Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
David Leverton wrote:
On Thursday 19 June 2008 01:23:33 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Considering that the most recent official release is 2008.0_beta2, I
don't see where you have a point, at all.
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/#doc_chap5
The latest release of Gentoo Linux is:
Gentoo Linux 2007.0 for Alpha, AMD64, HPPA, IA64, MIPS, PPC, S390, SH, SPARC,
and x86 architectures.
2007.0 is also the first version listed at
http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/where.xml
Good point, doc team please update those places.
The point is to avoid breaking Portage versions that users might reasonably be
using, even if only briefly. Do you really expect /all/ users doing a new
installation to choose the scary beta instead of the nice safe release?
What about those who do not update since 1.0? how could they survive the
havoc?
Well I do have my opinion about this:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero/glep/migrationpath.rst
IFF we would like to be _that_ helpful for such minority of users.
Otherwise isn't that hard update portage in safe mode anyway.
Trying to make HUGE MONSTERS of little corner case is the favorite sport
of Ciaranm and crew, be it a beta tag, an obscure feature some
developers may like for tracking live sources (and the user should not
use), possible fut{ure,ile} changes in the ebuild format.
lu - putting in perspective
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:22 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
David Leverton wrote:
On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.
There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason applies
to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS doesn't allow
them. There's no evil conspiracy here, just pure logic.
Care to share the logic and wise reasoning ?
[ ${IDEA_ORIGIN} != Ciaran ] die
I tend to agree.
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
David Leverton wrote: On Thursday 19 June 2008 04:09:26 George Prowse wrote: In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda Lies and FUD. No maybe it would be best for all if paludis and it's developers were to concentrate on making paludis for a different distro. Trollix may be a good place to start... Oh look, speaking of agendas ...are you issuing a press release for exherbo? lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 8:39 AM, George Prowse wrote: ++ It's about time someone said this and I honestly think that lots of developers will be thinking the same. ++ I'm not a developer, but I'm a Gentoo Summer of Code student[0] so maybe my experience counts for something: I approached this package manager mess with a completely open mind. I did not see any reason why someone would behave the way people were saying the Paludis folk did. I used to idle on both #pkgcore and #paludis, and occasionally contributed in both channels[1][2]. The result however, was a personal verification[3] of what people had been telling me all along. Ciaran deliberately steers threads in a completely non-productive direction[4] for reasons completely beyond me[5]. If I didn't know better I'd think he had been hired by someone to constantly plant seeds of disharmony and chaos within Gentoo. However, one thing is for certain. There is no doubt that his tactics waste everyone's time and energy. ~Nirbheek Chauhan who is quite depressed to see all this. 0. http://tinyurl.com/4plr7c 1. http://pastebin.osuosl.org/8455 2. http://pastebin.osuosl.org/8456 3. http://pastebin.osuosl.org/7939 4. Ciaran's reply (http://tinyurl.com/5sldtc) to Brian's mail (http://tinyurl.com/5zuf7y) and my reply to it (http://tinyurl.com/5l4ddk) 5. http://tinyurl.com/6b5sfb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iEYEARECAAYFAkhaErIACgkQb1z91vbKYbYIewCeO5eYks9Ep1WsqwcGXWMrB2xR XzEAoKdhmPCeixSoDOoK/8fJ+aWm4apc =KcMj -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thursday 19 June 2008 08:41:34 Luca Barbato wrote:
The point is to avoid breaking Portage versions that users might
reasonably be using, even if only briefly. Do you really expect /all/
users doing a new installation to choose the scary beta instead of the
nice safe release?
What about those who do not update since 1.0? how could they survive the
havoc?
Is avoiding a beta version of something moderately important (like, say,
installation media) really equivalent to not updating for over five years?
Trying to make HUGE MONSTERS of little corner case is the favorite sport
of Ciaranm and crew, be it a beta tag, an obscure feature some
developers may like for tracking live sources (and the user should not
use), possible fut{ure,ile} changes in the ebuild format.
Please take the ad hominems elsewhere.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thursday 19 June 2008 08:44:41 Luca Barbato wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:22 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
Care to share the logic and wise reasoning ?
