Re: [arch-general] Arch GNU/Linux install for beginners and new users

[Kyle Terrien via arch-general]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:22:24 -0400
Simon Gomizelj via arch-general  wrote:
> But we do have to make it clear that we won't **officially** support
> anything installed outside of the officially sanctions instructions. I
> don't see that as unreasonable.

I have to agree.  As someone who works software QA professionally, I
feel the pain.

On the QA team, we can only test a certain number of configurations
because of time.  Anything else?  Well, you are basically blazing your
own trail.  The same rule applies to support.

Yes, it is possible to debug issues on "unsupported" configurations,
but the process is almost always a time sink (i.e. low reward to cost
ratio).  This is why there is a little hostility toward the third party
tools.  They increase the amount of support work drastically.

vodik, keep up the good work!

--Kyle

-- 
The computer can't tell you the emotional story.  It can give you the
exact mathematical design, but what's missing is the eyebrows.
- Frank Zappa


pgpVlbVTz79lv.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-general] What happened to the Beginner's Guide?

[Kyle Terrien via arch-general]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 13:00:53 +1200
Jason Ryan via arch-general  wrote:
> Then we are in agreement; the goal is to provide people with what they
> need and to encourage them to explore in more depth, or for edge
> cases, the official documentation.

Then I think I misinterpreted the snark as seriousness in your post
yesterday.  I apologize.

--Kyle


pgpgOMTmqjkcY.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-general] What happened to the Beginner's Guide?

[Kyle Terrien via arch-general]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:16:27 +1200
Jason Ryan via arch-general  wrote:
> Arch has from the start been clear about its goals and intentions.
> I'll quote from a section of the wiki that people seem much less
> familiar with:
> 
> ”Whereas many GNU/Linux distributions attempt to be more
> user-friendly, Arch Linux has always been, and shall always remain
> user-centric. The distribution is intended to fill the needs of those
> contributing to it, rather than trying to appeal to as many users as
> possible. It is targeted at the proficient GNU/Linux user, or anyone
> with a do-it-yourself attitude who is willing to read the
> documentation, and solve their own problems.”
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Linux#User_centrality
> 
> /J
> 

Yes, several people have quoted "Arch philosophy" for me.  I am
familiar with it.  I read it 3 years ago when I first installed Arch.  I
am also familiar with the fact that there are slightly different
interpretations of it.

For me, the issue is about framing the goal.  If the goal is to
"alienate new users that are unwilling to read man pages", then people
will surely find a way to alienate them.  However, if your goal is to
give people a minimal amount of information and direct them to the man
pages where they can read more, then the wiki will be more inviting.

The difference is all in the framing.  I personally prefer to see the
latter because it is more optimistic and invites those interested to
help with the distro.

--Kyle

-- 
The computer can't tell you the emotional story.  It can give you the
exact mathematical design, but what's missing is the eyebrows.
- Frank Zappa


pgpXatkR7htCq.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-general] What happened to the Beginner's Guide?

[Kyle Terrien via arch-general]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 04:55:19 +
Sajjad Heydari via arch-general  wrote:
> It has been merged with the installation guide.
> 
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 9:23 AM David C. Rankin <
> drankina...@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:  
> 
> > Archdevs,
> >
> >   I went to review the Beginner's Guide and it was no longer listed
> > on the main
> > page. I then specifically searched for it, found it in the topics,
> > and then was
> > redirected to the bare-bones "Install" page. What happened to the
> > Beginner's Guide?
> >
> > --
> > David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
> >  

On a related note, there is a stale "Beginner's Guide" link that
redirects to the new installation guide.  This link is now redundant
because there is an "Installation Guide" link right above it.

--Kyle

-- 
The computer can't tell you the emotional story.  It can give you the
exact mathematical design, but what's missing is the eyebrows.
- Frank Zappa


pgpNQuyyqeTrH.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-general] What happened to the Beginner's Guide?

[Kyle Terrien via arch-general]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 12:58:23 +1200
Jason Ryan via arch-general  wrote:
> On 21/09/16 at 08:36pm, Dave via arch-general wrote:
> >see below
> >
> >On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Francis Gerund via arch-general <
> >arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
> >  
> >> I believe this change will only serve to alienate potential new
> >> users,  
> >
> >I strongly agree.  
> 
> This will only alienate new users that are unwilling to read man
> pages and the community provided documentation, ie., people for whom
> Arch is the wrong choice anyway…
> 
> /J
> 

So, is making people hunt for information a ritualistic hazing?

As much as I love the Arch Wiki (and I really do because it is a great
source of information), I don't understand why basic things like this
change very often.  Removing the Beginner's Guide from the home page?
This is just another Big Change made with the best of intentions.

Moving stuff around like this is like that supermarket that keeps
reorganizing its shelves.  Everything is there, but it is in a
different place, and you need to waste time looking for what you want.

