -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: If there's some value to be found in having PMS ready by a particular date that I'm missing then I want to hear it so that I can spend more time working on PMS and less on other things. semantics aside, how much time you dedicate is entirely up to you and really, i dont think there's too many developers who honestly care how that affects you i consider having a spelled out EAPI=0 spec to be quite valuable and worth spending time on and i have to say that i get the feeling that i'm not alone on this point having a behavior explanation cuts back on the well it works in portage so go screw yourself mentality and replaces it with package manger foo does not behave according to spec which certainly opens up the door for people to use alternative package managers with the Gentoo ebuild tree (hmm we're gonna have to stop referring to it as the Gentoo portage tree eh) -mike pgpMMoGLK5Hvz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 04:02:50 -0500 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: If there's some value to be found in having PMS ready by a particular date that I'm missing then I want to hear it so that I can spend more time working on PMS and less on other things. semantics aside, how much time you dedicate is entirely up to you and really, i dont think there's too many developers who honestly care how that affects you Well yes, but I'm perfectly prepared to reprioritise things if there's a good reason for it. If there's a real need for PMS to be done by a particular date, PMS can be done by said date. i consider having a spelled out EAPI=0 spec to be quite valuable and worth spending time on and i have to say that i get the feeling that i'm not alone on this point Yes, but I'd like to hear *why*. Not only for the prioritisation aspect, but also to make sure that what's being written matches the needs of the people that will be using it. having a behavior explanation cuts back on the well it works in portage so go screw yourself mentality and replaces it with package manger foo does not behave according to spec which certainly opens up the door for people to use alternative package managers with the Gentoo ebuild tree So is alternative package manager support something that's considered important and a priority by the Council? (hmm we're gonna have to stop referring to it as the Gentoo portage tree eh) Funnily enough, the Paludis class that deals with ebuild trees is called PortageRepository. I don't particularly like the name... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, you are at least a developer of PMS, if not the lead. If PMS is an official Gentoo project, then since when can official Gentoo projects have non-dev devs? How many non-developers contribute to the tree? How many non-developers have submitted patches for Portage or eselect? It's one thing to make a contribution or submit a patch - it's quite another to be actively and very significantly involved in a key technical project that is supposedly defining an interoperability spec for the key distinguishing feature of Gentoo, namely Portage. Right now, you're effectively doing an end-run around the entire Gentoo management structure. Fortunately for you, it doesn't look like anyone cares. Really, I find this weird and ambiguous and you should probably be reinstated as a dev or be bumped off of PMS, which should be managed by Gentoo developers only. Again, so far as I'm aware, the only non-tree copyright assignment that was a requirement was for developers who signed the long-abolished hideous legal document. If there are requirements to the contrary that I've missed then I'd like to see them -- as the main copyright holder for at least one official Gentoo project, this is something that is extremely relevant to me. I'm also very interested to find out about this. I would be disappointed to find that the Foundation has chosen to not fulfill or neglect one of the key purposes for which it was created. -Daniel -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 02:12:48 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's one thing to make a contribution or submit a patch - it's quite another to be actively and very significantly involved in a key technical project that is supposedly defining an interoperability spec for the key distinguishing feature of Gentoo, namely Portage. I'd argue that the ebuilds, and not Portage, are the key distinguishing feature of Gentoo. Portage is just a way of using the ebuilds... Right now, you're effectively doing an end-run around the entire Gentoo management structure. Fortunately for you, it doesn't look like anyone cares. Not really. We're working on a document, as requested by the Gentoo management structure, and when it's at a good enough state that we're ready to have it discussed, it will be opened up for comments by Gentoo developers, and once they're satisfied it will be submitted to the Gentoo management structure for approval or otherwise. This is fairly standard practice... What is not standard is all the 'input' from third parties who don't know what PMS is, who is working on it, what its goals are or what it says. I get the impression that a lot of this comes about merely because a few people who don't have anything better to do see certain names associated with it and decide to go on the attack -- knowledge of the topic at hand is considered largely irrelevant... Really, I find this weird and ambiguous and you should probably be reinstated as a dev or be bumped off of PMS, which should be managed by Gentoo developers only. Why does it matter whether it's written by Gentoo developers? What matters is that it's written by people who know what they're talking about and who can write reasonably decent technical material, and as the primary author of the devmanual, a whole load of ebuilds, several eclasses and of the only fully independent reimplementation of ebuild (Pkgcore is in parts based upon Portage code -- whether or not this is a good thing is irrelevant to this discussion), I'd say I qualify in that area... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: (Pkgcore is in parts based upon Portage code -- whether or not this is a good thing is irrelevant to this discussion) Nice way of adding in that little cover my ass so's I can snipe at a competing project parenthetical statement. That statement is in itself irrelevant to the discussion; we're not talking about pkgcore, nor about its *code base* -- and you know very well that only trivial bits are still Portage code. Meanwhile, back to the issue at hand...I suppose a deadline of any sort should spell out what expectations folks have for the initial drafts; that is, what they intend to do once they get it in their hot little hands that justifies any time crunch. Then again, deadline itself seems to be a word with negative connotations -- are folks wanting to get into the drafts before some future release of Portage, or what? Or are they just antsy because no one besides those working on it have any idea of percent completed? I suppose a status report would be more in order than a deadline. Having said report would better facilitate deciding a deadline its date anyway. To this point, the most report that anyone seems to have is more of the ol' smoke and mirrors: the right people have access to it, and we can give you read-only access if you're OUR sort of people. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 02:12:48 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote Right now, you're effectively doing an end-run around the entire Gentoo management structure. Fortunately for you, it doesn't look like anyone cares. Not really. We're working on a document, as requested by the Gentoo management structure, and when it's at a good enough state that we're ready to have it discussed, it will be opened up for comments by Gentoo developers, and once they're satisfied it will be submitted to the Gentoo management structure for approval or otherwise. This is fairly standard practice... What is not standard is all the 'input' from third parties who don't know what PMS is, who is working on it, what its goals are or what it says. I get the impression that a lot of this comes about merely because a few people who don't have anything better to do see certain names associated with it and decide to go on the attack -- knowledge of the topic at hand is considered largely irrelevant... So you are saying you cannot see Daniel's point of view at all? That Gentoo should perhaps have input on a specification whose goal is to essentially define what a Gentoo Package Manager should be? Because right now the input is very limited. Gentoo developers are working on it, the council can see it, but other interested parties cannot. He sees that as a problem. I tend to disagree with his point of view in this case; but