Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread R0b0t1
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 8:56 PM, kuzetsa  wrote:
>
> Yes please. I don't want to see gentoo end because of ... rudeness.
>

Be careful, it is easy to disguise rudeness as tact.



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread R0b0t1
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> W dniu sob, 02.12.2017 o godzinie 19∶33 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1
> napisał:
>> Hello,
>>
>> In every mailing list conversation, there are at least three people:
>> the two conversing, and the future reader. I point this out as I think
>> it important that everyone realize that not all posts are written for
>> those immediately participating in the conversation.
>>
>> Some time ago I was offered some equipment due to my history of
>> open-source contributions to a variety of projects. I asked the donor
>> to forward it (or money) to the Gentoo foundation, but they declined,
>> citing a general distaste for the management of software projects in
>> general and specific issues they believed existed within Gentoo.
>
> I'm not sure if this is relevant to the topic at hand. There are many
> issues within Gentoo. I'm trying to address one of them.
>

The point is that actions of [some of] the developers are affecting
the public perception of Gentoo to the point at least one person
hasn't wanted to donate.

>> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:
>> > Hello, everyone.
>> >
>> > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
>> > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
>> > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
>> > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
>> >
>>
>> If you have in fact discussed this off list with people who agree, I
>> think it is important that you invite them to comment. Not only will
>> it show support for what you have detailed, it will allow them to
>> explain the problems they have in greater detail, so that perhaps a
>> solution that does not involve restricting list access could be found.
>
> This sentence merely focuses on 'don't shoot the messenger' part which
> will happen anyway. Those people won't come here to '+1' the proposal
> because this mailing list is not supposed to be about mail popularity
> contests.
>

No, but policy changes are. They should be critically analyzed. I'm
not going to pretend like I can vote, but I can try to make you feel
bad about not answering my questions.

> Also because they don't want to be targeted by people misbehaving here.
> In fact, a number of them already pinged me today privately showing
> support, and some of them told me exactly that -- that they don't want
> to become a target of aggression. A few participants of this mailing
> list have shown harassment towards people that stood up to them --
> including constant insults on various public and private channels.
>

Again, no one has any right to not be offended. For something of this
nature I feel public support should be necessary.

>>
>> It may be that I am misunderstanding your language, but what you have
>> presented does not leave many things open for discussion. It seems
>> like what you have presented is to be either accepted or rejected as
>> is. Seeing as my opinion does not matter, it further seems like it
>> will simply be accepted as is.
>
> I simply don't believe that after so many iterations there's any more
> option that hasn't been tried or rejected already.
>

As noted, there is one: analyzing the actions of those who are being
"attacked" to see why people are bothering to do it in the first
place. I sincerely doubt the offensive parties are doing what they are
doing without cause.

But no, the Gentoo developers are always above reproach.

>> >
>> > Problems
>> > 
>> >
>> > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
>> > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
>> > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
>> > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
>> >
>> > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
>> > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
>> > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
>> > person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
>> >
>>
>> No one has any right to not be offended. If Gentoo developers are
>> receiving criticism for their behavior, then perhaps it would be best
>> that they critically analyze their actions and the effect that they
>> have on other people.
>>
>> As far as I am aware most developers never get harassed and go quietly
>> on about their business. I have even asked some questions similar to
>> the questions I have asked on this list that people have felt were
>> adversarial. However, these developers didn't seem to mind my
>> questions and spent 5 minutes or so of their time on a response.
>>
>> > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
>> > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
>> > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
>> > in search of data relevant to 

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] xtermTitle: support st (simple terminal)

2017-12-03 Thread Christoph Böhmwalder
On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 01:00:37PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> Your change will match any TERM value that starts with 'st', which seems
> too loose. How about if we match st-256color instead?
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Zac
> 

Yes, you're right, though there's still one more issue with that.
Although st-256color seems to be the default $TERM value for st (it is
on my system and I don't recall changing it), there are a few other
terminfo entries for st:

$ ls -lah /usr/share/terminfo/s/st*
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2,2K Dez  1 14:23 /usr/share/terminfo/s/st
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2,4K Dez  1 14:23 /usr/share/terminfo/s/st-16color
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2,3K Dez  1 14:23 /usr/share/terminfo/s/st-256color
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  856 Dez  1 14:23 /usr/share/terminfo/s/st52
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2,0K Dez  1 14:23 /usr/share/terminfo/s/st52-color
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root4 Dez  1 14:23 /usr/share/terminfo/s/st52-m -> st52
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  562 Dez  1 14:23 /usr/share/terminfo/s/st52-old
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root2 Dez  1 14:23 /usr/share/terminfo/s/stterm -> st
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   10 Dez  1 14:23 /usr/share/terminfo/s/stterm-16color 
-> st-16color
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   11 Dez  1 14:23 /usr/share/terminfo/s/stterm-256color 
-> st-256color
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  916 Dez  1 14:23 /usr/share/terminfo/s/stv52
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  848 Dez  1 14:23 /usr/share/terminfo/s/stv52pc

Maybe we should be using the 'stterm' symlinks instead?

--
Regards,
Christoph



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread kuzetsa

On 12/03/2017 08:19 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> this 18 min talk by Donnie Berkholz from 2012, about Gentoo actually: 

Someone in private linked that video to me today. Yeah :(

> Do not tolerate bad behavior by anyone!
--snip--
> It is important to take action which clearly rejects
> unacceptable behavior. Otherwise any behavior is per definition
> implicitly accepted, which attracts assholes.

You're not wrong. I've seen FOSS/Libre communities (and non-compsci
peer-directed projects) fall apart when "radical free speech"
went unchecked. The only people who stayed were even more effective
when it came to what seemed like intentionally driving off anyone
who dissented / spoke out against their disrespectful behaviors.