Anecdote: when I installed Arch a few years ago, I followed both the
Beginner's Guide and the Installation Guide simultaneously.  The duality
was a little confusing, and I agree that if these guides can be merged
in an elegant way, they should.

But I disagree with the "hazing" attitude.  The whole point of a wiki
is to make information accessible.  Yes, while installing Arch for the
first time you will definitely hunt for a lot of information.  It is a
lot of hard work.  However, purposefully making that information harder
to find is wrong; wikis are supposed make that job easier.

I also think that expecting a new Arch user to know *exactly* what
software configuration he wants is unreasonable.  I personally know
many experienced Linux users (whom I consider far more experienced than
myself) who can't tell you which desktop environment they prefer.
However, they can blow your mind with their C and shell knowledge.

If/when these advanced users decide to learn more about distro innards
and try Arch, we should welcome them, not haze them.

--Kyle Terrien

-- 
The computer can't tell you the emotional story.  It can give you the
exact mathematical design, but what's missing is the eyebrows.
- Frank Zappa


pgpvNZ_ljeiKh.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-general] efivars mounted read-write, but "operation not permitted, "

[Kyle Terrien via arch-general]

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 13:03:41 -0700
Zachary Kline  wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> This is admittedly more about Linux in general than Arch
> specifically, but I’m wondering if anybody has insight into why I
> can’t delete EFI variables, when efivarfs is mounted read-write. For
> anybody interested, I am wanting to remove the default boot entry
> created by systemd-boot, but receive an “Operation not permitted,”
> message when trying to do so, even as root.
> 
> Any insight would be appreciated.
> Thanks much,
> Zack.

I remember there were some kernel patches that went in a few months ago.

Brief summary of what happened:

* Someone ran 'rm -rf /' on his system to wipe it.  It was hard bricked,
  not even able to POST.  [0]  (You need an Arch BBS account to view
  that thread.)
* All Hell broke loose.  Tech blogs had a field day.  [1] A bug was
  filed in systemd [2].  For some reason beyond me, systemd requires
  that efivars be mounted read-write.  (Probably bad design)
* A kernel patch was submitted to try to protect efivars somewhat [3].
  I think you are seeing the direct consequence of this patch.

--Kyle

[0]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=207549
[1]: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item=UEFI-rm-root-directory
[2]: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2402
[3]: https://gist.github.com/mjg59/8d9d494da56fbe6d8992

-- 
The computer can't tell you the emotional story.  It can give you the
exact mathematical design, but what's missing is the eyebrows.
- Frank Zappa


pgpag9pLw3Vxc.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] signoffs are dead

[Kyle Terrien via arch-general]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 21:51:17 +0200
Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public  wrote:
> As pointed out on arch-general (not by me) this makes the whole
> signoff process useless. Maybe we should look into finding some
> people that want to help test stuff and give them permissions to sign
> off on packages?
> 
> Florian

Yes, this sounds like a very good idea.

Until now, I have had no reason to run a container/VM with the testing
repos enabled.  However, if signoffs are opened up to a wider community,
I think I might just try it out.

It is great to catch problems before they are pushed to production.

- --Kyle
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=r3gL
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] signoffs are dead

[Kyle Terrien via arch-general]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

I am replying to arch-general because arch-dev-public is closed to most
users.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 08:09:41 -1000
Gaetan Bisson  wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> For a while now packages in [testing] have gotten little to no
> signoffs and I've been moving mine to [core] after a week without
> feedback. I suspect many of you have been doing this too. Here's the
> signoff reports over the last ten days:
> 
> - June 19: 0 signoffs
> - June 20: 6 from me, 4 from anthraxx
> - June 21: 0
> - June 22: 5 from me
> - June 23: 2 from demize
> - June 24: 1 from me
> - June 25: 0
> - June 26: 1 from me
> - June 27: 3 from me, 1 from eworm
> - June 28: 3 from heftig, 2 from arojas
> 
> So I've decided to shorten the wait in [testing] to 48 hours. Many
> updates to [core] packages include security fixes and they have better
> move sooner rather than later. We used to be able to gather enough
> signoffs to move these within a day or two, and that's what I intend
> to do with or without signoffs.
> 
> Any comment, and especially any other idea to fix this situation, is
> welcome.
> 
> Cheers.

First, I am an Arch user (for 3 years now) not an Arch dev, and I
realize I have no right to tell anyone how to run the distribution.
What follows is just my personal recommendation based on working
software QA professionally.

With that said, I think eliminating signoffs is a bad idea.

Signoffs ensure some form of quality control.  A signoff is an explicit
approval from someone that the package is satisfactory to his/her
standards.  A potential signee has a completely different perspective
than the packager and a different way of verifying that the packager's
package is correct.  This sort of approval process catches errors that
would otherwise escape the packager's notice.  Simply waiting a period
of time without hearing complaints is not equivalent to explicit
approval from others.