I can at least see where he is coming from and the point he is trying to make. Some people want transparency in the process. Really, I find this weird and ambiguous and you should probably be reinstated as a dev or be bumped off of PMS, which should be managed by Gentoo developers only. Why does it matter whether it's written by Gentoo developers? What matters is that it's written by people who know what they're talking about and who can write reasonably decent technical material, and as the primary author of the devmanual, a whole load of ebuilds, several eclasses and of the only fully independent reimplementation of ebuild (Pkgcore is in parts based upon Portage code -- whether or not this is a good thing is irrelevant to this discussion), I'd say I qualify in that area... Because it is difficult to determine 'people who know what they are talking about'. I would say Brian Harring is one of those, but I have a feeling you would disagree with me. All I really know is that I am not one of those people. I think this is once again part of Daniel's point. Interested parties should be able to collaborate (even if it's in a private repo to keep prying eyes away). But you are basically turning away a portion of interested parties. I can see why he thinks this is a bad approach. As I said; I personally don't care. I trust the council will take a good approach when PMS is ready for peer review. But at the same time I can't just blatantly discard Daniel's ideas as hogwash because I can understand his position. -Alec -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 01:54:30 -0800 Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: (Pkgcore is in parts based upon Portage code -- whether or not this is a good thing is irrelevant to this discussion) Nice way of adding in that little cover my ass so's I can snipe at a competing project parenthetical statement. Er, wasn't a snipe at all. That statement is in itself irrelevant to the discussion; we're not talking about pkgcore, nor about its *code base* -- and you know very well that only trivial bits are still Portage code. We're discussing credentials. Being the only person to have rewritten an ebuild implementation from scratch is one of mine, and it's entirely relevant. To this point, the most report that anyone seems to have is more of the ol' smoke and mirrors: the right people have access to it, and we can give you read-only access if you're OUR sort of people. I find it amusing that no-one complaining about this has actually asked to see it. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 23:28:56 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, but it appears that PMS is not hosted on Gentoo infrastructure, and its development is not controlled by Gentoo. Therefore it is not a Gentoo project, and therefore the Council, QA, etc. should not be treating it if it is a Gentoo project. It's controlled by me, and last I knew I was a Gentoo developer. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 23:51:42 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gentoo projects are controlled by and generally run entirely by Gentoo developers. You are not a Gentoo developer, yet you define the direction of PMS and Paludis. Therefore, PMS and Paludis can't be considered official Gentoo projects. (I'm picking this mail to respond to in lieu of the entire thread...) Paludis is not and never has been a Gentoo project. PMS is a Gentoo project with external contributors, and hence can't be hosted on Gentoo svn. I define the direction PMS takes, and I control its subversion repository; Ciaran just happens to be doing a lot of the actual work writing it. There is nothing Paludis specific in it; it defines that set of behaviour upon which ebuilds may rely, which is for obvious reasons a subset of what Portage currently supports. If Paludis supports something that Portage doesn't, then it can't be used in the tree and doesn't belong in PMS, at least until Portage grows the support and it can be put into a later EAPI revision. The only connection between PMS and Paludis is a correlation between the people writing each. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 01:58:30 -0800 (PST) Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you are saying you cannot see Daniel's point of view at all? That Gentoo should perhaps have input on a specification whose goal is to essentially define what a Gentoo Package Manager should be? Because right now the input is very limited. Gentoo developers are working on it, the council can see it, but other interested parties cannot. He sees that as a problem. I tend to disagree with his point of view in this case; but I can at least see where he is coming from and the point he is trying to make. Some people want transparency in the process. Plenty of Gentoo people have input. When it's ready, any Gentoo or non-Gentoo person who hasn't gotten themselves procmailed will have input. Because it is difficult to determine 'people who know what they are talking about'. I would say Brian Harring is one of those, but I have a feeling you would disagree with me. All I really know is that I am not one of those people. I think this is once again part of Daniel's point. Interested parties should be able to collaborate (even if it's in a private repo to keep prying eyes away). But you are basically turning away a portion of interested parties. Interested parties are more than welcome to ask for access. Not a single person who is complaining about lack of transparency has done so. I can see why he thinks this is a bad approach. As I said; I personally don't care. I trust the council will take a good approach when PMS is ready for peer review. But at the same time I can't just blatantly discard Daniel's ideas as hogwash because I can understand his position. The when it's ready part is essential. As far as I can see, Daniel considers anything written at all to be ready for peer review. Those of us writing it consider most things written, but some parts a bit rough to be ready for restricted peer review, and we're happy with it but don't claim it's perfect to be ready for a free for all. Publishing anything before then will just lead to people spending ages pointing out things we already know, which adds nothing -- we want people to be telling us things we don't know. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why does it matter whether it's written by Gentoo developers? What matters is that it's written by people who know what they're talking about and who can write reasonably decent technical material, and as the primary author of the devmanual, a whole load of ebuilds, several eclasses and of the only fully independent reimplementation of ebuild (Pkgcore is in parts based upon Portage code -- whether or not this is a good thing is irrelevant to this discussion), I'd say I qualify in that area... Well, you were kicked from this project, and those who kicked you shouldn't be allowed to have their cake and eat it too. If you were kicked because you were deemed to be bad for Gentoo development, then presumably those reasons still apply and you shouldn't be allowed to participate in Gentoo development currently as you have been. If those reasons no longer apply, then your developer status should be handed back. You can't sorta participate - you're either in or you're not, and it looks like you're in. Right now it seems like you are fully engaged as a developer in an official Gentoo project. So I think some people should decide whether removing you from Gentoo development was the correct decision and should be enforced or was a mistake and should be corrected. Presumably, you were kicked for non-technical reasons. I'd just like the council/devrel to take a position one way or the other. I'm not trying to get you kicked as much as I'm trying to determine whether there are still clearly-defined rules for Gentoo development that are enforced in any meaningful or consistent way. -Daniel -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Daniel Robbins wrote: 1) Any material created by Gentoo developers, as part of an official Gentoo Project, needs to have copyright assigned to the Gentoo Foundation, whether or not it is currently included in the Portage tree. This protects all of our collective contributions against misuse, which is why it is policy. Except that in many European countries you can't even re-assign your copyright. Oops. -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On 03/03/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because it is difficult to determine 'people who know what they are talking about'. I would say Brian Harring is one of those, but I have a feeling you would disagree with me. All I really know is that I am not one of those people. I think this is once again part of Daniel's point. Interested parties should be able to collaborate (even if it's in a private repo to keep prying eyes away). But you are basically turning away a portion of interested parties. Interested parties are more than welcome to ask for access. Not a single person who is complaining about lack of transparency has done so. On 22/02/07, Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doing it formally, I hereby request access to PMS specifically with the intention of going over it to spot where it differs from long standing portage behaviour. -- -Charlie -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: I find it amusing that no-one complaining about this has actually asked to see it. I think ferringb did, just not very successfully. -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: I'd like it spelt out please. Here we go: So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects like Portage USE deps, [snip] USE deps can't be used anyway in EAPI=0 because it would break current versions of portage. So we need EAPI=1, but you can't say putting together version 2 of a spec before version 1 was writte is sane. So we need the EAPI=0 spec. Makes it pretty easy to figure out why this spec is fairly important. -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Daniel Robbins wrote: On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why does it matter whether it's written by Gentoo developers? What matters is that it's written by people who know what they're talking about and who can write reasonably decent technical material, and as the primary author of the devmanual, a whole load of ebuilds, several eclasses and of the only fully independent reimplementation of ebuild (Pkgcore is in parts based upon Portage code -- whether or not this is a good thing is irrelevant to this discussion), I'd say I qualify in that area... Well, you were kicked from this project, and those who kicked you shouldn't be allowed to have their cake and eat it too. If you were kicked because you were deemed to be bad for Gentoo development, then presumably those reasons still apply and you shouldn't be allowed to participate in Gentoo development currently as you have been. If those reasons no longer apply, then your developer status should be handed back. You can't sorta participate - you're either in or you're not, and it looks like you're in. Right now it seems like you are fully engaged as a developer in an official Gentoo project. So I think some people should decide whether removing you from Gentoo development was the correct decision and should be enforced or was a mistake and should be corrected. Presumably, you were kicked for non-technical reasons. I'd just like the council/devrel to take a position one way or the other. I'm not trying to get you kicked as much as I'm trying to determine whether there are still clearly-defined rules for Gentoo development that are enforced in any meaningful or consistent way. -Daniel Take your personal arguing outside this mailing list. We don't turn back people doing good work but we expect them to know how to behave, but I am not going to take a stance how this applies here at this point and it's more of devrel's thing any way. I wonder if this thread would have been like this if deadline was called timetable in the original mail. I asked for access to PMS and got it so I don't see any problem it being in any way too secret. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 01:58:30 -0800 (PST) Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you are saying you cannot see Daniel's point of view at all? That Gentoo should perhaps have input on a specification whose goal is to essentially define what a Gentoo Package Manager should be? Gentoo, and any other parties, will have ample opportunity for input long before it gets finalised. Right now, though, soliciting comments from all and sundry will be more distracting than productive. We know it's currently incomplete and full of holes; we don't need to be told it. Really, I find this weird and ambiguous and you should probably be reinstated as a dev or be bumped off of PMS, which should be managed by Gentoo developers only. If you want to make such a distinction, then it's managed by me, and I am a Gentoo developer. Because it is difficult to determine 'people who know what they are talking about'. I would say Brian Harring is one of those, but I have a feeling you would disagree with me. The second requirement is an ability to work effectively with the other people writing it. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:35:51 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: I find it amusing that no-one complaining about this has actually asked to see it. I think ferringb did, just not very successfully. Not so far as I've heard... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:51:27 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: I'd like it spelt out please. Here we go: So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects like Portage USE deps, [snip] USE deps can't be used anyway in EAPI=0 because it would break current versions of portage. So we need EAPI=1, but you can't say putting together version 2 of a spec before version 1 was writte is sane. So we need the EAPI=0 spec. Makes it pretty easy to figure out why this spec is fairly important. I disagree. It's very easy and probably the best way of doing things to say If ebuilds want to use slot deps, use deps or blah, they set EAPI=1. Otherwise, continue as normal.. So far as I'm aware, everything currently planned for EAPI 1 is an extension, not a change in behaviour. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:44:24PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:35:51 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: I find it amusing that no-one complaining about this has actually asked to see it. I think ferringb did, just not very successfully. Not so far as I've heard... Well, stop hitting the pipe. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/46163 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/46178 Quoting, ciaran harring | Doing it formally, I hereby request access to PMS specifically with | the intention of going over it to spot where it differs from long | standing portage behaviour. And as you know all too well, given your behaviour on every previous discussion we've had related to this, you're not getting it. Two angles on the behaviour BS; either related to the fact I'm dead set on the spec reflecting portage behaviour, and being finished, or it's related to the fact the paludis devs generally speaking would be the first group of folks lining up to kick me in the balls. Which... frankly, hey, whatever. Put up with the taunts/name calling (not like I have much of a choice mind you), only thing I'm after is ensuring the spec gets done right. If the council has y'all doing it, then I have to deal with you guys (whether I like it or not :) ~harring pgpUaZmKcTLwG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:46:56PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:51:27 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: I'd like it spelt out please. Here we go: So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects like Portage USE deps, [snip] USE deps can't be used anyway in EAPI=0 because it would break current versions of portage. So we need EAPI=1, but you can't say putting together version 2 of a spec before version 1 was writte is sane. So we need the EAPI=0 spec. Makes it pretty easy to figure out why this spec is fairly important. I disagree. It's very easy and probably the best way of doing things to say If ebuilds want to use slot deps, use deps or blah, they set EAPI=1. Otherwise, continue as normal.. So far as I'm aware, everything currently planned for EAPI 1 is an extension, not a change in behaviour. Fair bit more was on the table as potentials for EAPI1; breaking src_compile into src_configure/src_compile, glep33 (eclass2 seperation), misc reductions of env vars and tightening of various metadata (RESTRICT for example, formally forbiding the no* form). Thats off the top of the head, and just the stuff I've had on hold for EAPI=1. Would expect user/group management (glep27 off the top of the head) would be on the radar also, although thats firmly in pioto's court. Either way, when the angle of do EAPI=1 while waiting for EAPI=0 to be fully defined was brought up, a vocal subgroup of people initially shot it down. ~harring pgpzYPBqBrUFC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 05:57:35 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:44:24PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:35:51 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: I find it amusing that no-one complaining about this has actually asked to see it. I think ferringb did, just not very successfully. Not so far as I've heard... Well, stop hitting the pipe. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/46163 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/46178 And you've already been told why I'd rather you didn't have it. In any case, you've been told to ask spb if you want it, and I suspect he has better things to do with his time than read these threads properly. Two angles on the behaviour BS; either related to the fact I'm dead set on the spec reflecting portage behaviour, and being finished, or it's related to the fact the paludis devs generally speaking would be the first group of folks lining up to kick me in the balls. No, it's that you're dead set on derailing it and being as unhelpful as possible. You have absolutely nothing to contribute, as evidenced by every previous time you've gotten involved with anything I've done, and given how badly you tried to screw up GLEP 42 and how much of my time you wasted doing so, I really don't want to deal with your noise ever again. You also have a lot to gain by wrecking the process, and your past behaviour has shown that you'll stoop to any kind of dirty trickery and abuse of the system that you think you can get away with rather than having a proper technical discussion. Frame it any way you want, but so far as I'm concerned there is nothing of value you can possibly provide that would make up for the headache of having to handle your own unique form of input. But hey, it's up to spb, not me. Try emailing him if you want access. I couldn't give you svn access even if I wanted to. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 03:27:37 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If those reasons no longer apply, then your developer status should be handed back. You can't sorta participate - you're either in or you're not, and it looks like you're in. Right now it seems like you are fully engaged as a developer in an official Gentoo project. Which would be worth what, for me? As far as I can see, there's absolutely nothing for me to gain by being labelled an official Gentoo developer, and an awful lot to lose. I'd have to start playing by arbitrary senseless rules that encourage lying and politics rather than honesty and correctness. I'd have an obligation to go and fix all the stuff I used to maintain in the tree that's been neglected because of all the people in certain herds being inactive or resigned. I'd have to start fixing all those QA bugs I filed that are being ignored by package maintainers rather than just leaving them in bugzilla. I'd have to deal with an obsolete version control system that takes three hours to update. I'd have to go back to using a broken package manager that doesn't do many of the things I require. You speak of it as though being a Gentoo developer is a privilege rather than a responsibility. As far as I can see, the only people who consider it an honour or something to be proud of are those who really shouldn't be developers at all. This should be about getting things done, not about silly labels. Presumably, you were kicked for non-technical reasons. I was kicked for suggesting that a) ppc-macos was breaking the tree, staffed by people who don't know what they're doing, a QA nightmare and damaging to the project, b) that pathspec was vapourware and conceptually completely broken, c) that the forums were encouraging ricing by letting users discuss insane kernel patchsets and absurd CFLAGS in the main fora, and d) that Portage development has by and large stagnated and that Portage can't deliver the things people require. Funny thing... If you go back and look at those issues now... I'm not trying to get you kicked as much as I'm trying to determine whether there are still clearly-defined rules for Gentoo development that are enforced in any meaningful or consistent way. Were there ever? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 06:00:32 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I disagree. It's very easy and probably the best way of doing things to say If ebuilds want to use slot deps, use deps or blah, they set EAPI=1. Otherwise, continue as normal.. So far as I'm aware, everything currently planned for EAPI 1 is an extension, not a change in behaviour. Fair bit more was on the table as potentials for EAPI1; breaking src_compile into src_configure/src_compile, glep33 (eclass2 seperation), misc reductions of env vars and tightening of various metadata (RESTRICT for example, formally forbiding the no* form). Which isn't a problem, so long as these are all things that can be introduced pretty much straight away. If any of them aren't ready to go, they'd be better held off to EAPI-2. After all, people seem to want to be allowed to use :slot deps right now... None of these are anything that would end up sounding bad if worded as as per existing practice, except -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 .Ciaran McCreesh wrote: No, I'm just the one who isn't yet sufficiently jaded by the whole people who don't know what PMS is jumping in and trying to derail it thing to have given up discussing it in public yet. Mike Frysinger wrote: i consider having a spelled out EAPI=0 spec to be quite valuable and worth spending time on and i have to say that i get the feeling that i'm not alone on this point I don't think anybody is trying to derail it and even if some people are, they will fail because there are too many others that care a lot about having some standard. People are just annoyed that they have to ask for access when it has been made to look like only very few/special requests will be granted. And because it seems like some portage/pkgcore people are denied access. I think it would go a long way to preempt this discussion if the people working on PMS would state that all those people that are more or less involved with writing/maintaining a package manager for gentoo would get access on request. I think it would probably also lead to a better spec which is finished faster. Marijn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFF6YnBp/VmCx0OL2wRAjICAJ9d6gcjW8r6tZaEU16ZqjEqK1DQTgCeP7GQ oBbVQ5fGoNIgVYhgXF9/3P8= =2eGF -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:44:17 +0100 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: i consider having a spelled out EAPI=0 spec to be quite valuable and worth spending time on and i have to say that i get the feeling that i'm not alone on this point I don't think anybody is trying to derail it and even if some people are, they will fail because there are too many others that care a lot about having some standard. How many of them care enough to spend hours having to justify things to people who don't even know what PMS is or what it contains? People are just annoyed that they have to ask for access when it has been made to look like only very few/special requests will be granted. And how many of those people just want access because they're curious? PMS is not ready for those types of people yet. It is only ready for people who are going to make substantial contributions (of the order of several pages, at least...). Anyone else who is asking for it is just doing so because they want to meddle. And because it seems like some portage/pkgcore people are denied access. I think it would go a long way to preempt this discussion if the people working on PMS would state that all those people that are more or less involved with writing/maintaining a package manager for gentoo would get access on request. I think it would probably also lead to a better spec which is finished faster. I suggest you have a look at what pkgcore people 'contributed' to GLEP 42 if you really believe that... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