> Coming back to the concrete proposal, I think a better course of
> action is to demonstrate strong leadership, by speaking out in force
> against bad behavior, every time.
>
> In order to have something to lean on, it can be super helpful to
> have a code-of-conduct in place, and was already mentioned.
--snip--
> I urge either ComRel or other leadership to take as forceful action
> as is neccessary against bad behavior, to uphold a healthy
> environment.
>
--snip--
> Please do not relent. It is not fair to yourself or your colleagues.
>
>
> Thank you and keep up the excellent effort everyone
>
> //Peter

Yes please. I don't want to see gentoo end because of ... rudeness.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Peter Stuge
Hi Michał,

Michał Górny wrote:
> major problems with some of the posters for more than a year.

Please believe me when I say that I know what this feels like.

I want to applaud and thank everyone who has been tackling/discussing
this issue in private, and I especially want to applaud taking action!

I however disagree with the proposal to move the problem.

I would like to encourage everyone, but in particular devs, to watch
this 18 min talk by Donnie Berkholz from 2012, about Gentoo actually:

Assholes are Ruining Your Project
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZSli7QW4rg

If you don't want to, then the most important take-away as stated by
Donnie and supported by my own experience having "my" project ruined
is:

Do not tolerate bad behavior by anyone!


> The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> the problem.

While reading your message, I kept thinking to myself: "isn't this
the very purpose of ComRel?"

I only have a non-dev understanding of ComRel, but I agree with Matt that
inaction in this situation is a failure of ComRel, and that should not be
to the detriment of any constructive contributor on gentoo-dev.


> A. Bans can be trivially evaded
> B. People should be allowed to express their opinion

Mh, so-so. It is important to take action which clearly rejects
unacceptable behavior. Otherwise any behavior is per definition
implicitly accepted, which attracts assholes.


> C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse

This should *also* not be accepted. Equal standards for what is
acceptable and what is not must apply to everyone.

It could be argued that different people deserve different sanctions.
I would agree with that only as far as there is a mentoring process in
place, requiring a third party to work on eliminating bad behavior.

I think that's the purpose of DevRel for developer<->developer, and
ComRel for developer<->non-developer.

Yes, such mentoring requires a non-negligable committment to
non-trivial work.

It is clearly not always possible to mentor bad behavior away. Then
that person must be shut out to save the environment, whether a
long-standing developer or not!


Coming back to the concrete proposal, I think a better course of
action is to demonstrate strong leadership, by speaking out in force
against bad behavior, every time.

In order to have something to lean on, it can be super helpful to
have a code-of-conduct in place, and was already mentioned.

I had to think about code-of-conduct for a long time, before my
mental model of them "clicked". I consider them to be about
explicitly stating the community expectations for good behavior,
and as an agreed-upon reference for (sometimes unpleasant, but
incredibly important) forceful action in reponse to bad behavior.


> The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> the trolls'.

I find this highly inadequate.


I urge either ComRel or other leadership to take as forceful action
as is neccessary against bad behavior, to uphold a healthy
environment.

Selective moderation is a more technically sophisticated ban. If
possible that's cool. If not possible that's perfectly fine. Just
ban. Keep banning if the bad behavior resurfaces with another
identity.

Please do not relent. It is not fair to yourself or your colleagues.


Thank you and keep up the excellent effort everyone

//Peter



Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Alec Warner
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:

> W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 13∶52 -0500, użytkownik Alec Warner
> napisał:
> > On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, everyone.
> > >
> > > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but
> it
> > > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> > > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> > > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> > >
> > >
> > > Problems
> > > 
> > >
> > > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> > > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> > > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> > > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> > >
> > > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> > > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> > > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> > > person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
> > >
> > > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> > > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> > > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> > > in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst,
> sometimes
> > > you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
> > >
> > > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> > > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> > > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> > > resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
> > >
> > >
> > > All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible
> to
> > > use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> > > demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> > > either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> > > activity.
> > >
> > > For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> > > and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> > > of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Proposal
> > > 
> > >
> > > Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> > > establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
> > >
> > > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > >
> > > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > >
> > > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> >
> >
> > > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > >
> > > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has
> now.
> > >
> > >
> > > Rationale
> > > =
> > >
> > > I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> > > would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all
> other
> > > options to no avail.
> > >
> > > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> > > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> > > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> > > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
> > >
> > > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> > > create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
> > >
> > > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> > > hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
> > >
> > > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> > > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
> > >
> >
> > A B and C would equally apply to the "gentoo-dev" list you are proposing.
> > The only difference is
> > that there is some 'vetting' process for people who are allowed to post.
> > But lets say hyptothetically
> > Alec is an active contributor and is posting spammily to the gentoo-dev
> > list. If ComRel will not take any action
> > (due to A B and C) what is the difference to the status quo?
>
> Well, I believe the main difference is that the approval process makes
> it harder to evade a ban.
>
> If you need a voice, you need to get a developer to vouch for you.
> If you have just been banned, you won't immediately regain the access
> for the same identity. And unless you've actively maintaining a second
> identity for yourself, you won't get immediate access to evade the ban.
>

Oh it was not clear we would ban people from the proposed 'gentoo-dev' list
based on your 

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread kuzetsa

On 12/03/2017 07:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Matt Turner  wrote:
>> With gentoo being a non-profit organization, an alternative way to
>> view it could be the trade-off of seeing developers / maintainers /
>> staff leave
> It isn't just the risk of leaving, but the risk of them never joining
> in the first place.
>
> If a flamewar goes back and forth, then it creates an environment
> {snip}

1) Yes. It's hard to recruit when the organization seems unpleasant.
2) The point of a dev list should be development. (not flames)
3) That paper has tables which are over my head. (but interesting)
4) Is this on more than list now? The subject line confused me.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread kuzetsa
More than zero posts on this thread are consistent with this point:

On 12/02/2017 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.

If things are a bug, it should be filed as a bug: when there's a fault, or a
feature request, or any other thing which can go to the tracker, so b.g.o
is the right place if it affects multiple configurations and needs
addressed.