I have personally experienced several breakages in the past several
months--more than usual.  A few were big enough that simply running 'foo
- --version' should have revealed a problem (i.e.  linking problems).  A
signoff process would have very likely caught these problems.

IMHO, the correct thing to do is remind other developers of the signoff
policy.  (And the above post to arch-dev-general certainly does just
that.)  Encouraging another set of eyes to look at someone's work and
say, "This looks good to me," is a very good thing and does wonders in
terms of quality control.

If getting security fixes pushed out is a concern, then getting the
security related fixes signed off should be prioritized.  (Maybe by
putting in a flag that automatically triggers a mail to arch-dev-public)

Respectfully yours,
- --Kyle Terrien
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=E42/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [arch-general] Where did the touch pad tapping go?

[Kyle Terrien via arch-general]

Javier Vasquez via arch-general wrote:
> I think Xorg now uses libinput as default as opposed to prior
> versions.  I have been using libinput any ways since it was made
> available, so the transition didn't affect me, and besides I'm OK with
> the tapping offered by libinput.  Actually I removed totally the
> xf86-input-synaptics package from my Arch boxes already.  You can take
> a look at the install message:
> 
> https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/xf86-input-synaptics.install?h=packages/xf86-input-synaptics

I saw that message while upgrading a couple of days ago.

xf86-input-synaptics driver is on maintenance mode and
xf86-input-libinput driver must be prefered over.

But I didn't understand what "must be prefered over" means (grammar
error).

You suggested that libinput is the default now.  That would make more
sense.  So is this a warning of some sort, or is it a notification to
try to encourage people to switch to libinput?

Does switching break any older desktop environments?  (e.g. MATE, Window
Maker)

--Kyle



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-general] gnome-keyring madness

[Kyle Terrien via arch-general]

Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
> On 06/14/2016 02:21 PM, Kyle Terrien via arch-general wrote:
>> Thanks, but I tried that weeks ago.  It is not the autostart feature of
>> the desktop environment that is starting gnome-keyring.  From what I can
>> figure out, it is lightdm that is starting gnome-keyring.
>>
>   Actually it's pam. Look in these files:
> 
> /etc/pam.d/lightdm
> /etc/pam.d/lightdm-autologin
> /etc/pam.d/xscreensaver
> /etc/pam.d/sddm-autologin
> 
>   Jerome

And *that* is the missing piece of information.  Thank you!

--Kyle



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-general] gnome-keyring madness

[Kyle Terrien via arch-general]

Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Take a look at
> https://specifications.freedesktop.org/autostart-spec/autostart-spec-latest.html
>  ,
> it should be your desktop environment that is auto starting.

Thanks, but I tried that weeks ago.  It is not the autostart feature of
the desktop environment that is starting gnome-keyring.  From what I can
figure out, it is lightdm that is starting gnome-keyring.

What's doubly annoying is that gnome-keyring stays alive after I log
out, meaning that the systemd login session is never terminated.  This
can cause some bizarre issues when logging in again.

In fact, my day-to-day "desktop environment" (Window Maker) doesn't even
support xdg autostart, so I know autostart is not the culprit.  (I am
starting programs in the xprofile.)

Given the bizarre integration bugs that gnome-keyring brings, I would
rather just remove it entirely for now:

1. Seahorse can run without gnome-keyring running in the background.
Why is there a hard dependency?
2. virt-manager runs fine when gpg-agent handles SSH keys.  Why do I
need to have its dependency x11-ssh-askpass installed?

--Kyle



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[arch-general] gnome-keyring madness

[Kyle Terrien via arch-general]

Seahorse 3.20.0-2 has a new hard dependency on gnome-keyring. Should
gnome-keyring instead be an optional dependency? Seahorse can cope
without gnome-keyring (although with warnings about not being able to
talk to gnome-keyring).

And for some reason, lightdm likes to launch gnome-keyring
automatically, and this breaks my setup because I use gpg-agent with
pinentry-gtk-2 to handle SSH keys. However gnome-keyring naively assumes
that it may (incorrectly) handle SSH keys. Is there any way to tell
lightdm not to launch gnome-keyring?

(And yes, the obvious answer is to uninstall gnome-keyring. However,
virt-manager has a hard dependency on seahorse.)

Update: it turns out that virt-manager has a dependency on
x11-ssh-askpass, which seahorse provides. My workaround for now is to
install x11-ssh-askpass and uninstall seahorse and gnome-keyring (even
though I will never use x11-ssh-askpass).

There is something wrong with this dependency chain. Will someone
smarter than me please look into it?

* Should gpg-agent and/or pinentry provide x11-ssh-askpass?
* Should gnome-keyring be an optional dep for seahorse, considering that
  seahorse copes without it although in a limited form?
* Should virt-manager have a hard dependency on x11-ssh-askpass?

--Kyle




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature