Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On 25 July 2012 02:52, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > While I completely understand where Fabian is coming from on all this I > respectfully disagree. Long term gentoo users do NOT read the handbook, > ever. I still install new systems with odd hacks that I picked up when > gentoo was versioned 1.x and it pleases me, I don't care if those steps > are not in the docs anymore or discouraged or whatever. I've not even > glanced at the handbook for years, yet I've installed gentoo on dozens > of systems since the last time I did. > > This is a big enough change that it will throw users who do not know, > and my first impression of /etc/make.conf et all missing on a new stage > is "file a bug report for a broken stage and assign it to those morons > in releng". (please note the comic exaggeration and not a disrespect). > > This is a change that will break all new installs and expecting > experienced gentoo users to read the handbook is simply a fantasy. > Please, keep the news item. +1 This is an important enough change to inform users about. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
Re: [gentoo-dev] news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:42:31AM +0200, Ralph Sennhauser wrote > man 5 portage about files in /etc/portage > > make.conf > The global custom settings for Portage. See make.conf(5). If > present, this file will over??? ride settings from /etc/make.conf. > > > > 3. This news item is really useful, since the change has a potential > > to break automated builds. > > We aren't discussing dropping support for the old locations here but > about makeing the new location the default. This has the potential to cause problems for people who do things "the old way", and find that their settings in /etc/make.conf are not being applied. Instead of a news item, maybe we should be looking at warnings and/or errors in "emerge"... 1) If there is a /etc/make.conf, but no /etc/portage/make.conf, emerge should generate an ewarn message. Is emerge smart enough to generate only one ewarn even though it's emerging umpteen packages? 2) If there is a /etc/make.conf *AND* a /etc/portage/make.conf, emerge should halt immediately with an error message. If a user has made a /etc/make.conf, they will probably expect it to take effect, which is not what's going to happen. This will save the user forums from being hit with the same question over and over about settings in /etc/make.conf being ignored. 3) When support for /etc/make.conf is finally dropped, the presence of /etc/make.conf should make emerge halt immediately with an error message. -- Walter Dnes
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 04:32:00PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > On 24/07/12 02:52 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > >> On 07/24/2012 09:33 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > >>> On 24-07-2012 09:24:03 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > I guess this is a matter of opinion, but on Gentoo I don't > think we're really at much risk of driving people away by > OVER-communicating. Our users are used to things changing and > a certain level of fix-it-yourself, but if we know something is > going to cause no end of questions it only makes sense to throw > the users a bone once in a while. > >> > >>> The way in which news items aggressively request your attention, > >>> makes them something that should only be used if it's obvious > >>> it's important for the user (e.g. postfix thing for postfix > >>> users). This particular change seems more something for > >>> -announce, note in the handbook, and something like the > >>> suggestion of a file giving a nice hint. > >> > >>> My impression is that the message is absolutely useless to the > >>> majority of users on their *already installed* system, so don't > >>> make everyone have to see the news item notice a couple of times > >>> and run `eselect news read` just for this. > >> > >> > >> While I completely understand where Fabian is coming from on all > >> this I respectfully disagree. Long term gentoo users do NOT read > >> the handbook, ever. I still install new systems with odd hacks > >> that I picked up when gentoo was versioned 1.x and it pleases me, I > >> don't care if those steps are not in the docs anymore or > >> discouraged or whatever. I've not even glanced at the handbook for > >> years, yet I've installed gentoo on dozens of systems since the > >> last time I did. > > > > Right, but would a news item now (regarding Catalyst) for something > > you do next month be particularily helpful, compared to a > > 'make.conf.moved' reminder file in /etc ? Or maybe a make.conf > > synlink to profiles/make.conf ? Or something else within the stage > > itself that makes it obvious that it's changed? > > I've often seen cases like these handled by keeping a referenced file > where it's traditionally expected to be found, but leaving a comment > in that file explaining that the content of that file had been moved > to a new location, and the old location is deprecated. > > Would that work for a circumstance like this? Not really, no- it would mean the PM would have to parse/merge both locations, rather than just looking for the file in one of two spots. ~brian
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 24/07/12 02:52 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: >> On 07/24/2012 09:33 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: >>> On 24-07-2012 09:24:03 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: I guess this is a matter of opinion, but on Gentoo I don't think we're really at much risk of driving people away by OVER-communicating. Our users are used to things changing and a certain level of fix-it-yourself, but if we know something is going to cause no end of questions it only makes sense to throw the users a bone once in a while. >> >>> The way in which news items aggressively request your attention, >>> makes them something that should only be used if it's obvious >>> it's important for the user (e.g. postfix thing for postfix >>> users). This particular change seems more something for >>> -announce, note in the handbook, and something like the >>> suggestion of a file giving a nice hint. >> >>> My impression is that the message is absolutely useless to the >>> majority of users on their *already installed* system, so don't >>> make everyone have to see the news item notice a couple of times >>> and run `eselect news read` just for this. >> >> >> While I completely understand where Fabian is coming from on all >> this I respectfully disagree. Long term gentoo users do NOT read >> the handbook, ever. I still install new systems with odd hacks >> that I picked up when gentoo was versioned 1.x and it pleases me, I >> don't care if those steps are not in the docs anymore or >> discouraged or whatever. I've not even glanced at the handbook for >> years, yet I've installed gentoo on dozens of systems since the >> last time I did. > > Right, but would a news item now (regarding Catalyst) for something > you do next month be particularily helpful, compared to a > 'make.conf.moved' reminder file in /etc ? Or maybe a make.conf > synlink to profiles/make.conf ? Or something else