[ ${IDEA_ORIGIN} != Ciaran ] die
I tend to agree.
The reason has already been explained multiple times, kindly stop with the
personal attacks and silly conspiracy theories.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thursday 19 June 2008 08:46:02 Luca Barbato wrote: David Leverton wrote: On Thursday 19 June 2008 04:09:26 George Prowse wrote: In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda Lies and FUD. No Yes. ...are you issuing a press release for exherbo? What the hell does Exherbo have to do with anything? -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:43:12 -0700: Quite frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over the specification that defines the most important single feature of Gentoo and remove the non-Gentoo developers from its development. Leaving the history aside (I posted my personal feelings a week or so ago, no need to rehash), we have a serious practical problem with any proposal to take direct control of PMS and boot the main current contributors. The problem is -- like him or not, and like the problem or not, Ciaran is the ONE person who pushed and pushed on PMS, ultimately got the thing going, and continues to be the prime mover behind it. Now, part of that may be the result of the caustic style, no argument there. However, the fact is, he's and the other paludis folks are putting in the hard time that has to be put in to get the thing done. Nobody else is, either on their repository or on the Gentoo controlled one. In fact, last I knew, the Gentoo one tended not to be up to date and was often going weeks between any action at all (tho talk was of moving the active one to Gentoo hosting, don't know if it ever happened or not). Whatever our disagreements or dislikes for each other, the practical situation is that Ciaran and friends are doing what no one else took time to do, and, were we to forcibly remove them from their current activity on it, I'd put the chances at over 70% it'd end up stagnating pretty fast. That's the problem with scrapping and starting over, too, except even more so. I'd put the chances of a redo project ever reaching even /this/ far at less than 20%. So, while we might not particularly like the persons doing it, if we consider it worthwhile and useful to have done, we pretty much gotta work with them, because they /are/ doing it -- no one else was or is, nor, practically speaking, do I see anybody else having the discipline, time and talent to stick to it and get it done, right, regardless of likes or dislikes. Now, it may indeed be that having a working and adopted PMS or alike document isn't worth the trouble. It's the council, backed by individual devs, that ultimately decides such things. However, I believe it's worthwhile to face the facts, and know that if we /do/ nix this, we're probably nixing the entire idea for some years at least. Whether it's worth it or not I can't say, but that's what we're talking, in terms of cost, one way or the other. We either take this, like or not who doing it, or we don't, and we lose all the benefits, for now and perhaps forever, but also lose the poison. Honestly, I'm glad I'm not one of those having to make that decision. -- 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 -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thursday 19 June 2008 02:43:12 Chris Gianelloni wrote: Nope. What I see as a problem is that the primary author and current de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was forcibly removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to be written for, and has ostracized (at least) one of the package manager's development team with his constant not-so-subtle attacks. Quite frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over the specification that defines the most important single feature of Gentoo and remove the non-Gentoo developers from its development. No offense, but you're not a Gentoo developer any longer and you shouldn't have a say in how *we* manage ourselves. You're more than welcome to contribute code, fork, or whatever the hell you want. This is open source, after all, but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to hold the position of power over Gentoo that you've been granted. I would like to see Gentoo grow some balls and start banning people from -dev and other media used. I don't mean temporary bans, I mean for life. Yes, it's not nice. Yes, Gentoo should be open for all and encourage participation from all. However, some people have demonstrated time and time again over quite a number of years that they wont change no matter what. These people are posionous [1]. Whilst growing this set of balls, consider scrapping PMS I've yet to see any tangiable gain (from a user perspective) but plently of loss (developers, hair, temper). I'm leaving this list as I want no part in this any longer, so I won't read any replies. Thanks Roy [1] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645 -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On 2008-06-19 04:09, George Prowse uttered these thoughts: In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda and force it on both the developers and the users so maybe it would be best for all if paludis and it's developers were to concentrate on making paludis for a different distro. Trollix may be a good place to start... I'm pretty sure they have no leverage what so ever to force the Gentoo community into ANYTHING, so kindly lay off the exaggerations. If you're not happy with the way that PMS is developed, fork it. It's open source. That's the way open source development works; if you're not happy with something, fix it (iow, do the damn work yourself instead of complaining). I'm not a proponent for any side here, but i'm getting mighty fucking irritated of the personal attacks. I know it's impossible for some people, and it's probably an unreachable ideal, but could everyone just think