Anything [mis]configuration related, or if it's unclear could likely go
to an
official support channel if it's gentoo-specific, or even upstream support.
An expert user list would be a fine place for that too.

Not all resolutions require a developer, and this likely includes
misunderstandings or disagreements on how things were handled too.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Matt Turner  wrote:
>
> With gentoo being a non-profit organization, an alternative way to
> view it could be the trade-off of seeing developers / maintainers /
> staff leave

It isn't just the risk of leaving, but the risk of them never joining
in the first place.

If a flamewar goes back and forth, then it creates an environment
where only people who like to participate in flamewars will want to
join (thus creating a positive feedback loop).

If a troll periodically posts and everybody ignores them, then it
creates an environment where it seems as if the developers ignore the
users (an outsider could mistake trolling for questions/feedback), and
thus people will assume it is a toxic environment and not want to
join.

While I'm sure toxic coworkers are a problem in any organization, I
suspect they're far more impactful when the organization effectively
broadcasts their activity to the entire world.

I'm all for free expression.  That doesn't mean that Gentoo needs to
expend its resources to broadcast messages that actually harm Gentoo,
or provide a platform for people who have done egregious things (like
unwanted gender-based attention, attacking people over disabilities,
or whatever), whether the victims of such activities have been dragged
through the mud publicly or not.

-- 
Rich



[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Matt Turner
A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list:

There's been research, on this, and the study by harvard business
school was summarized and discussed by NPR in 2015:

[ Turns out toxic coworkers are more
than just an annoyance. A new study
out of the Harvard Business School
warns that bullying workers are more costly,
even if they are more productive. ] -- NPR description

https://www.npr.org/2015/12/16/460024322/harvard-business-school-study-highlights-costs-of-toxic-workers
https://goo.gl/g8Ujuk (short URL of the same)

With gentoo being a non-profit organization, an alternative way to
view it could be the trade-off of seeing developers / maintainers /
staff leave, and any "lost profits" are in the form of community
relations, image, and willingness for ongoing productive work by those
who remain with the gentoo organization.

Research paper itself (which includes supporting 57 citations)

http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/16-057_d45c0b4f-fa19-49de-8f1b-4b12fe054fea.pdf
https://goo.gl/42A8v7 (short URL of the same)

... and was itself cited a dozen or times:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5443947091657980238
https://goo.gl/obvdzh (short URL of the same)



[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2017-12-03 23:59 UTC

2017-12-03 Thread Robin H. Johnson
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2017-12-03 23:59 UTC.

Removals:
app-crypt/kencfs20171129-23:14 asturmd60617bb5c7
media-sound/google-musicmanager 20171129-23:14 asturmd60617bb5c7
net-voip/vidyodesktop   20171129-23:14 asturmd60617bb5c7

Additions:
app-admin/helm  20171201-19:43 mrueg 9efcbf8813d
app-crypt/libb2 20171127-12:02 grobian   50ab2727533
app-emulation/cadvisor  20171130-14:03 mrueg 1fd5b164fa2
dev-ada/libgpr  20171202-21:19 tupone438f968a051
dev-db/qt5-sqlcipher20171130-22:49 ulm   79772767e7a
dev-libs/ivykis 20171124-07:12 monsieurp 8a8041cd47d
dev-python/detox20171203-22:55 radhermit 8a44721035d
dev-python/dkimpy   20171202-23:42 aidecoe   b67fc6ac949
dev-python/nbval20171120-10:24 monsieurp 86fc237b088
dev-python/pew  20171202-20:05 jlec  b61cb440d90
dev-python/pipenv   20171202-17:27 jlec  0e9a0c555b4
dev-python/pythonz-bd   20171202-19:52 jlec  e410ec23363
dev-python/resumable-urlretrieve20171202-19:20 jlec  3f005965f7e
dev-python/sphinxcontrib-github-alt 20171120-08:29 monsieurp 369603eac4b
media-libs/libdvbcsa20171130-14:10 chewi 445189d9c1d
net-fs/mc   20171127-19:30 mrueg 20d04bc5e4d
sys-apps/colorized-logs 20171128-19:08 pacho 9fe379a2f9e
sys-cluster/charliecloud20171129-22:37 monsieurp 94a03f6
x11-plugins/wmamixer20171127-11:25 voyageur  ff565a72c96

--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer
E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
Removed Packages:
app-crypt/kencfs,removed,asturm,20171129-23:14,d60617bb5c7
media-sound/google-musicmanager,removed,asturm,20171129-23:14,d60617bb5c7
net-voip/vidyodesktop,removed,asturm,20171129-23:14,d60617bb5c7
Added Packages:
dev-python/detox,added,radhermit,20171203-22:55,8a44721035d
media-libs/libdvbcsa,added,chewi,20171130-14:10,445189d9c1d
dev-libs/ivykis,added,monsieurp,20171124-07:12,8a8041cd47d
dev-python/dkimpy,added,aidecoe,20171202-23:42,b67fc6ac949
dev-ada/libgpr,added,tupone,20171202-21:19,438f968a051
dev-python/pew,added,jlec,20171202-20:05,b61cb440d90
dev-python/pythonz-bd,added,jlec,20171202-19:52,e410ec23363
dev-python/resumable-urlretrieve,added,jlec,20171202-19:20,3f005965f7e
dev-python/pipenv,added,jlec,20171202-17:27,0e9a0c555b4
sys-cluster/charliecloud,added,monsieurp,20171129-22:37,94a03f6
app-admin/helm,added,mrueg,20171201-19:43,9efcbf8813d
dev-db/qt5-sqlcipher,added,ulm,20171130-22:49,79772767e7a
dev-python/nbval,added,monsieurp,20171120-10:24,86fc237b088
dev-python/sphinxcontrib-github-alt,added,monsieurp,20171120-08:29,369603eac4b
app-emulation/cadvisor,added,mrueg,20171130-14:03,1fd5b164fa2
sys-apps/colorized-logs,added,pacho,20171128-19:08,9fe379a2f9e
net-fs/mc,added,mrueg,20171127-19:30,20d04bc5e4d
x11-plugins/wmamixer,added,voyageur,20171127-11:25,ff565a72c96
app-crypt/libb2,added,grobian,20171127-12:02,50ab2727533

Done.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Richard Bradfield

On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 11:33:11PM +0100, Gerion Entrup wrote:

I'm a long term Gentoo user, but have read this list a few month only, so
correct me, if I'm wrong. I've seen the main usage of this list in three
aspects:
1. Review and discussion of new (technical) features (eclasses, EAPI, package
manager specs).
2. Information about unmaintained packages.
3. Input and proposals from users.

Splitting the list would reduce the meaning of gentoo-dev to the first point.
The second point has to be handled on the expert list (or both lists), so
proxy maintainers can reply. The third point can only be handled on the expert
list, but core developers have to read it, otherwise the whole point would be
meaningless.

In other projects with similar problems but the technical possibility to 
moderate
some "code of conduct" was adopted, so moderators can ban users on that base
for a fixed amount of time.

Gerion


I'm normally just a lurker in this list, so the changes are unlikely to affect 
me
directly, but I think Gerion hits it on the head here.

Is there such a stratification between "Gentoo Developers" (and those
'blessed' by such developers) and "Expert Gentoo Users" that justifies
silo-ing the two groups off into their own mailing lists?

If this distinction is present and vitally important, then by all means
create a separate list, but is the reduction in traffic really worth the
loss of input from your long-term, but "non developer" users?

If this is really a moderation issue, surely the bad actors will simply move
their alleged trolling to the -experts list, which will cause the core
developers to cease reading it, leading to a breakdown in the user to
developer discussions that currently take place via -dev?

--
Richard


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] depgraph: eval disjunctive build deps earlier (bug 639346)

2017-12-03 Thread Zac Medico
Since built-time deps tend to be a superset of run-time deps, evaluate
disjunctive build-time deps before run-time deps, so that choices for
build-time deps influence choices for run-time deps.

Also, fix OnlydepsMinimalTestCase to specify ambiguous_merge_order,
since the merge order is affected by the order of evaluation.

Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/639346
---
 pym/_emerge/depgraph.py| 12 ++-
 .../resolver/test_disjunctive_depend_order.py  | 87 ++
 .../tests/resolver/test_onlydeps_minimal.py|  5 +-
 3 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 pym/portage/tests/resolver/test_disjunctive_depend_order.py

diff --git a/pym/_emerge/depgraph.py b/pym/_emerge/depgraph.py
index f54acdc26..6e5ca6508 100644
--- a/pym/_emerge/depgraph.py
+++ b/pym/_emerge/depgraph.py
@@ -3234,7 +3234,15 @@ class depgraph(object):
if ignore_hdepend_deps:
edepend["HDEPEND"] = ""
 
+   # Since build-time deps tend to be a superset of run-time deps, 
order
+   # dep processing such that build-time deps are popped from
+   # _dep_disjunctive_stack first, so that choices for build-time
+   # deps influence choices for run-time deps (bug 639346).
deps = (
+   (myroot, edepend["RDEPEND"],
+   self._priority(runtime=True)),
+   (myroot, edepend["PDEPEND"],
+   self._priority(runtime_post=True)),
(depend_root, edepend["DEPEND"],
self._priority(buildtime=True,
optional=(pkg.built or ignore_depend_deps),
@@ -3243,10 +3251,6 @@ class depgraph(object):
self._priority(buildtime=True,
optional=(pkg.built or ignore_hdepend_deps),
ignored=ignore_hdepend_deps)),
-   (myroot, edepend["RDEPEND"],
-   self._priority(runtime=True)),
-   (myroot, edepend["PDEPEND"],
-   self._priority(runtime_post=True))
)
 
debug = "--debug" in self._frozen_config.myopts
diff --git a/pym/portage/tests/resolver/test_disjunctive_depend_order.py 
b/pym/portage/tests/resolver/test_disjunctive_depend_order.py
new file mode 100644
index 0..88f6dac2d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/pym/portage/tests/resolver/test_disjunctive_depend_order.py
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+# Copyright 2017 Gentoo Foundation
+# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
+
+from portage.tests import TestCase
+from portage.tests.resolver.ResolverPlayground import (
+   ResolverPlayground,
+   ResolverPlaygroundTestCase,
+)
+
+class DisjunctiveDependOrderTestCase(TestCase):
+
+   def testDisjunctiveDependOrderTestCase(self):
+   ebuilds = {
+   'virtual/jre-1.8': {
+   'EAPI': '6',
+   'SLOT' : '1.8',
+   'RDEPEND' : '|| ( dev-java/oracle-jre-bin:1.8 
virtual/jdk:1.8 )',
+   },
+   'virtual/jdk-1.8': {
+   'EAPI': '6',
+   'SLOT' : '1.8',
+   'RDEPEND' : '|| ( dev-java/icedtea:8 
dev-java/oracle-jdk-bin:1.8 )',
+   },
+   'dev-java/icedtea-3.6': {
+   'SLOT' : '8',
+   },
+   'dev-java/oracle-jdk-bin-1.8': {
+   'SLOT' : '1.8',
+   },
+   'dev-java/oracle-jre-bin-1.8': {
+   'SLOT' : '1.8',
+   },
+   'dev-db/hsqldb-1.8'   : {
+   'DEPEND' : 'virtual/jdk',
+   'RDEPEND' : 'virtual/jre',
+   },
+   }
+
+   binpkgs = {
+   'dev-db/hsqldb-1.8'   : {
+   'DEPEND' : 'virtual/jdk',
+   'RDEPEND' : 'virtual/jre',
+   },
+   }
+
+   test_cases = (
+   # Test bug 639346, where a redundant jre implementation
+   # was pulled in because DEPEND was evaluated after
+   # RDEPEND.
+   ResolverPlaygroundTestCase(
+   ['dev-db/hsqldb'],
+   success=True,
+   mergelist=[
+   'dev-java/icedtea-3.6',
+   'virtual/jdk-1.8',
+   

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Gerion Entrup
Am Sonntag, 3. Dezember 2017, 22:43:19 CET schrieb Michał Górny:
> W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 21∶30 +0100, użytkownik Dirkjan
> Ochtman napisał:
> > On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> > 
> > > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > > 
> > > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > > 
> > > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> > > 
> > 
> > On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it be
> > better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators who
> > move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold
> > the specific posts if necessary?
> 
> I don't think this is really technically feasible. I don't know if mlmmj
> has the specific feature you're asking for, and even if it did,
> moderation with mlmmj is practically impossible to use. Even for low-
> traffic channel like gentoo-dev-announce@ it's not working well.
> 
> > 
> > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > > 
> > > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
> > > 
> > 
> > I'm not sure this will be worth it. Who exactly do you think is the
> > audience for this mailing list? What is the goal? How is it different from
> > existing mailing lists?
> 
> The audience is expect users who usually don't need basic support
> but instead want to discuss the development of Gentoo and want to have
> some impact on where it goes.
> 
> The main goal is to be able to restore more developers to gentoo-dev@,
> and be able to focus it on feedback and reviews.
> 
> In other words, the goal is that if the attitude on gentoo-expert
> becomes impossible to bear, the developers can unsubscribe from that
> list without actually losing the ability to give feedback on important
> Gentoo issues.
If core Gentoo developers don't read the expert list, I'm not seeing a high
value in such a list.

I'm a long term Gentoo user, but have read this list a few month only, so
correct me, if I'm wrong. I've seen the main usage of this list in three
aspects:
1. Review and discussion of new (technical) features (eclasses, EAPI, package
manager specs).
2. Information about unmaintained packages.
3. Input and proposals from users.

Splitting the list would reduce the meaning of gentoo-dev to the first point.
The second point has to be handled on the expert list (or both lists), so
proxy maintainers can reply. The third point can only be handled on the expert
list, but core developers have to read it, otherwise the whole point would be
meaningless.

In other projects with similar problems but the technical possibility to 
moderate
some "code of conduct" was adopted, so moderators can ban users on that base
for a fixed amount of time.

Gerion


> 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Dirkjan
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Matt Turner
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
>
> A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> create more noise than leaving the issue as is.

That's absurd. "We shouldn't enforce rules because people can break the rules"

> B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> hate speech that carries no value to anyone].

That's absurd. There's no reason to have to tolerate non-constructive
conversation on our own mailing lists. Classify it as off topic. We
tell people their posts are off topic for a particular mailing list
all the time.

> C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].

That's absurd. You have to look at where the problem starts to fix it,
not engage in whataboutism.

> The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
> really solve the problem because:

That's absurd. The whole point of bringing problems to ComRel is so
they can solve it. Telling people to deal with it is explicitly not
solving the problem.


The Gentoo community (not just the developers) would stand to benefit
from a capable and competent ComRel team. It's very sad that we don't
have that.

Unfortunately, my experience is much the same as yours. ComRel
explicitly refused to act when a bug reporter was repeatedly abusive,
instead arguing that he didn't do anything wrong and that I shouldn't
be so offended. Even the user disagreed with ComRel, apologizing and
saying that his own behavior was out of line when I confronted him.
That's absurd.



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu sob, 02.12.2017 o godzinie 19∶33 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1
napisał:
> Hello,
> 
> In every mailing list conversation, there are at least three people:
> the two conversing, and the future reader. I point this out as I think
> it important that everyone realize that not all posts are written for
> those immediately participating in the conversation.
> 
> Some time ago I was offered some equipment due to my history of
> open-source contributions to a variety of projects. I asked the donor
> to forward it (or money) to the Gentoo foundation, but they declined,
> citing a general distaste for the management of software projects in
> general and specific issues they believed existed within Gentoo.

I'm not sure if this is relevant to the topic at hand. There are many
issues within Gentoo. I'm trying to address one of them.

> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> > Hello, everyone.
> > 
> > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> > 
> 
> If you have in fact discussed this off list with people who agree, I
> think it is important that you invite them to comment. Not only will
> it show support for what you have detailed, it will allow them to
> explain the problems they have in greater detail, so that perhaps a
> solution that does not involve restricting list access could be found.

This sentence merely focuses on 'don't shoot the messenger' part which
will happen anyway. Those people won't come here to '+1' the proposal
because this mailing list is not supposed to be about mail popularity
contests.

Also because they don't want to be targeted by people misbehaving here.
In fact, a number of them already pinged me today privately showing
support, and some of them told me exactly that -- that they don't want
to become a target of aggression. A few participants of this mailing
list have shown harassment towards people that stood up to them --
including constant insults on various public and private channels.

> 
> It may be that I am misunderstanding your language, but what you have
> presented does not leave many things open for discussion. It seems
> like what you have presented is to be either accepted or rejected as
> is. Seeing as my opinion does not matter, it further seems like it
> will simply be accepted as is.

I simply don't believe that after so many iterations there's any more
option that hasn't been tried or rejected already.

> > 
> > Problems
> > 
> > 
> > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> > 
> > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> > person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
> > 
> 
> No one has any right to not be offended. If Gentoo developers are
> receiving criticism for their behavior, then perhaps it would be best
> that they critically analyze their actions and the effect that they
> have on other people.
> 
> As far as I am aware most developers never get harassed and go quietly
> on about their business. I have even asked some questions similar to
> the questions I have asked on this list that people have felt were
> adversarial. However, these developers didn't seem to mind my
> questions and spent 5 minutes or so of their time on a response.
> 
> > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> > in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
> > you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
> > 
> 
> Does the list have a digest subscription option? I find that extremely
> helpful for one list I am subscribed to (Perl6 development) which is
> very high volume. On the other hand, lots of offtopic chatter would
> still be hard to sort through, but I think it needs to be considered
> whether the chatter the list currently receives is truly off topic.
> What if it is simply concerns or subjects that the OP did not want to
> consider? Does that make it off topic? Is the problem more involved
> than previously thought?
> 
> > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> > resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
> > 
> 
> 

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: Dead Qt4-based games-*/

2017-12-03 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 20∶54 +, użytkownik James Le
Cuirot napisał:
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 20:41:56 +0100
> Andreas Sturmlechner  wrote:
> 
> > # Andreas Sturmlechner  (03 Dec 2017)
> > # Dead upstreams, depending on dead qt3support/qt4.
> > # Masked for removal in 30 days. Bug #631788
> > ...
> > games-kids/crayon-physics
> 
> This is a commercial game that I have played in the past and still have
> installed. I think you have to take special consideration over packages
> for things that people have paid money for. You can't so easily say
> "Oh just play another game then." You also can't expect "upstream" to
> address the issue. We have sometimes left vulnerable commercial games
> masked in the tree but in this case, the offender is the Qt4
> dependency. I'm guessing that we won't be leaving Qt4 masked in the
> tree so I'm not sure what to suggest. The game does bundle some
> libraries but Qt4 isn't one of them, not that that would be a great
> idea anyway.
> 
> I wondered if this would also affect Steam but Qt isn't in the
> Ubuntu-based runtime so any game using it would need to bundle it with
> the game itself. I haven't come across any other commercial games using
> Qt but this proves that there is at least one.
> 

Short answer: overlay.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny




Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 21∶30 +0100, użytkownik Dirkjan
Ochtman napisał:
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> 
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > 
> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > 
> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> > 
> 
> On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it be
> better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators who
> move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold
> the specific posts if necessary?

I don't think this is really technically feasible. I don't know if mlmmj
has the specific feature you're asking for, and even if it did,
moderation with mlmmj is practically impossible to use. Even for low-
traffic channel like gentoo-dev-announce@ it's not working well.

> 
> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > 
> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
> > 
> 
> I'm not sure this will be worth it. Who exactly do you think is the
> audience for this mailing list? What is the goal? How is it different from
> existing mailing lists?

The audience is expect users who usually don't need basic support
but instead want to discuss the development of Gentoo and want to have
some impact on where it goes.

The main goal is to be able to restore more developers to gentoo-dev@,
and be able to focus it on feedback and reviews.

In other words, the goal is that if the attitude on gentoo-expert
becomes impossible to bear, the developers can unsubscribe from that
list without actually losing the ability to give feedback on important
Gentoo issues.

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dirkjan

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny




Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 20∶19 +0100, użytkownik Róbert
Čerňanský napisał:
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 00:18:04 +0100
> Michał Górny  wrote:
> 
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > 
> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > 
> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> > 
> > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > 
> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has
> > now.
> 
> Hi Michał,
> 
> I fully understand and support the need of pure dev to dev
> mailing list.  On the other side I also see the need for an official
> (mailing list) channel through which users can reach developers.  And
> with the proposed change we (users) loose that channel.  I am not sure
> if gentoo-expert was meant to be such channel; if not could you please
> consider it?  If yes then I think gentoo-dev-user or gentoo-user-dev
> would be more appropriate name.
> 

The best way to reach specific Gentoo developers is through Bugzilla.
This gives the best chance for focused discussion on the specific issue
without unnecessary distraction for other developers who are not
interested in the specific topic.

And yes, gentoo-expert would be a secondary way of reaching developers
in specific technical topics. However, depending on the atmosphere
around the new channel some developers may decide not to use it (much
like they choose to ignore -dev currently).

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny




Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 19∶34 +0100, użytkownik Vincent-Xavier 
JUMEL napisał:
> Hello there,
> 
> Le 03 décembre à 00:18 Michał Górny a écrit
> > Hello, everyone.
> > 
> > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> > 
> > 
> > Problems
> > 
> > 
> > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> > 
> 
> I've been a Gentoo user and gentoo-dev@ mailing list subscriber for
> around ten years and some of your action and decision bother me a lot.
> This one seems to be one of the last and I'm considering quitting Gentoo
> in favour of some other and more friendly place.
> 
> I've been wondering for year if it was worth becoming a “official”
> Gentoo developer or if maintaining my own (maybe crappy but usefull)
> ebuilds in my repo was sufficient.

I'm sorry that you feel this way but I respect your choice.

> Instead of dealing with everyone in a blow that could send away
> (expert) users, maybe you could deal only with the nay-sayers that you
> speak of.

Multiple people have tried, and as explained in the long rationale we
haven't had any success. If you have a constructive ideas how to solve
the problem otherwise, we're open to hear them. That's the whole purpose
of this thread.

> In my opinion, I mostly find your work admirable but your answers non
> constructive, and full of insults too.

Truth is, people change in toxic environments. I can't solve all
the problems immediately but I believe this is the first step towards
improving things, also in myself and other developers having problems.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny




Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 09:30:36PM +0100, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> 
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> >
> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> >
> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> >
> 
> On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it be
> better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators who
> move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold
> the specific posts if necessary?

I prefer this approach, I'm not in favor of closing -dev and -project.
However, I don't see anything wrong with putting specific users on
moderation for a while as long as the mailing list software we have can
support doing this.

> 
> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> >
> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
> >
> 
> I'm not sure this will be worth it. Who exactly do you think is the
> audience for this mailing list? What is the goal? How is it different from
> existing mailing lists?

In particular, how is it different from gentoo-user? There's nothing
stopping devs from subscribing there.

Thanks,

William



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 13∶52 -0500, użytkownik Alec Warner
napisał:
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:
> 
> > Hello, everyone.
> > 
> > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> > 
> > 
> > Problems
> > 
> > 
> > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> > 
> > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> > person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
> > 
> > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> > in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
> > you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
> > 
> > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> > resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
> > 
> > 
> > All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
> > use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> > demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> > either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> > activity.
> > 
> > For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> > and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> > of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
> 
> 
> > 
> > Proposal
> > 
> > 
> > Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> > establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
> > 
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > 
> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > 
> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> 
> 
> > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > 
> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
> > 
> > 
> > Rationale
> > =
> > 
> > I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> > would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
> > options to no avail.
> > 
> > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
> > 
> > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> > create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
> > 
> > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> > hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
> > 
> > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
> > 
> 
> A B and C would equally apply to the "gentoo-dev" list you are proposing.
> The only difference is
> that there is some 'vetting' process for people who are allowed to post.
> But lets say hyptothetically
> Alec is an active contributor and is posting spammily to the gentoo-dev
> list. If ComRel will not take any action
> (due to A B and C) what is the difference to the status quo?

Well, I believe the main difference is that the approval process makes
it harder to evade a ban.

If you need a voice, you need to get a developer to vouch for you.
If you have just been banned, you won't immediately regain the access
for the same identity. And unless you've actively maintaining a second
identity for yourself, you won't get immediate access to evade the ban.

Yes, it only solves the problem temporarily. However, 'temporarily' is
sometimes enough to avoid the immediate 'shitstorm' (I'm sorry for
lacking a better word for it) that results in some people not being able
to accept their ban.

As for point B, I believe that there is also a serious difference when
the user is pointed to another channel where he can 

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Damo Brisbane
"suspicious of" to strong a word - "wary of" !

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Damo Brisbane  wrote:

> As a relative newbie I wonder about the format generally of the lists,
> however "unbroken", I would be concerned about a dated look. Also, IMO
> anything requiring "manual restructuring" - verses automation - I am a
> little suspicious of. If dumb stuff is coming through, why cant the good
> stuff be automatically curated and presented on top of existing lists? ie
> run a PoC, curated content targeting mobile users. From there drivers may
> emerge for incorporating updates or come back to suggestions herein.
>
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:
>
>> Hello, everyone.
>>
>> This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
>> seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
>> a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
>> and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
>>
>>
>> Problems
>> 
>>
>> Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
>> project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
>> beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
>> of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
>>
>> 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
>> pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
>> be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
>> person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
>>
>> 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
>> I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
>> really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
>> in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
>> you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
>>
>> 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
>> the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
>> everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
>> resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
>>
>>
>> All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
>> use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
>> demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
>> either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
>> activity.
>>
>> For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
>> and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
>> of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
>>
>>
>> Proposal
>> 
>>
>> Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
>> establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
>>
>> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
>> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
>>
>> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
>>
>> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
>> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
>>
>> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
>> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
>>
>> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
>>
>>
>> Rationale
>> =
>>
>> I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
>> would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
>> options to no avail.
>>
>> The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
>> members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
>> of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
>> the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
>>
>> A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
>> create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
>>
>> B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
>> hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
>>
>> C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
>> lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
>>
>>
>> The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
>> the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
>> now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
>> really solve the problem because:
>>
>> I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
>> nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
>> to themselves.
>>
>> II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
>> be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
>> be lured into discussing with them.
>>
>> III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad 

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Damo Brisbane
As a relative newbie I wonder about the format generally of the lists,
however "unbroken", I would be concerned about a dated look. Also, IMO
anything requiring "manual restructuring" - verses automation - I am a
little suspicious of. If dumb stuff is coming through, why cant the good
stuff be automatically curated and presented on top of existing lists? ie
run a PoC, curated content targeting mobile users. From there drivers may
emerge for incorporating updates or come back to suggestions herein.

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:

> Hello, everyone.
>
> This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
>
>
> Problems
> 
>
> Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
>
> 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
>
> 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
> you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
>
> 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
>
>
> All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
> use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> activity.
>
> For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
>
>
> Proposal
> 
>
> Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
>
> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
>
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
>
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
>
> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
>
> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
>
>
> Rationale
> =
>
> I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
> options to no avail.
>
> The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
>
> A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
>
> B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
>
> C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
>
>
> The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
> really solve the problem because:
>
> I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
> nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
> to themselves.
>
> II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
> be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
> be lured into discussing with them.
>
> III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
> silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
> the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
> as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
>
>
> Yet another 

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: Dead Qt4-based games-*/

2017-12-03 Thread James Le Cuirot
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 20:41:56 +0100
Andreas Sturmlechner  wrote:

> # Andreas Sturmlechner  (03 Dec 2017)
> # Dead upstreams, depending on dead qt3support/qt4.
> # Masked for removal in 30 days. Bug #631788
> ...
> games-kids/crayon-physics

This is a commercial game that I have played in the past and still have
installed. I think you have to take special consideration over packages
for things that people have paid money for. You can't so easily say
"Oh just play another game then." You also can't expect "upstream" to
address the issue. We have sometimes left vulnerable commercial games
masked in the tree but in this case, the offender is the Qt4
dependency. I'm guessing that we won't be leaving Qt4 masked in the
tree so I'm not sure what to suggest. The game does bundle some
libraries but Qt4 isn't one of them, not that that would be a great
idea anyway.

I wondered if this would also affect Steam but Qt isn't in the
Ubuntu-based runtime so any game using it would need to bundle it with
the game itself. I haven't come across any other commercial games using
Qt but this proves that there is at least one.

-- 
James Le Cuirot (chewi)
Gentoo Linux Developer


pgpFwMUAG9b_e.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Dirkjan Ochtman
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Michał Górny  wrote:

> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
>
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
>
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
>

On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it be
better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators who
move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold
the specific posts if necessary?