within the stage > itself that makes it obvious that it's changed? I've often seen cases like these handled by keeping a referenced file where it's traditionally expected to be found, but leaving a comment in that file explaining that the content of that file had been moved to a new location, and the old location is deprecated. Would that work for a circumstance like this? -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 03:33:03PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > The difference is that news only communicates what is "news." Unless > the manual contains a revision history it contains everything you > already know, perhaps with a gem buried in there somewhere. > > This is the same reason why when something is wrong with Chromium you > are supposed to post a 5-line patch to the bug and not a 300MB tarball > with the patch applied, though at least in that case modern tools > actually make finding the change fairly easy. Hmm, are the manuals versioned with a public interface (git clone …/handbook.git)? That would make finding new gems in the manual much easier. -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 24/07/12 02:52 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > On 07/24/2012 09:33 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: >> On 24-07-2012 09:24:03 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> I guess this is a matter of opinion, but on Gentoo I don't >>> think we're really at much risk of driving people away by >>> OVER-communicating. Our users are used to things changing and >>> a certain level of fix-it-yourself, but if we know something is >>> going to cause no end of questions it only makes sense to throw >>> the users a bone once in a while. > >> The way in which news items aggressively request your attention, >> makes them something that should only be used if it's obvious >> it's important for the user (e.g. postfix thing for postfix >> users). This particular change seems more something for >> -announce, note in the handbook, and something like the >> suggestion of a file giving a nice hint. > >> My impression is that the message is absolutely useless to the >> majority of users on their *already installed* system, so don't >> make everyone have to see the news item notice a couple of times >> and run `eselect news read` just for this. > > > While I completely understand where Fabian is coming from on all > this I respectfully disagree. Long term gentoo users do NOT read > the handbook, ever. I still install new systems with odd hacks > that I picked up when gentoo was versioned 1.x and it pleases me, I > don't care if those steps are not in the docs anymore or > discouraged or whatever. I've not even glanced at the handbook for > years, yet I've installed gentoo on dozens of systems since the > last time I did. Right, but would a news item now (regarding Catalyst) for something you do next month be particularily helpful, compared to a 'make.conf.moved' reminder file in /etc ? Or maybe a make.conf synlink to profiles/make.conf ? Or something else within the stage itself that makes it obvious that it's changed? The main issue I see with this is that the news item isn't relevant to what people have emerged or will emerge (except for the small percentage that use catalyst, of course); and I expect that this will cause more confusion and grief to the user base than help (even if the news items says in big capital letters that nothing needs to change on their current install) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlAPBJoACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBsmQD/brYvJa9PIi12mdfoUBmGkgD/ NCNN9IEiaTLm22MNl1AA/1HJp0Y+rCYdwLK31v20DYBd8V02erYxMtkUHt5P6elN =D+wg -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Dale wrote: > Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: >>> On 24-07-2012 14:52:43 -0400, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: This is a change that will break all new installs and expecting experienced gentoo users to read the handbook is simply a fantasy. >>> I don't see how it breaks. And secondly, if you do refuse to read the >>> manual, why don't you refuse to read elogs, news messages, and what >>> more? >> The difference is that news only communicates what is "news." Unless >> the manual contains a revision history it contains everything you >> already know, perhaps with a gem buried in there somewhere. >> >> This is the same reason why when something is wrong with Chromium you >> are supposed to post a 5-line patch to the bug and not a 300MB tarball >> with the patch applied, though at least in that case modern tools >> actually make finding the change fairly easy. >> >>> Do we really have to babysit people, because they think they're too >>> smart to check on the manual once again? Or when they notice things >>> seem different? Any search engine is your friend. >> There is the principle of not surprising people. This is a big change >> - a file central to the config of Gentoo that has been in one place >> for more than a decade, and is now moving. The change makes sense and >> should be embraced, but there is no harm in pointing it out. >> >> Sure, when my system breaks I'm pretty smart and can usually figure >> out how to fix it. That doesn't mean that I don't appreciate a >> heads-up before it breaks. [snip] > +1 > > I might also add, I printed the manual years ago. I rarely look at the > online version. > > User opinion. Back to eating my apple pie. Another user opinion...it would be a significant improvement to the stage images and live discs to include the latest copy of the handbook, so that a network connection isn't required to access it. But that's probably a subject for a different thread. And I think that's at least three topics, now, this thread has touched on. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: >> On 24-07-2012 14:52:43 -0400, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: >>> This is a change that will break all new installs and expecting >>> experienced gentoo users to read the handbook is simply a fantasy. >> I don't see how it breaks. And secondly, if you do refuse to read the >> manual, why don't you refuse to read elogs, news messages, and what >> more? > The difference is that news only communicates what is "news." Unless > the manual contains a revision history it contains everything you > already know, perhaps with a gem buried in there somewhere. > > This is the same reason why when something is wrong with Chromium you > are supposed to post a 5-line patch to the bug and not a 300MB tarball > with the patch applied, though at least in that case modern tools > actually make finding the change fairly easy. > >> Do we really have to babysit people, because they think they're too >> smart to check on the manual once again? Or when they notice things >> seem different? Any search engine is your friend. > There is the principle of not surprising people. This is a big change > - a file central to the config of Gentoo that has been in one place > for more than a decade, and is now moving. The change makes sense and > should be embraced, but there is no harm in pointing it out. > > Sure, when my system breaks I'm pretty smart and can usually figure > out how to fix it. That doesn't mean that I don't appreciate a > heads-up before it breaks. > > Rich > > +1 I might also add, I printed the manual years ago. I rarely look at the online version. User opinion. Back to eating my apple pie. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: >> I don't know about general consensus. In my opinion, it's plain spam to >> existing users. (And that would IMO be the xth news item in a row to be >> spam.) > Can't say I agree here. Some news items have been more useful than > others, but I doubt the typical Gentoo user (who does not subscribe to > -dev) would think that many of the past messages have been spam. > > << SNIP >> > > Rich > > I agree with this. I see messages that may not apply to me but I always keep in mind that it may apply to a large number of other users. I would MUCH rather see a message sent out that doesn't apply to me than to not see one that should have been sent out but wasn't. Just a users opinion and expectations. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On 07/24/12 14:52, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > > This is a big enough change that it will throw users who do not know, > and my first impression of /etc/make.conf et all missing on a new stage > is "file a bug report for a broken stage and assign it to those morons > in releng". (please note the comic exaggeration and not a disrespect). And mine would be to assume that we stopped shipping make.conf, and just fill in the missing details in /etc/make.conf before building the system. Everything would look like it's working, but portage isn't using the make.conf that I think it is.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 24-07-2012 14:52:43 -0400, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: >> This is a change that will break all new installs and expecting >> experienced gentoo users to read the handbook is simply a fantasy. > > I don't see how it breaks. And secondly, if you do refuse to read the > manual, why don't you refuse to read elogs, news messages, and what > more? The difference is that news only communicates what is "news." Unless the manual contains a revision history it contains everything you already know, perhaps with a gem buried in there somewhere. This is the same reason why when something is wrong with Chromium you are supposed to post a 5-line patch to the bug and not a 300MB tarball with the patch applied, though at least in that case modern tools actually make finding the change fairly easy. > Do we really have to babysit people, because they think they're too > smart to check on the manual once again? Or when they notice things > seem different? Any search engine is your friend. There is the principle of not surprising people. This is a big change - a file central to the config of Gentoo that has been in one place for more than a decade, and is now moving. The change makes sense and should be embraced, but there is no harm in pointing it out. Sure, when my system breaks I'm pretty smart and can usually figure out how to fix it. That doesn't mean that I don't appreciate a heads-up before it breaks. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On 24-07-2012 14:52:43 -0400, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > This is a change that will break all new installs and expecting > experienced gentoo users to read the handbook is simply a fantasy. I don't see how it breaks. And secondly, if you do refuse to read the manual, why don't you refuse to read elogs, news messages, and what more? Do we really have to babysit people, because they think they're too smart to check on the manual once again? Or when they notice things seem different? Any search engine is your friend. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/24/2012 09:33 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 24-07-2012 09:24:03 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> I guess this is a matter of opinion, but on Gentoo I don't think we're >> really at much risk of driving people away by OVER-communicating. Our >> users are used to things changing and a certain level of >> fix-it-yourself, but if we know something is going to cause no end of >> questions it only makes sense to throw the users a bone once in a >> while. > > The way in which news items aggressively request your attention, makes > them something that should only be used if it's obvious it's important > for the user (e.g. postfix thing for postfix users). > This particular change seems more something for -announce, note in the > handbook, and something like the suggestion of a file giving a nice > hint. > > My impression is that the message is absolutely useless to the majority > of users on their *already installed* system, so don't make everyone > have to see the news item notice a couple of times and run `eselect news > read` just for this. > > While I completely understand where Fabian is coming from on all this I respectfully disagree. Long term gentoo users do NOT read the handbook, ever. I still install new systems with odd hacks that I picked up when gentoo was versioned 1.x and it pleases me, I don't care if those steps are not in the docs anymore or discouraged or whatever. I've not even glanced at the handbook for years, yet I've installed gentoo on dozens of systems since the last time I did. This is a big enough change that it will throw users who do not know, and my first impression of /etc/make.conf et all missing on a new stage is "file a bug report for a broken stage and assign it to those morons in releng". (please note the comic exaggeration and not a disrespect). This is a change that will break all new installs and expecting experienced gentoo users to read the handbook is simply a fantasy. Please, keep the news item. Thanks, Zero -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQDu77AAoJEKXdFCfdEflKKWoQAJ/OlrkIE+6uKkNxwXZimPNq aj0aNN4JEt5b/+ZCU1hYX2NyagPXshRcsyta+8Oizq5BSt32pZFq/jq5znpvRC0u uUl5BBKepC2EjS8D3rmSwMqdpYoCLBeBQsNPpTT2NPDd932D5Pdv29SDe9dToeXe 7V3lijI2U5mvpoBikJ9l3zZ/COQ2OD7/0ExFcDLFbxJYsvVe9cZKhaOI9fj9ZJxs 1VWhRJDkne1fD7cxtZAY9b3jIDrTFDJ5bDBYL6V8aoiYdkjingj6JrFNmR3BMP1t 3zze9mED0kVEosQO2VV1XzR5ZqFldL+WZltCugVJvEFqYG9lpulMvQz3ZwabdCmO sEk8oLLW/I5KRe4DylXl0xKWwdwMGpJ9uk01d3j0Egl2+xdjpdKX9ir7UjFYCuia 9xagRb5pDqBQujfycsuFPlTU+y6/MIP/v+hseyn5hUzpboWvdUdzkdfQQmQfTJpA 4ty96fRMYsUzRN1p/JDZa/nfETcJF/14JzLKCkj4cOl5nbmuKqH4kj60FVRPrReQ zVg/dYA+68tYLO495CVr5CMR95YlxxmpucEiGhhl8CBu3Xmrp/vcZWigWgEkwhNE WkdlU2x/elLaYOwH9BqMjhQeHzaMqvHKbSStycA0OZL5DQb5nJznX64FRsAdqWGR GC8MPmmWE3O+Dki1fD2Z =6nK0 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On 24-07-2012 13:15:43 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > I think a news item is reasonable here (in addition to the above). [snip good arguments] But that's a news item on (a version of) Portage, not on catalyst and stage3 building. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On 07/24/12 09:21, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > Given that this just affects new installs, is a news item (via > portage) a particularly good way to inform everyone? I was wondering > if it'd make more sense to notify on the website and *definitely* > change the Handbook... > > ..and maybe include an '/etc/make.conf.moved' in the stage files for > the next 6 months which says the above? I think a news item is reasonable here (in addition to the above). Most users don't know about the move from /etc/make.conf to /etc/portage/make.conf. After this change, there will be a gradually-increasing need to know that a switch took place. 1) To a first approximation, nobody reads the documentation. 2) /etc/portage/make.conf overrides the traditional location. If you have both, it will lead to subtle problems. After this change, new users won't even know that /etc/make.conf used to exist, so there's a possibility of two admins stepping on each others' feet. 3) When providing help on forums and mailing lists, existing users will need to know that the location was switched. 4) There are problems I haven't thought of. Better safe than sorry.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: >> On 24-07-2012 08:01:40 -0400, Michael Mol wrote: >>> 3) That news item about udev-181 and a unified /usr is still greeting >>> new users...and it's still claiming an unmask of 2012-03-19, which is >>> three months ago. It's quite confusing in that it claims an event is >>> going to occur, in the past, and it still hasn't occurred. >> >> ... and how about that --as-needed one? so annoying, it usually doesn't >> even apply to the systems I'm installing on. > > I'll agree that something needs to be done to clean up past news items > that are obsolete. Can we go back and make them expire or just delete > them? Yesterday's news isn't news. > > I guess this is a matter of opinion, but on Gentoo I don't think we're > really at much risk of driving people away by OVER-communicating. Our > users are used to things changing and a certain level of > fix-it-yourself, but if we know something is going to cause no end of > questions it only makes sense to throw the users a bone once in a > while. I just want to point out that while established users are likely accustomed to fixing things from time to time, having non-relevant or counter-informative[1] communication in news items makes first-time setups very difficult. Sometimes unavoidable, I'm sure, but I think it's something that should be avoided if possible. On the subject of things related to catalyst...I realized I don't even know what that is, and will likely have some reading to do. My remarks on the handbook's content about make.conf may or may not be relevant, depending on if catalyst is a special case. [1] That udev-181 stabilization news item was warning of something which _still_ hasn't come to pass, three months after the indicated date. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Rich Freeman wrote: > I'll agree that something needs to be done to clean up past news items > that are obsolete. Can we go back and make them expire or just delete > them? Yesterday's news isn't news. They can simply be removed from the repository. eselect news can handle this since version 1.2.4 (released in 2009). Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On 24-07-2012 09:33:39 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 24/07/12 07:39 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > From a different angle, perhaps stage3s shouldn't include a > > default /etc/make.conf at all. Would solve this issue nicely, and > > doesn't require a news item at all, IMO. > > > > Would that work? We still need the CHOST set, don't we? Yup, so it needs a bit more work. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On 24-07-2012 09:24:03 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > I guess this is a matter of opinion, but on Gentoo I don't think we're > really at much risk of driving people away by OVER-communicating. Our > users are used to things changing and a certain level of > fix-it-yourself, but if we know something is going to cause no end of > questions it only makes sense to throw the users a bone once in a > while. The way in which news items aggressively request your attention, makes them something that should only be used if it's obvious it's important for the user (e.g. postfix thing for postfix users). This particular change seems more something for -announce, note in the handbook, and something like the suggestion of a file giving a nice hint. My impression is that the message is absolutely useless to the majority of users on their *already installed* system, so don't make everyone have to see the news item notice a couple of times and run `eselect news read` just for this. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 24/07/12 07:39 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > From a different angle, perhaps stage3s shouldn't include a > default /etc/make.conf at all. Would solve this issue nicely, and > doesn't require a news item at all, IMO. > Would that work? We still need the CHOST set, don't we? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlAOpDMACgkQ2ugaI38ACPC2IgEAkajZSviiK6MnrwUPbchWA9y/ S2o9KgY/B/ehN/bV4a4A/1E+qJXTF01LFuLV5h5ch8VB843rXBmzOqTIUosK2PmH =KyGG -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 24-07-2012 08:01:40 -0400, Michael Mol wrote: >> 3) That news item about udev-181 and a unified /usr is still greeting >> new users...and it's still claiming an unmask of 2012-03-19, which is >> three months ago. It's quite confusing in that it claims an event is >> going to occur, in the past, and it still hasn't occurred. > > ... and how about that --as-needed one? so annoying, it usually doesn't > even apply to the systems I'm installing on. I'll agree that something needs to be done to clean up past news items that are obsolete. Can we go back and make them expire or just delete them? Yesterday's news isn't news. I guess this is a matter of opinion, but on Gentoo I don't think we're really at much risk of driving people away by OVER-communicating. Our users are used to things changing and a certain level of fix-it-yourself, but if we know something is going to cause no end of questions it only makes sense to throw the users a bone once in a while. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 23/07/12 09:58 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > On 24-07-2012 01:33, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto >> wrote: >>> >>> I propose to commit this news item in 2 or 3 days. Does anyone >>> have any comments about it? > >> What action if any do you want Gentoo users to take. If I read >> that news item the first question I'd have is where SHOULD I >> keep those files? Should I leave them alone? Should I move >> them? Will anything bad happen either way? > >> If the answer is that we're changing the defaults but plan to >> support the old way for a very long time, then spell that out. >> Otherwise you'll get a million people asking about it. > > This is just a heads-up for Gentoo users that got used to find > make.conf and make.profile under /etc in stages, that these files > will stop being there and will instead be under /etc/portage. So we > are changing the defaults. Given that this just affects new installs, is a news item (via portage) a particularly good way to inform everyone? I was wondering if it'd make more sense to notify on the website and *definitely* change the Handbook... ..and maybe include an '/etc/make.conf.moved' in the stage files for the next 6 months which says the above? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlAOoWkACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDT2gEAv2eTzurXYEjYFaUWE5bRhPrS VDhg0hnxiYeCQl9XYPEBALClflgTBOAzOJIKItcOLgItZqrFxm1lGetvSfBUoT7P =1WOb -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto posted on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:54:25 + as excerpted: > Starting with catalyst 2.0.10, make.conf and make.profile will be moved > from /etc to /etc/portage. As with other app-focused news items, if it were a catalyst-user-focused change, you'd set the filter accordingly. The fact that you're deliberately not doing so should correspondingly mean deliberately not mentioning catalyst either, as many in the target audience will have no clue what catalyst actually is. (For that matter, don't mention releng either. Just stages, users know what STAGES are! =:^) Users want to know what's changing (the location of make.conf, but ONLY in new stage tarballs), where it's changing to (/etc/portage/), when it's changing (don't say with whatever catalyst version, users don't care, say when, with stage snapshots built after July 30), and how it affects existing installations (existing users can continue using the old location for the foreseeable future, but can move it to the new location if necessary; if both locations exist, say which overrides). Meanwhile, a general suggestion I've made for other news items as well. It doesn't yet really apply here, but could once the elsewhere suggested details of which one overrides if both are present, possible coverage of make.profile, etc, are covered: News items are ideally short and to the point. Think of the teaser paragraph under a newspaper headline or on many rss/atom feeds, directing you to the main article for more. If they'd end up more than a paragragh including details, shorten it to a single descriptive paragraph and add a link to an article with the details. That way you can keep the news item short and to the point, while properly covering the details without having to worry about space constraints, elsewhere. (FWIW, between the thread title saying make.conf but the proposed news item focusing on catalyst, and the already fixed postfix flub, I was REALLY confused with the first version, and only with this version understand it even well enough to make this observation in the first place. And unlike many gentoo users, I actually know what catalyst is! Unlike me, they won't have the postfix mistake thrown at them, but also unlike me, likely won't have a clue what catalyst is, so I'd guess the confusion level with the current wording would remain similar... so totally confused they have no idea what the news item is actually trying to say!) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On 24-07-2012 20:13:46 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote: > Apologies for butting in as a user: > > As a user of Gentoo from about 2002 or so, with multiple gentoo systems, > this thread is the first I have heard of make.conf moving ... cant > imagine I am the only one! and are you about to break our systems > unannounced (again) ? - its not spam to give us a heads up, even if its > just reassurance. I think you misunderstood. Nothing is breaking at this time. Hence I don't think this is worth asking your attention for. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 07:20 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > I don't know about general consensus. In my opinion, it's plain spam to > > existing users. (And that would IMO be the xth news item in a row to be > > spam.) > > Can't say I agree here. Some news items have been more useful than > others, but I doubt the typical Gentoo user (who does not subscribe to > -dev) would think that many of the past messages have been spam. > > Right now news is our only mechanism to warn users that something is > about to happen BEFORE it happens. Anytime I talk to somebody who has > left Gentoo the #1 thing I tend to hear is that they were tired of > things just breaking without warning. Even following -dev I've been > surprised by the odd upgrade - I can imagine the typical user would be > even more confused. > > Long-time Gentoo users aren't going to notice in the handbook that the > location of /etc/make.conf has moved - I know that if I'm doing an > install I tend to use the handbook as a checklist but I skim through > it so fast that I doubt I'd notice a big change. They're going to > appreciate a heads-up. The only people who wouldn't consider it news > are those following this list, and judging by the state of this thread > you'll already have read 40 posts on the topic, so the 41st won't be > that big of a deal. > > Rich > Apologies for butting in as a user: As a user of Gentoo from about 2002 or so, with multiple gentoo systems, this thread is the first I have heard of make.conf moving ... cant imagine I am the only one! and are you about to break our systems unannounced (again) ? - its not spam to give us a heads up, even if its just reassurance. Sorry, but I would rather know. BillK
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On 24-07-2012 08:01:40 -0400, Michael Mol wrote: > As a user who's done a lot of reinstalling this year, I can offer a > couple observations: > > 1) The handbook contains a barebones make.conf, just as it comes with > a number of other barebones configuration files. You probably don't > need to supply a make.conf file, since the barebones version is only a > few lines. > 1a) I have to think that things like CHOST could be set somewhere > higher up, and only overridden in make.conf. Similarly, if there's a > round-robin DNS entry for GENTOO_MIRRORS, that could be defaulted, > too. In Prefix, we just set CHOST in the profiles. > 2) Once I got to the point where I was frequently reinstalling, I > started copying and tweaking make.conf files from working systems > rather than doing a full rebuild. > > 3) That news item about udev-181 and a unified /usr is still greeting > new users...and it's still claiming an unmask of 2012-03-19, which is > three months ago. It's quite confusing in that it claims an event is > going to occur, in the past, and it still hasn't occurred. ... and how about that --as-needed one? so annoying, it usually doesn't even apply to the systems I'm installing on. > > From a different angle, perhaps stage3s shouldn't include a default > > /etc/make.conf at all. Would solve this issue nicely, and doesn't > > require a news item at all, IMO. > > From the perspective of a user who often deals with the install > process, and occasionally helps others with it, I think this is could > be very good. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 24-07-2012 07:20:31 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: >> > I don't know about general consensus. In my opinion, it's plain spam to >> > existing users. (And that would IMO be the xth news item in a row to be >> > spam.) >> >> Can't say I agree here. Some news items have been more useful than >> others, but I doubt the typical Gentoo user (who does not subscribe to >> -dev) would think that many of the past messages have been spam. > > Ok. This is subjective. > >> Long-time Gentoo users aren't going to notice in the handbook that the >> location of /etc/make.conf has moved - I know that if I'm doing an >> install I tend to use the handbook as a checklist but I skim through >> it so fast that I doubt I'd notice a big change. They're going to >> appreciate a heads-up. The only people who wouldn't consider it news >> are those following this list, and judging by the state of this thread >> you'll already have read 40 posts on the topic, so the 41st won't be >> that big of a deal. > > Long-time Gentoo users either 1) don't reinstall systems that often (why > would they?), or 2) know that things every once in a while change. > > IMO, with 1) you'd expect that user to read the docs again when doing a > new install. With 2) they already figured out when they did a new > install that /etc/make.conf was not there, however putting something in > a file out there did work as expected as well. As a user who's done a lot of reinstalling this year, I can offer a couple observations: 1) The handbook contains a barebones make.conf, just as it comes with a number of other barebones configuration files. You probably don't need to supply a make.conf file, since the barebones version is only a few lines. 1a) I have to think that things like CHOST could be set somewhere higher up, and only overridden in make.conf. Similarly, if there's a round-robin DNS entry for GENTOO_MIRRORS, that could be defaulted, too. 2) Once I got to the point where I was frequently reinstalling, I started copying and tweaking make.conf files from working systems rather than doing a full rebuild. 3) That news item about udev-181 and a unified /usr is still greeting new users...and it's still claiming an unmask of 2012-03-19, which is three months ago. It's quite confusing in that it claims an event is going to occur, in the past, and it still hasn't occurred. > > From a different angle, perhaps stage3s shouldn't include a default > /etc/make.conf at all. Would solve this issue nicely, and doesn't > require a news item at all, IMO. >From the perspective of a user who often deals with the install process, and occasionally helps others with it, I think this is could be very good. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-dev] news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: >> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 40 Jul 20 00:26 /etc/make.globals -> >> ../usr/share/portage/config/make.globals > > This symlink is installed by Portage, so it's outside catalyst control. Bug filed: https://bugs.gentoo.org/427862 -- Maxim Kammerer Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On 24-07-2012 07:20:31 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > I don't know about general consensus. In my opinion, it's plain spam to > > existing users. (And that would IMO be the xth news item in a row to be > > spam.) > > Can't say I agree here. Some news items have been more useful than > others, but I doubt the typical Gentoo user (who does not subscribe to > -dev) would think that many of the past messages have been spam. Ok. This is subjective. > Long-time Gentoo users aren't going to notice in the handbook that the > location of /etc/make.conf has moved - I know that if I'm doing an > install I tend to use the handbook as a checklist but I skim through > it so fast that I doubt I'd notice a big change. They're going to > appreciate a heads-up. The only people who wouldn't consider it news > are those following this list, and judging by the state of this thread > you'll already have read 40 posts on the topic, so the 41st won't be > that big of a deal. Long-time Gentoo users either 1) don't reinstall systems that often (why would they?), or 2) know that things every once in a while change. IMO, with 1) you'd expect that user to read the docs again when doing a new install. With 2) they already figured out when they did a new install that /etc/make.conf was not there, however putting something in a file out there did work as expected as well. From a different angle, perhaps stage3s shouldn't include a default /etc/make.conf at all. Would solve this issue nicely, and doesn't require a news item at all, IMO. At the moment Portage refuses to read /etc/make.conf, a news item and possibly even a block of Portage update until the file has been moved would be in order. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > I don't know about general consensus. In my opinion, it's plain spam to > existing users. (And that would IMO be the xth news item in a row to be > spam.) Can't say I agree here. Some news items have been more useful than others, but I doubt the typical Gentoo user (who does not subscribe to -dev) would think that many of the past messages have been spam. Right now news is our only mechanism to warn users that something is about to happen BEFORE it happens. Anytime I talk to somebody who has left Gentoo the #1 thing I tend to hear is that they were tired of things just breaking without warning. Even following -dev I've been surprised by the odd upgrade - I can imagine the typical user would be even more confused. Long-time Gentoo users aren't going to notice in the handbook that the location of /etc/make.conf has moved - I know that if I'm doing an install I tend to use the handbook as a checklist but I skim through it so fast that I doubt I'd notice a big change. They're going to appreciate a heads-up. The only people who wouldn't consider it news are those following this list, and judging by the state of this thread you'll already have read 40 posts on the topic, so the 41st won't be that big of a deal. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Maxim Kammerer wrote: > Well, at least this discrepancy is documented (portage(5)): > “[/etc/portage/]make.conf: […] If present, this file will override > settings from /etc/make.conf.” > “If both /etc/make.profile/ and /etc/portage/make.profile/ exist, then > /etc/make.profile/ will be preferred.” I'd suggest that this is made consistent. The new location should be preferred. > (no mention of /etc/make.globals, though — perhaps it can be removed > from stage3) Looks like is is installed by Portage: $ qfile /etc/make.globals sys-apps/portage (/etc/make.globals) Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On 24-07-2012 10:59:08 +, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > > I still don't see why you'd bother all existing users with that > > info. Just blog, or (better) write a nice email to -announce, and > > update the install docs. > > The point of "bugging" all users was to minimize the risk of a user > not being aware of the change. If the general consensus is that this > should not be sent as news item (GLEP42), I'll drop itl I don't know about general consensus. In my opinion, it's plain spam to existing users. (And that would IMO be the xth news item in a row to be spam.) > > Also, can you exclude all Prefix profiles for this news item if > > you insist on pushing it out? > > I don't know the specific methods to filter news items, so if you or > others can help with that, I'd appreciate. > If anyone has particular suggestions about who should see this news > item, including the filter of how to achieve that, please let me know. You can limit news items to certain profiles, so, you could make them apply to the default/linux profiles, I guess. Not sure if the FreeBSD guys are affected by your catalyst change. If so, they might want to be included too. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 24-07-2012 09:29, Maxim Kammerer wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto > wrote: >> I propose to commit this news item in 2 or 3 days. Does anyone >> have any comments about it? > > Several comments: > > 1. Maybe note that /etc/portage/make.conf takes precedence over > /etc/make.conf? > > 2. New make.conf location (although supported) is not mentioned in > portage(5) man page for currently stable sys-apps/portage > (2.1.10.65). > > 3. This news item is really useful, since the change has a > potential to break automated builds. > > 4. Are the other files / links in /etc also moving? > > # ls -ld /etc/make.* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3554 Jul 24 09:20 > /etc/make.conf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 421 Jul 3 22:03 > /etc/make.conf.catalyst lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 42 Jul 12 18:15 > /etc/make.profile -> ../usr/portage/profiles/hardened/linux/x86 This is what we're moving with catalyst to /etc/portage > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 40 Jul 20 00:26 /etc/make.globals -> > ../usr/share/portage/config/make.globals This symlink is installed by Portage, so it's outside catalyst control. - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQDoGxAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPE84QAIxuDcNdJdEU2f5d8LRzn8c7 kL5GAyh7+MgnldOWZZEIi3SWdbo6gsBZASJmU7BVoe/bcKqACQt00J2LPeEsgYa4 jmQGy61wH1kqA+P5peJrRNdSv9ULcH615UNj1ggzL5nRNahgGDMdl8O0zhg7NA+K soZurXrAgkgOYR0WOJ+6Ps8oU1y6KozmXGr71wsFpIAeLVE8t67A+AUxagAXCw1s wDvif/w7x5EA2a4GeJs2iPBNehwMLgFRfxtO5GlN7YucHWINrf9xZcNvFJyceUcQ cuiBcVj4fgo9ckaVOUrFqL/V4QzkgyE/v2c2qaBaz0+qSYllk8fctdkTBWx5LfwO pLGDtOXWOATnOXIwtiyWLEQ4fhC9AaBnZyuJvDAu7RYOP2e/qhNSkOiHKVU078Dn xpGe9WhATfLj53Q1ybVK0EYwZ33AugN0KQ3XMA7WN9PFjpoZaPHLZYAA78oRytej ZVrCQQ2d6u3V4cpM199swL4YwHiuOMQAIN/N3RpzRmJFvJ51JLN47tXJt7g/++7u DAgitWoLHzK0tknZVlxKFCenVIzY95P9tmmWx65CkBmeWanNephJLY/5fk2NwDsm 0zQa7fF+kSDFSGjv0pqYt9djbd2RAsYlCqnPfepovFuWHcmJHXJMa1yzLuCWHdok SJh4uA+4JLSiTmzNyPxT =EF2+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 24-07-2012 06:54, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 23-07-2012 22:10:08 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto >> wrote: >>> This is just a heads-up for Gentoo users that got used to find >>> make.conf and make.profile under /etc in stages, that these >>> files will stop being there and will instead be under >>> /etc/portage. So we are changing the defaults. >> >> I'd spell that out then - just say that no action is required >> for existing installations, but be aware of the new location on >> new installs, or feel free to move them if you want. > > I still don't see why you'd bother all existing users with that > info. Just blog, or (better) write a nice email to -announce, and > update the install docs. The point of "bugging" all users was to minimize the risk of a user not being aware of the change. If the general consensus is that this should not be sent as news item (GLEP42), I'll drop itl > Also, can you exclude all Prefix profiles for this news item if > you insist on pushing it out? I don't know the specific methods to filter news items, so if you or others can help with that, I'd appreciate. If anyone has particular suggestions about who should see this news item, including the filter of how to achieve that, please let me know. > Fabian > - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQDn/7AAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEP0isP/3vY3d4IyGbBBiopV8LJ1fGq KzgzTJAa02lEEumSK5eCnybm84uPhUGcUA/sUrpLKCcJqA3JraXnUNGYjjQnFyXf 1bDKWmn6OLcz/1ziQ+0Je4EsfoHbMoSyMr7YUA5o7j2Sj7ZPB4crCqybEKSDsdyi y+g+xDtJqIgS46Xjs9G9T4dYwrN5oXfr6TNFLzBsh3ZJ5tn9M3AKU48ojwQJgRU5 x8vlfbxOEpK2k2HhAPdGgQdy3V7tVUuqVDcLfDCtvwMG18dffF/35i2XpeHETe5g qmctkp8dhIIIS/717t1m+g5lRdxVjDWADFtIAqlWXzES0phnk21nrGpNqJYbKu+2 pdaeDYyG4qQ18t5bLvFzqGCl93DXl6PQOUiM7GrbausmY8yKjfabW3pRtC5nt1RV C75guLowBfF7kUmDQz8cwIBSL93g212bVBIXyq2KLqw2zaT75815O4GNCmGLD0g9 YkSU0hTLe5Y4veJ5XDDzHRaHMdZ71/+VdShcC55rdnKw3N+A6zd/g9wLbtmi79pE yjFM8ZaZz4P8GxPMoQBWEMGwBj7TNw9p7led82PGbxmAmUnDDDsXLNEqoepvJEzb SIUd+g6rxS0KpcgL3ocaDnGmNorOT53OPi5Uho86ulkp8khVrOgcA60fagRPzn+6 2J9uD6CwFTv0O5QsVAfO =8cWY -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 24-07-2012 08:48, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:07:59AM +, Jorge Manuel B. S. > Vicetto wrote: >> I've talked with both the PR and Docs team before about this >> change. I'll try to help the docs team updating the handbook. > > Speaking of which, will this also start the use of the SHA512 & > WHIRLPOOL checksums? We've had a bug open for it for a while (bug > #386475) but the digests still don't show this. If it is > simultaneously, we'll need to fix that as well. I had forgotten to update the catalyst config files in poseidon (amd64 / x86 build box). I've done that now. > Can current users also already use the /etc/portage location? If > so, I can already update the docs now (since I'll need to describe > both of the locations for a while anyhow). Yes, current installs can use the new location. > Wkr, Sven Vermeulen > - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQDn8xAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEP1GIQAIqq2HjGSRufWeze9DaP5LO4 oehrABeBYJxeAaFlnJ7N4yrgQTuqhimwTt0fSV5ZzdkQobSam6q4VypPxXlmw/L4 O3SN1iWaidpAeIC9Ff2M0of1mlET2WE7BJeCnBn2Lq3ihNTjb6ctt88qp2/RBZcG WKx58w+MwDGX3gXvwr+Tsk9yiQqsELjGWZv0q4ECbBfhoAhWThps3B+K3/VYsoYa bN/v+hYJLVQgTWJhHUQDhlTBWM5GkEo1ZVq9cVXb5pkkfuFwzC+BRYfxGQ7HXG5o Ypwu2XQUqECh4riI49dGloN7tjScPJDKOwQZCxkWLPKmfS2IDgmz9PVESYqd+R+Y FA0KFne/L2c46TXBY/nhPN0Pbz4GJXbCeOcGVQmcOohQRkRlLeOL9Pco4/yXWWQS StQvDqAQRotAra58MRcfgMnkf9ttgbUWlYHt+QttE+Csf/RdIT3LqbziA6OoEikz DrQZCsyU8Frc1SE3fYKmjkjlHfSg1Pm7lPX0irV9D3r0RZuOMkeyK4T7ZxJPkRPA shE4GHQpwwhAHspnlMWM+f39C5MtdisbUezR2VmgWuz1LAZpLGZJmWux/s0RPebR AZSTWaiYhsocJAPkgNodbSKP9FPQR6Kz7aSAF5s30WyT3Ezs19Rk9a5fCUKYetyK yw5jlj0yQfZw9yWjrotS =FTY+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 24-07-2012 00:07, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > Hi. > > I propose to commit this news item in 2 or 3 days. Does anyone > have any comments about it? The idea is to show this news item on > all Gentoo systems. Is that even possible / desirable? I've talked > with both the PR and Docs team before about this change. I'll try > to help the docs team updating the handbook. Taking into account the input in this thread, I've updated the proposed news item. Title: Changes on new stages Author: Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto Content-Type: text/plain Posted: 2012-07-27 Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 1.0 Starting with catalyst 2.0.10, make.conf and make.profile will be moved from /etc to /etc/portage. This is a change in the installation defaults and since Portage will prefer make.conf under /etc/portage over /etc, this is an heads-up for anyone doing new installs. If you have a custom or automated method to install Gentoo, be sure to check if its affected by this change. Releng build boxes will be updated to this catalyst version during the next few days. So I expect stages built after July 30th to have make.conf and make.profile on /etc/portage. Current users don't need to do anything. But if you want to follow the preferred location, you may want to take the chance to move the files in your system(s) to the new location. - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQDn7hAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPg9oQANUKtzsAXZggYYKZ9aEAthWa Eeftr/qdyjycHl7/Ov5ztgkuJhBcDvvpofcY1ynuxbkXxxmEUemrsbzSM1mgQ58A olieDncD83mo2p8HFZ4peN9H/OsyoeZaumj6gVm5ZjHdj7FO1bWvpeTNmfoARhV8 AxjTarZTJp9Gp7PTKyeLFQVS5j/RAv3S3/RgnrAVzBV43eFlx0CZTqpY2S9Lg9DO LnrIMoaT7gNb39x0xUnIpdkCOJqp8Oqif/DlE9uga6A+l95VEIoCWShA48fRGlAm 5VqMVrhLhw9YbNDPewOA0/+eYcu5IFal9+AwYO6gtqJsWG11cR5RT8zdoJ4JkwLZ Sh1v0B/9op6kNHuTvQBKcHUjCZ4p6cEHPuPJpJAiDYK5NS7CXsXmL/vUFlNqlNPl m4I9ktJySTDtqyOlpx27a74tYsfXjRiUxnm7DZAXnV77MxppKik5Y73prVVtt6zZ qenNwjo4uDUB7UV/wu9IYv/1KR8UYGTEi6Zr5JC7cAJVZtrZULZLuN4tVLTfDDXI DrPx+byA+Rmq0rVA1NJpZqnUlUfjgSMLaiVtVYEjGpQAYnPK5gwimBqeKQ7A3FWx wkfhXkZt4lNU770lsciym17qPpQdCVi42PNz5Pt094z9oyy/TwT9X7oQ+1EBc+0+ W8zzrDtrn1dHODWsRerh =+95k -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Does it? With make.profile it seems to be the other way around, i.e. > /etc takes precedence over /etc/portage. Well, at least this discrepancy is documented (portage(5)): “[/etc/portage/]make.conf: […] If present, this file will override settings from /etc/make.conf.” “If both /etc/make.profile/ and /etc/portage/make.profile/ exist, then /etc/make.profile/ will be preferred.” (no mention of /etc/make.globals, though — perhaps it can be removed from stage3) -- Maxim Kammerer Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte
Re: [gentoo-dev] news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Maxim Kammerer wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto > wrote: >> I propose to commit this news item in 2 or 3 days. Does anyone have >> any comments about it? > Several comments: > 1. Maybe note that /etc/portage/make.conf takes precedence over > /etc/make.conf? Does it? With make.profile it seems to be the other way around, i.e. /etc takes precedence over /etc/portage. Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: > make.conf > The global custom settings for Portage. See make.conf(5). If > present, this file will over‐ ride settings from /etc/make.conf. Thanks — missed it somehow. > We aren't discussing dropping support for the old locations here but > about makeing the new location the default. My point is that if you copy make.conf to /etc automatically, an /etc/portage/make.conf in stage3 will break the procedure because it takes precedence. -- Maxim Kammerer Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte
Re: [gentoo-dev] news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:29:14 +0300 Maxim Kammerer wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto > wrote: > > I propose to commit this news item in 2 or 3 days. Does anyone have > > any comments about it? > > Several comments: > > 1. Maybe note that /etc/portage/make.conf takes precedence > over /etc/make.conf? > > 2. New make.conf location (although supported) is not mentioned in > portage(5) man page for currently stable sys-apps/portage (2.1.10.65). > man 5 portage about files in /etc/portage make.conf The global custom settings for Portage. See make.conf(5). If present, this file will over‐ ride settings from /etc/make.conf. > 3. This news item is really useful, since the change has a potential > to break automated builds. We aren't discussing dropping support for the old locations here but about makeing the new location the default.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On 24 July 2012 08:07, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: Title: Changes on new stages Author: Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto Content-Type: text/plain Posted: 2012-07-27 Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 1.0 Starting with catalyst 2.0.10, make.conf and make.profile will be moved from /etc to /etc/postfix. Releng build boxes will be updated to this catalyst version during the next few days. So I expect stages built after July 30th to have make.conf and make.profile on /etc/portage. I don't think you mean "from /etc to /etc/postfix" but "from /etc to /etc/portage". -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail: bluen...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 8040 5A4D 8709 21B1 1A88 33CE 979C AF40 D045 5535 GnuPG ID : D0455535
Re: [gentoo-dev] news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > I propose to commit this news item in 2 or 3 days. Does anyone have > any comments about it? Several comments: 1. Maybe note that /etc/portage/make.conf takes precedence over /etc/make.conf? 2. New make.conf location (although supported) is not mentioned in portage(5) man page for currently stable sys-apps/portage (2.1.10.65). 3. This news item is really useful, since the change has a potential to break automated builds. 4. Are the other files / links in /etc also moving? # ls -ld /etc/make.* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3554 Jul 24 09:20 /etc/make.conf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 421 Jul 3 22:03 /etc/make.conf.catalyst lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 40 Jul 20 00:26 /etc/make.globals -> ../usr/share/portage/config/make.globals lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 42 Jul 12 18:15 /etc/make.profile -> ../usr/portage/profiles/hardened/linux/x86
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:48:52 + Sven Vermeulen wrote: > Can current users also already use the /etc/portage location? If so, > I can already update the docs now (since I'll need to describe both > of the locations for a while anyhow). I moved my make.conf to the new location about a year ago.
[gentoo-dev] Re: news item: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:07:59AM +, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > I've talked with both the PR and Docs team before about this change. > I'll try to help the docs team updating the handbook. Speaking of which, will this also start the use of the SHA512 & WHIRLPOOL checksums? We've had a bug open for it for a while (bug #386475) but the digests still don't show this. If it is simultaneously, we'll need to fix that as well. Can current users also already use the /etc/portage location? If so, I can already update the docs now (since I'll need to describe both of the locations for a while anyhow). Wkr, Sven Vermeulen
Re: [gentoo-dev] net-misc/quagga needs help
El lun, 23-07-2012 a las 15:08 -0700, Diego Elio Pettenò escribió: > Il 23/07/2012 14:10, Peter Stuge ha scritto: > > Did anyone report it upstream? > > Not me ... because I wouldn't know which one to care about. The problem > with upstream is that you have what they call master that is not really > stable, then what they call 'Release Engineering' that looks like a > kernel stable branch but they introduce new features there (instead of > master) first. > > Then there is the concept that they don't really care about doing new > releases to fix build or run failures because they say that's what > integrators and distributors should be paid to deal with. > > I agree with you, I'd rather run bird. > Will probably treeclean it in the next days if nobody is able to bump it and make it buildable then, as looks like bird can be a good replacement signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