a couple of extra seconds about the technical aspects instead of just lashing out because someone indirectly calls you an idiot when you mess up. -- () The ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against HTML Email /\ and proprietary formats. pgpSHxqxHyegJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Patrick Börjesson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2008-06-19 04:09, George Prowse uttered these thoughts: In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda and force it on both the developers and the users so maybe it would be best for all if paludis and it's developers were to concentrate on making paludis for a different distro. Trollix may be a good place to start... I'm pretty sure they have no leverage what so ever to force the Gentoo community into ANYTHING, so kindly lay off the exaggerations. The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of time and energy since people will *always* reply to them. Even if half the community decides (out of the half that hasn't unsubscribed or left because of them) not to reply to them, someone from the other half will reply, and the thread will again spiral downwards. I recommend seeing (at least) the first 5-10 mins of http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645 (posted by Roy Maples in this same thread) If you're not happy with the way that PMS is developed, fork it. It's open source. That's the way open source development works; if you're not happy with something, fix it (iow, do the damn work yourself instead of complaining). I completely agree. They should stop pushing it in everyone's faces. We all know PMS exists. When the developer community thinks it's ready, council will approve it. I'm not a proponent for any side here, but i'm getting mighty fucking irritated of the personal attacks. I know it's impossible for some people, and it's probably an unreachable ideal, but could everyone just think a couple of extra seconds about the technical aspects instead of just lashing out because someone indirectly calls you an idiot when you mess up. The problem, of course, comes up when one side likes to mix technical replies with personal attacks[1][2][3][4][...]. 1. http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_23e836c773616f0e816f3c421900e1f1.xml 2. http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_3bb49516dc83b9f4d8f80a4e67fa7a84.xml 3,4,... Many many more. I don't intend to waste time searching for them. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:02:13 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of time and energy since people will *always* reply to them. Replies? On a mailing list? Whatever is the world coming to? I completely agree. They should stop pushing it in everyone's faces. We all know PMS exists. When the developer community thinks it's ready, council will approve it. Who's pushing it in everyone's faces? -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM, David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:02:13 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of time and energy since people will *always* reply to them. Replies? On a mailing list? Whatever is the world coming to? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextomy I completely agree. They should stop pushing it in everyone's faces. We all know PMS exists. When the developer community thinks it's ready, council will approve it. Who's pushing it in everyone's faces? Oh great, then I don't expect any more threads about PMS from the authors :) /me marks this reply for further reference -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 14:19, Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM, David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:02:13 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of time and energy since people will *always* reply to them. Replies? On a mailing list? Whatever is the world coming to? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextomy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot -- Richard Brown -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:19:32 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM, David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:02:13 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of time and energy since people will *always* reply to them. Replies? On a mailing list? Whatever is the world coming to? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextomy I really don't see what context in your original post could change the meaning from oh noes, too many posts, it must be a flamewar11! If you'd like to clarify, I'd appreciate that very much. Who's pushing it in everyone's faces? Oh great, then I don't expect any more threads about PMS from the authors :) Posting threads about PMS is not the same as pushing it in everyone's faces. This is the appropriate list to discuss PMS issues, as far as I'm aware. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:56 PM, David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:19:32 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM, David Leverton On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:02:13 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of time and energy since people will *always* reply to them. Replies? On a mailing list? Whatever is the world coming to? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextomy I really don't see what context in your original post could change the meaning from oh noes, too many posts, it must be a flamewar11! If you'd like to clarify, I'd appreciate that very much. I meant oh noes, too many posts with the same 3 people replying everywhere and spreading their minority irrelevant opinion as though it really mattered! What a gargantuan waste of time and energy11!