General suggestion ciaran, calm the hell down and just wait for the council. Not helping your case for why you think I shouldn't see the stupid thing at all with rants like this (not saying I want you to succeed in blocking me from the doc mind you). On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 02:14:11PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: And you've already been told why I'd rather you didn't have it. In any case, you've been told to ask spb if you want it, and I suspect he has better things to do with his time than read these threads properly. Already asked spb; he defered to you at the time. This is getting retarded also. ;) Upshot, he's now generating the ToC for me. Not exactly content, but at least can *finally* gauge what work has been done. Two angles on the behaviour BS; either related to the fact I'm dead set on the spec reflecting portage behaviour, and being finished, or it's related to the fact the paludis devs generally speaking would be the first group of folks lining up to kick me in the balls. No, it's that you're dead set on derailing it and being as unhelpful as possible. Bit of BS. will admit I think y'all are running it like it's a secret club (complete with deciding who is 'leet' enough, taunting those who aren't), but derailing it? I want the thing finished, and I want it accurate. No amount of accusations will change that. Further, the sooner it's finished, the sooner I can go back to *not* interacting with y'all, which frankly is high on the priority list :) Tend to think you're letting bad blood over a suspension blind you here also. You have absolutely nothing to contribute, Friendly reminder; 'twas one of the portage monkeys for several years, specifically maintaining ebuild env. Beyond that, laid the ground work for the env work you're just now starting to get into (glep33 already has the bits)- trees fairly clean due to the fact EBD (3+ years prior to your own investigation of env issues) already forced cleanup of most of the tree (this is what pauldv was talking about in the past thread also). Will admit my portage UI knowledge is getting rusty, but still have to match the portage internals, and still track the changes they (and paludis) make. Done a fair bit more, including sound wench^developer (thanks a lot for that crap job seemant), but public ml isn't really the place for doing wang measurements. as evidenced by every previous time you've gotten involved with anything I've done, and given how badly you tried to screw up GLEP 42 and how much of my time you wasted doing so, I really don't want to deal with your noise ever again. Save the adhominem kindly; may not like the fact that at the time you had to put forth proposals I had a say on it, but thats the way it was. Further, the glep42 changes *were* intended to make it saner for portage to support, not just your manager. You also have a lot to gain by wrecking the process, I gain zero by wrecking the process. Time for another history lesson... Friendly reminder, the only reason EAPI=0 is even being possible is because *I* added EAPI, against a fair bit of arguing at the time also. Intention was for the format to evolve (add in bits stated in the other email that couldn't be done without breaking things). None of the real features folks have asked for can be added without EAPI=0 defined, thus *I* have an interest in it getting finished. Yes, you may dislike the form EAPI took. Point is, kindly don't claim I have anything to gain by blocking the process *I* started. Prior to me pushing that through, folks were willy nilly making changes (look at the .5x history if in doubt). I *do* want the damn thing finished- would be nice to actually get out the mythical EAPI=1 sometime before I turn 30. Really is that simple, long standing stuff I've worked on can't progress without EAPI=N being possible. and your past behaviour has shown that you'll stoop to any kind of dirty trickery and abuse of the system that you think you can get away with rather than having a proper technical discussion. spare the ad hominem. As I said in the parent post, I may not like you, but I'll work with you (usually from afar via proxies if given the choice). If in doubt, take a look at the misc portage features I've added for you in the past (glep31, repoman metadata.xml caching off the top of the head). Additionally, spent a good chunk of time answering your questions prior to your suspension about portage behaviour. Don't like your behaviour, and can get pissed off, but that doesn't justify the attack. Besides, public ml is the wrong place for it. Frame it any way you want, but so far as I'm concerned there is nothing of value you can possibly provide that would make up for the headache of having to handle your own unique form of input. Woot. I'm special. :) But hey, it's up to spb, not me. Try emailing him if you want access. I couldn't give you svn
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Saturday 03 March 2007 23:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 05:57:35 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] Two angles on the behaviour BS; either related to the fact I'm dead set on the spec reflecting portage behaviour, and being finished, or it's related to the fact the paludis devs generally speaking would be the first group of folks lining up to kick me in the balls. To Ciaran: even though my following statements could be considered retorts, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the above. No, it's that you're dead set on derailing it and being as unhelpful as possible. My experience with Brian has always been that he's genuinely intent on being helpful. The issue, I would think, is that you find is manner (as illustrated by the above quote) to be irritating. That leads to his intention of helping to being unrealized. For the record, I've found his manner irritating at times in the past as well, although arguments have always been limited to IRC. You have absolutely nothing to contribute, As Alec mentioned, Brian definitely has a lot to offer in terms of knowledge. as evidenced by every previous time you've gotten involved with anything I've done, and given how badly you tried to screw up GLEP 42 and how much of my time you wasted doing so, I'm not sure about other instances. There seems to be a lot that I didn't see - perhaps on IRC? But if I recall the mailing list discussions correctly, if anybody can be accused of trying to derail it that person would be me. However, I wasn't trying to derail it. As with Brian and yourself above, I found your manner to be irritating which led to my intent on being helpful being unrealized. It might be helpful to the current discussion of PMS so I'll go a little into what I think went wrong there. You had an idea of how multiple repositories would function as did myself and Brian (the two most active portage devs at the time). These ideas were developed independently and neither were implemented or even rfc'd. There were two separate specifications - glep42 and multiple repositories - that should have been discussed seperately. On a seperate thread, Marius said something to the effect of specs are much easier to extend than to alter. Having read that, I think we were both wrong - specification of a repository should probably have been left out completely until repositories had been hashed out. To sidetrack just a little more, I think this illustrates one of the reasons why having PMS (aka EAPI-0 spec) completed is so important. Not only would it allow for Gentoo package manager(s) to be interchanged/replaced, it would provide a incontrovertible context for discussion of new features. I really don't want to deal with your noise ever again. I'll address this in my last retort. You also have a lot to gain by wrecking the process, Quite the contrary. Brian is in exactly the same position as you - other than having a representative of his project helping to prepare PMS (unless these threads have misled me). Any loss you suffer from not having a complete EAPI-0 specification is his loss too. and your past behaviour has shown that you'll stoop to any kind of dirty trickery and abuse of the system that you think you can get away with rather than having a proper technical discussion. Frame it any way you want, but so far as I'm concerned there is nothing of value you can possibly provide that would make up for the headache of having to handle your own unique form of input. But hey, it's up to spb, not me. Try emailing him if you want access. I couldn't give you svn access even if I wanted to. This is really irrelevant. It's not matter of if he gets access but only as to when. After the initial work is done and the team is ready to go public all his noise will come out. I can only think of two choices here: 1) whether you and he both continue to be visceral or instead try to build a good working relationship; and 2) whether you discuess any issues with the spec now or when it goes public. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 01:51:39 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There were two separate specifications - glep42 and multiple repositories - that should have been discussed seperately. On a seperate thread, Marius said something to the effect of specs are much easier to extend than to alter. Having read that, I think we were both wrong - specification of a repository should probably have been left out completely until repositories had been hashed out. Which is what I was pushing for all along. I was trying to leave multiple repositories entirely out of it -- despite Paludis making use of them -- because the GLEP had nothing to do with multiple repositories. To sidetrack just a little more, I think this illustrates one of the reasons why having PMS (aka EAPI-0 spec) completed is so important. Not only would it allow for Gentoo package manager(s) to be interchanged/replaced, it would provide a incontrovertible context for discussion of new features. There aren't going to be any new features in PMS. The only package manager changes that we want to come about as a result of it are bug fixes. Incidentally... Side note on PMS vs EAPI-0: the way PMS is written, it's deliberately very easy to integrate EAPI-1, EAPI-2 or whatever into the document. Consider PMS to be a document that is capable of holding all EAPIs, with EAPI-0 being the only one that's actually there for now. Once EAPI-1 is agreed upon, it can be added to PMS rather than having to be a whole new document. This is really irrelevant. It's not matter of if he gets access but only as to when. After the initial work is done and the team is ready to go public all his noise will come out. I can only think of two choices here: 1) whether you and he both continue to be visceral or instead try to build a good working relationship; and 2) whether you discuess any issues with the spec now or when it goes public. That's a fairly big difference. If it's later on, there won't be lots of holes that we know are there that he can use as some kind of twisted proof that PMS sucks. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sunday 04 March 2007 02:05, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 01:51:39 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There were two separate specifications - glep42 and multiple repositories - that should have been discussed seperately. On a seperate thread, Marius said something to the effect of specs are much easier to extend than to alter. Having read that, I think we were both wrong - specification of a repository should probably have been left out completely until repositories had been hashed out. Which is what I was pushing for all along. I was trying to leave multiple repositories entirely out of it -- despite Paludis making use of them -- because the GLEP had nothing to do with multiple repositories. I don't remember the specifics, but I remember that there was something that didn't seem to go along with our vision. But yes, I do remember you pushing for keeping multiple repositories out of it. In general I try to look at everything as my fault (ie. what could I have done different?) and in that case I probably should have moved to remove whatever it was that didn't sit right rather than pushing to have it adjusted to my vision. To sidetrack just a little more, I think this illustrates one of the reasons why having PMS (aka EAPI-0 spec) completed is so important. Not only would it allow for Gentoo package manager(s) to be interchanged/replaced, it would provide a incontrovertible context for discussion of new features. There aren't going to be any new features in PMS. The only package manager changes that we want to come about as a result of it are bug fixes. Yep and that's a good thing. Incidentally... Side note on PMS vs EAPI-0: the way PMS is written, it's deliberately very easy to integrate EAPI-1, EAPI-2 or whatever into the document. Consider PMS to be a document that is capable of holding all EAPIs, with EAPI-0 being the only one that's actually there for now. Once EAPI-1 is agreed upon, it can be added to PMS rather than having to be a whole new document. That also sounds like a good thing as it gives new ebuild authors a single authoritative source on what to expect from a package manager. Although EAPI-0 will still be defined, even if it is only as revision XYZ of PMS. Also, as a leading dev to a (for a? on a? i've spent too long in Japan :/) not an official Gentoo project package manager, I hope you realize the danger of not having explicit versions of the document. Take, for example, the lack of acceptance of some changes to the dev guide that have been somewhat controversial... This is really irrelevant. It's not matter of if he gets access but only as to when. After the initial work is done and the team is ready to go public all his noise will come out. I can only think of two choices here: 1) whether you and he both continue to be visceral or instead try to build a good working relationship; and 2) whether you discuess any issues with the spec now or when it goes public. That's a fairly big difference. If it's later on, there won't be lots of holes that we know are there that he can use as some kind of twisted proof that PMS sucks. That's a yep again to it being a fairly big difference although I won't back your justifications. It's something you as a team and ultimately Stephen needs to decide. Either way, I'm just reminding all that you're not preventing Brian from having a say. Anyway.. Unless your reply has either something that I don't agree with or that is really exciting, I'll let you have the last say. (Why is it that those that are technically minded always want to have the last say? ;) -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 03:13:45 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't remember the specifics, but I remember that there was something that didn't seem to go along with our vision. We disagreed over whether repositories should be named by the user or the repository itself. Incidentally... Side note on PMS vs EAPI-0: the way PMS is written, it's deliberately very easy to integrate EAPI-1, EAPI-2 or whatever into the document. Consider PMS to be a document that is capable of holding all EAPIs, with EAPI-0 being the only one that's actually there for now. Once EAPI-1 is agreed upon, it can be added to PMS rather than having to be a whole new document. That also sounds like a good thing as it gives new ebuild authors a single authoritative source on what to expect from a package manager. Although EAPI-0 will still be defined, even if it is only as revision XYZ of PMS. It's more explicit than that. Sections that apply only to a particular EAPI or group of EAPIs are marked as such. So we can do things like: (common stuff about dep specs) (fancy sidebar EAPI-1, EAPI-2) stuff about slot deps (fancy sidebar EAPI-0 only) stuff that only EAPI-0 is allowed to use Also, as a leading dev to a (for a? on a? i've spent too long in Japan :/) not an official Gentoo project package manager, I hope you realize the danger of not having explicit versions of the document. Take, for example, the lack of acceptance of some changes to the dev guide that have been somewhat controversial... Yeah. That one's solved by a nice little bit of magic that automatically sticks in a Generated note on the title page. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: If it's later on, there won't be lots of holes that we know are there that he can use as some kind of twisted proof that PMS sucks. zOMG Cabal conspiracy!!1oneone! So, who'se conspiring against you now? Devrel? The Council? Oh...*Brian* this time. Or just anyone whom you've never liked or has disagreed with you about anything? Oh wait, I bet you think we're supposed to take your cries of conspiring and derailing *seriously*. Bottom line is you're not going to prevent him from having a say in the matter, anymore than someone could prevent you from having a say in PMS. Stop being so dramatic. OMG he only wants to attack me and my pet project! And here's reason foo that --uh, several others just poked holes in-- but oh well! That's all in *your* head. The rest of us note with mild bemusement that you've yet to provide any kind of backup for your wild he said she said tirades, though if you do want to show some evidence, kindly do so off-list. Keep your spewing on-topic: technical issues, not on your personal issues. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:40:39 -0800 Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: If it's later on, there won't be lots of holes that we know are there that he can use as some kind of twisted proof that PMS sucks. zOMG Cabal conspiracy!!1oneone! No, just a few noisy people with too much time on your hands. Bottom line is you're not going to prevent him from having a say in the matter, anymore than someone could prevent you from having a say in PMS. He can have his say at the appropriate time, which is not now. Stop being so dramatic. OMG he only wants to attack me and my pet project! And here's reason foo that --uh, several others just poked holes in-- but oh well! That's all in *your* head. The rest of us note with mild bemusement that you've yet to provide any kind of backup for your wild he said she said tirades, though if you do want to show some evidence, kindly do so off-list. Keep your spewing on-topic: technical issues, not on your personal issues. GLEP 42. Look it up. Now, if you don't have anything useful to contribute, kindly stop making this thread even more of a waste of time than it already is. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which would be worth what, for me? As far as I can see, there's absolutely nothing for me to gain by being labelled an official Gentoo developer, and an awful lot to lose. I think you're missing the point - I am not trying to convince you to become a Gentoo developer. You speak of it as though being a Gentoo developer is a privilege rather than a responsibility. Regardless of your personal opinion regarding the worth of being a Gentoo developer, which little bearing on what we are discussing, being a Gentoo developer *is* quite obviously a privilege in the true, non-derogatory definition of the word. It is an authorization that provides certain abilities and opportunities. These opportunities are not available to non-developers. So, again, since you are participating as a key member in an official Gentoo project, which is a developer-only privilege, you should either have your dev access reinstated or be removed from the project. This choice isn't yours to make. Except that if you are not interested in being a developer and dealing with all the crap that other developers need to deal with then you cannot not become a developer (we can't force you) and should be removed from PMS. You really are making my point - you have a really sweet gig in that you get to act as a Gentoo developer without many of the downsides. The fact that this opporunity is being made available to you and not everyone else (even me, the guy who created the project and most core technologies) is unfair. Certainly you won't claim that *all* Gentoo developers are unworthy of the title, would you? Yet even those who are worthy of being called Gentoo developers don't enjoy the privileges that you are currently enjoying. I was kicked for suggesting [snip] I don't care why you were kicked; the issue at hand is that you *were* kicked, and you currently *are* kicked, and as long as you *are* kicked, you aren't allowed to participate in certain things. If you were kicked for no good reason, then this should be fixed. This isn't a forum for discussing those details. I'm not trying to get you kicked as much as I'm trying to determine whether there are still clearly-defined rules for Gentoo development that are enforced in any meaningful or consistent way. Were there ever? I'm assuming that was a sincere question rather than a sarcastic remark. Yes, there were clearly-defined rules of conduct that were consistently enforced. This was before you joined the project. By the time you joined, I was becoming distracted by tons of meaningless crap that kept me out of day-to-day Gentoo development and project leadership, and things changed. Gentoo is only going to be fun and productive again if we: 1) maintain a courteous and professional atmosphere 2) focus on good, transparent project management and collaboration 3) deliver cool technologies to Gentoo users AND IN THAT ORDER ONLY, which is the only order that works long-term. It makes no sense to try to do this in reverse order. It does not work. 3 requires 2 and 2 requires 1. Right now these three pillars are being treated as mutually exclusive goals which is absolutely ridiculous and wrong, where we accept failure in point 1 in the hope of achieving 3. -Daniel -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:40:39 -0800 Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keep your spewing on-topic: technical issues, not on your personal issues. Please do. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:17:56 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, again, since you are participating as a key member in an official Gentoo project, which is a developer-only privilege While this was no doubt true a while ago, a lot of people have been trying hard over the last year or more to make sure that it's not the case any more. Just because someone doesn't have a gentoo.org email address doesn't mean they don't have useful contributions, and shouldn't prevent them from helping where they can. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:17:56 -0700 Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, again, since you are participating as a key member in an official Gentoo project, which is a developer-only privilege Why is it a developer-only privilege? You just made that up. and should be removed from PMS. That's not your decision to make. That's up to the person in charge of PMS, and somehow I suspect you're going to have to come up with a much better non-circular argument in order to convince him... I also like how you're constantly coming up with new excuses for trying to stop me from working on a project of whose purpose you were not even aware when you started doing it. Perhaps next you could start complaining that I was partly responsible for the acronym and state that all Gentoo projects must have a non-amusing name -- no-one's tried that line yet! You really are making my point - you have a really sweet gig in that you get to act as a Gentoo developer Acting as a Gentoo developer? You mean going around saying ooh! ooh! I'm a Gentoo developer? Yet even those who are worthy of being called Gentoo developers don't enjoy the privileges that you are currently enjoying. That's their own fault... You'll also note that I'm far from the only person who's chosen to take this route... I was kicked for suggesting [snip] I don't care why you were kicked; the issue at hand is that you *were* kicked, and you currently *are* kicked, and as long as you *are* kicked, you aren't allowed to participate in certain things. Those things would be -core and, uh, nothing else... There's never been any requirement that people contributing to Gentoo be Gentoo developers. Gentoo is only going to be fun and productive again if we: 1) maintain a courteous and professional atmosphere 2) focus on good, transparent project management and collaboration 3) deliver cool technologies to Gentoo users AND IN THAT ORDER ONLY, which is the only order that works long-term. It makes no sense to try to do this in reverse order. It does not work. 3 requires 2 and 2 requires 1. Right now these three pillars are being treated as mutually exclusive goals which is absolutely ridiculous and wrong, where we accept failure in point 1 in the hope of achieving 3. Which sounds very nice, but it's blatantly untrue. I point you to eselect, the devmanual and Paludis as perfect examples to the contrary, and gentoo-config and Zynot's xbuilds as an example of what happens when design and early development is opened up to too many people. As for professional -- in a professional environment, anyone jumping in and badmouthing a project when they don't even know what that project is would have been fired a long time ago. And courteous -- it's generally considered courteous to fact check and do some basic research before wasting other people's time. You're also assuming that Gentoo is about fun -- nothing wrong with that, but having fun does not give you or anyone else the right to break the tree or screw up users' systems. Fun as a primary goal is extremely unprofessional and inappropriate for projects where the impact of breakages is so high. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is it a developer-only privilege? You just made that up. To co-lead a Gentoo project? You need to be a dev to do that. I couldn't join any projects even as a member until I became a dev, and I created the distro. You are effectively co-leading (likely leading) PMS as a non-dev - worse than that, as someone who has been explicitly removed from a dev role. Yet even those who are worthy of being called Gentoo developers don't enjoy the privileges that you are currently enjoying. That's their own fault... You'll also note that I'm far from the only person who's chosen to take this route... No, they are doing the right thing, and you are doing the wrong thing. Those things would be -core and, uh, nothing else... There's never been any requirement that people contributing to Gentoo be Gentoo developers. Again, you're not just submitting a patch but architecting the strategic direction for package manager interoperability which has strategic implications for Gentoo, and is more than just a user-submitted contribution. You're also assuming that Gentoo is about fun -- nothing wrong with that, but having fun does not give you or anyone else the right to break the tree or screw up users' systems. Fun as a primary goal is extremely unprofessional and inappropriate for projects where the impact of breakages is so high. I never said fun was the primary goal, just the first of many goals - and is basic necessity for the long-term health of a volunteer-driven free software project. If it's not pleasant, then no one has the will to stick around and do the harder work that you speak of. Regards, Daniel -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting (plus glep27)
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 06:00:32 -0800
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thats off the top of the head, and just the stuff I've had on hold
for EAPI=1. Would expect user/group management (glep27 off the top
of the head) would be on the radar also, although thats firmly in
pioto's court.
Hmm, since I was mentioned here, I guess I'll respond.
My glep 27 implementation is essentially complete, though without
making some changes to PAM and shadow, it won't really function for
ROOT!=/ with a GNU userland. Because of this, I don't really deem it
ready for general use yet.
I want my final code to be complete and done in the correct way, so
rather than just having it hack away at ${ROOT}/etc/passwd and what
not, I want to take the time to patch PAM and shadow. This isn't
something I really have the time right now to dive into (I'm working 6
days a week), but I hope to have the time to dive into it in a few
more months when I leave my current job and go back to school.
Back on topic, though. I don't see how having this spec drafted in part
by non-developers is such an issue. The council doesn't have to accept
this document as official, and they can always request changes be made.
So, how does it matter if one of the people who has a strong interest
in writing this isn't currently a Gentoo developer? I'd say we should
be glad, since it means that developers can spend more time on their
other projects and not have to worry about doing the grunt work of
writing this spec. And, just because people are working on writing this
spec doesn't mean other folks can't go and write their own.
--
Mike Kelly
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:44:16 -0800 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PMS: Deadlines and interested parties. Can the Council provide a list of other projects that have had deadlines imposed upon them by Gentoo? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:44:16 -0800 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PMS: Deadlines and interested parties. Can the Council provide a list of other projects that have had deadlines imposed upon them by Gentoo? You can do your own research; I have no idea if someone maintains such a list, nor is it relevant to the topic. --Taco -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:43:10 + Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:30:46 -0800 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:44:16 -0800 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PMS: Deadlines and interested parties. Can the Council provide a list of other projects that have had deadlines imposed upon them by Gentoo? You can do your own research; I have no idea if someone maintains such a list, nor is it relevant to the topic. Well, as far as I can remember, there aren't any. Which makes me wonder why PMS is considered so much more important than anything else... Having a deadline does not make it more important. It just has a deadline. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:30:46 -0800 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:44:16 -0800 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PMS: Deadlines and interested parties. Can the Council provide a list of other projects that have had deadlines imposed upon them by Gentoo? You can do your own research; I have no idea if someone maintains such a list, nor is it relevant to the topic. Well, as far as I can remember, there aren't any. Which makes me wonder why PMS is considered so much more important than anything else... And it's still not relevant. Council logs will be available for your reading pleasure. --Mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Mike Doty wrote: PMS: Deadlines and interested parties. Council Project: Gentoo branded and certified hardware. Council Project: Hardware vendor certification. --Taco Replacing flameeyes: is he even gone? --taco -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:55:34 -0800 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:30:46 -0800 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:44:16 -0800 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PMS: Deadlines and interested parties. Can the Council provide a list of other projects that have had deadlines imposed upon them by Gentoo? You can do your own research; I have no idea if someone maintains such a list, nor is it relevant to the topic. Well, as far as I can remember, there aren't any. Which makes me wonder why PMS is considered so much more important than anything else... And it's still not relevant. Council logs will be available for your reading pleasure. *shrug* and if that's your attitude, somehow I suspect it doesn't really matter what the Council says about PMS at all. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:55:34 -0800 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:30:46 -0800 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:44:16 -0800 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PMS: Deadlines and interested parties. Can the Council provide a list of other projects that have had deadlines imposed upon them by Gentoo? You can do your own research; I have no idea if someone maintains such a list, nor is it relevant to the topic. Well, as far as I can remember, there aren't any. Which makes me wonder why PMS is considered so much more important than anything else... And it's still not relevant. Council logs will be available for your reading pleasure. *shrug* and if that's your attitude, somehow I suspect it doesn't really matter what the Council says about PMS at all. Get a clue. I've told you twice now that it doesn't apply to you. Your paludis people have made it clear that it'll be done when it's done and I'm certainly not changing that. --Taco -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:57:43 + Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having a deadline does not make it more important. It just has a deadline. Well, it's the only thing that would have one. So what would qualify PMS for that unique status, when things like USE deps, a GLEP 42 implementation, the www redesign, GLEP 37 and GLEP 23 don't get it? The only explanation I can think of is that the Council considers replacing Portage as soon as possible to be vitally important. If there's a different explanation, I'd like to hear it. If that really is the explanation, I'd like to hear what the Council considers Portage's failings to be. It's also worth noting that having a deadline doesn't affect when it will be ready. Having good reasons for prioritising it, however, does. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 09:14:32 -0800 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *shrug* and if that's your attitude, somehow I suspect it doesn't really matter what the Council says about PMS at all. Get a clue. I've told you twice now that it doesn't apply to you. Your paludis people have made it clear that it'll be done when it's done and I'm certainly not changing that. So, er, to whom does this deadline apply then, if not the people writing PMS? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