2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
>
> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
>

I'm not sure this will be worth it. Who exactly do you think is the
audience for this mailing list? What is the goal? How is it different from
existing mailing lists?

Cheers,

Dirkjan


[gentoo-dev] Last rites: Dead Qt4-based games-*/

2017-12-03 Thread Andreas Sturmlechner
# Andreas Sturmlechner  (03 Dec 2017)
# Dead upstreams, depending on dead qt3support/qt4.
# Masked for removal in 30 days. Bug #631788
games-board/capicity
games-board/kcheckers
games-board/qgo
games-board/holdingnuts
games-board/qcheckers
games-emulation/virtualjaguar
games-emulation/dboxfe
games-kids/cubetest
games-kids/crayon-physics
games-misc/ggencoder
games-misc/qlife
games-puzzle/bubble-chains
games-puzzle/jag






Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Róbert Čerňanský
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 00:18:04 +0100
Michał Górny  wrote:

> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> 
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> 
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> 
> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> 
> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has
> now.

Hi Michał,

I fully understand and support the need of pure dev to dev
mailing list.  On the other side I also see the need for an official
(mailing list) channel through which users can reach developers.  And
with the proposed change we (users) loose that channel.  I am not sure
if gentoo-expert was meant to be such channel; if not could you please
consider it?  If yes then I think gentoo-dev-user or gentoo-user-dev
would be more appropriate name.

Best regards,
Robert


-- 
Róbert Čerňanský
E-mail: ope...@tightmail.com
Jabber: h...@jabber.sk



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Alec Warner
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:

> Hello, everyone.
>
> This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
>
>
> Problems
> 
>
> Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
>
> 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
>
> 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
> you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
>
> 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
>
>
> All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
> use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> activity.
>
> For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!


>
> Proposal
> 
>
> Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
>
> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
>
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
>
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.


> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
>
> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
>
>
> Rationale
> =
>
> I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
> options to no avail.
>
> The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
>
> A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
>
> B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
>
> C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
>

A B and C would equally apply to the "gentoo-dev" list you are proposing.
The only difference is
that there is some 'vetting' process for people who are allowed to post.
But lets say hyptothetically
Alec is an active contributor and is posting spammily to the gentoo-dev
list. If ComRel will not take any action
(due to A B and C) what is the difference to the status quo?

This isn't to say I advocate against trying, but it might just end up the
same as today.


>
> The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
> really solve the problem because:
>
> I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
> nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
> to themselves.
>
> II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
> be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
> be lured into discussing with them.
>
> III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
> silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
> the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
> as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
>

So now we only silently consent to misbehavior on mailing lists 

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread Vincent-Xavier JUMEL
Hello there,

Le 03 décembre à 00:18 Michał Górny a écrit
> Hello, everyone.
> 
> This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> 
> 
> Problems
> 
> 
> Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> 
I've been a Gentoo user and gentoo-dev@ mailing list subscriber for
around ten years and some of your action and decision bother me a lot.
This one seems to be one of the last and I'm considering quitting Gentoo
in favour of some other and more friendly place.

I've been wondering for year if it was worth becoming a “official”
Gentoo developer or if maintaining my own (maybe crappy but usefull)
ebuilds in my repo was sufficient.

Instead of dealing with everyone in a blow that could send away
(expert) users, maybe you could deal only with the nay-sayers that you
speak of.

In my opinion, I mostly find your work admirable but your answers non
constructive, and full of insults too.
-- 
Vincent-Xavier JUMEL Id: https://keybase.io/vincentxavier 
https://blog.thetys-retz.net

Société Libre, Logiciel Libre http://www.april.org/adherer
Parinux, logiciel libre à Paris : http://www.parinux.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

2017-12-03 Thread kuzetsa
1 / 1b seems reasonable for mitigating signal/noise issues.

(previously unaware non-dev subscribers //currently// could post)


On 12/02/2017 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> ...establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
>
> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
>
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] xtermTitle: support st (simple terminal)

2017-12-03 Thread Christoph Böhmwalder
Currently users of suckless' simple terminal have to rely on ugly hacks
like this in order to make portage display merging progress in the
terminals title bar:

alias emerge="TERM=xterm emerge"

Officially support st by adding it to the list of legal terminals.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Böhmwalder 
---
 pym/portage/output.py | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/pym/portage/output.py b/pym/portage/output.py
index 6d8c6324a..05aa7ba5c 100644
--- a/pym/portage/output.py
+++ b/pym/portage/output.py
@@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ def nc_len(mystr):
tmp = re.sub(esc_seq + "^m]+m", "", mystr);
return len(tmp)
 
-_legal_terms_re = 
re.compile(r'^(xterm|xterm-color|Eterm|aterm|rxvt|screen|kterm|rxvt-unicode|gnome|interix|tmux)')
+_legal_terms_re = 
re.compile(r'^(xterm|xterm-color|Eterm|aterm|rxvt|screen|kterm|rxvt-unicode|gnome|interix|tmux|st)')
 _disable_xtermTitle = None
 _max_xtermTitle_len = 253
 
-- 
2.15.1




[gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-office/qchartdiary, x11-misc/qtnotifydaemon, x11-plugins/qled

2017-12-03 Thread Andreas Sturmlechner
# Andreas Sturmlechner  (03 Dec 2017)
# Dead upstream, depends on dead qt4.
# Masked for removal in 30 days. Bug #639254
x11-misc/qtnotifydaemon

# Andreas Sturmlechner  (03 Dec 2017)
# Dead upstream, depends on dead qt4.
# Masked for removal in 30 days. Bug #637098
app-office/qchartdiary

# Andreas Sturmlechner  (03 Dec 2017)
# Dead upstream, depends on dead qt4.
# Masked for removal in 30 days. Bug #638688
x11-plugins/qled