~ I mean, you guys don't have *any* control over how Gentoo works anymore. No one wants you all around. More than enough people have wasted their time and energy on you. Far more people have stopped coming onto #gentoo-dev. People who contribute far more than you guys have unsubscribed from the gentoo-dev ML. You guys have made even more people *leave the project*. Stop. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Richard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot This is the second time in 8 days that you are doing this. Please stop filling our inboxes with this puerile trolling. Devrel team: I do appreciate that the Gentoo Way has been to keep the communication channels as open as possible, but a line must be drawn *somewhere*. -- Arun Raghavan (http://nemesis.accosted.net) v2sw5Chw4+5ln4pr6$OFck2ma4+9u8w3+1!m?l7+9GSCKi056 e6+9i4b8/9HTAen4+5g4/8APa2Xs8r1/2p5-8 hackerkey.com -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:52:01 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: oh noes, too many posts with the same 3 people replying everywhere and spreading their minority irrelevant opinion as though it really mattered! What a gargantuan waste of time and energy11!~ If you disagree with people's opinions, then you should try to convince them otherwise, not say minority, STFU. I mean, you guys don't have *any* control over how Gentoo works anymore. No one wants you all around. More than enough people have wasted their time and energy on you. Far more people have stopped coming onto #gentoo-dev. People who contribute far more than you guys have unsubscribed from the gentoo-dev ML. You guys have made even more people *leave the project*. If people can't tell the difference between flaming and disagreeing, that's their problem. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On 2008-06-19 18:32, Nirbheek Chauhan uttered these thoughts: On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Patrick Börjesson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2008-06-19 04:09, George Prowse uttered these thoughts: In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda and force it on both the developers and the users so maybe it would be best for all if paludis and it's developers were to concentrate on making paludis for a different distro. Trollix may be a good place to start... I'm pretty sure they have no leverage what so ever to force the Gentoo community into ANYTHING, so kindly lay off the exaggerations. The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of time and energy since people will *always* reply to them. Even if half the community decides (out of the half that hasn't unsubscribed or left because of them) not to reply to them, someone from the other half will reply, and the thread will again spiral downwards. So how is that the Paludis guys fault? If you don't even expect your guys (ie. official Gentoo Developers) to handle a conversation over a mailinglist in a decent manner, how can you expect that from anyone else? I recommend seeing (at least) the first 5-10 mins of http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645 (posted by Roy Maples in this same thread) Oh, I watched the entire thing, thank you. And from it i came to the conclusion that the Paludis folk aren't the ones being more poisonous. Sure, Ciaran can be an asshat at times, but he also brings up valid points most of the time (and by most i mean extremely close to always). The closest point of the Identification part of that presentation that I could find applying to Ciaran would be Attempts to deliberately rile people, which doesn't even apply since he's personally insulting single individuals when he does it, and not the entire community. If you're not happy with the way that PMS is developed, fork it. It's open source. That's the way open source development works; if you're not happy with something, fix it (iow, do the damn work yourself instead of complaining). I completely agree. They should stop pushing it in everyone's faces. We all know PMS exists. When the developer community thinks it's ready, council will approve it. How exactly are they pushing it in everyone's faces? Actually, there's not much mension of PMS at all from the people actually working on PMS, but rather mension of EAPI. And that's when it's actually relevant. And EAPI _was_ deemed relevant quite a while back if i remember right (can't link to a specific discussion). And how exactly is the developer community going get to the point when they think it's ready without any discussion about it? I'm not a proponent for any side here, but i'm getting mighty fucking irritated of the personal attacks. I know it's impossible for some people, and it's probably an unreachable ideal, but could everyone just think a couple of extra seconds about the technical aspects instead of just lashing out because someone indirectly calls you an idiot when you mess up. The problem, of course, comes up when one side likes to mix technical replies with personal attacks[1][2][3][4][...]. 1. http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_23e836c773616f0e816f3c421900e1f1.xml 2. http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_3bb49516dc83b9f4d8f80a4e67fa7a84.xml 3,4,... Many many more. I don't intend to waste time searching for them. So you expect one side of the interraction (Ciaran in this case) to just sit silently and accept the insults, while he on the other hand can't say shit? Double standards anyone? -- () The ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against HTML Email /\ and proprietary formats. pgpedeqowdikt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:06:21 +0100 David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The reason has already been explained multiple times, kindly stop with the personal attacks and silly conspiracy theories. In this case the attacks seem to be targeting a person who has been attacking an entire ~300 person project for a few years now. I honestly don't see how you are contributing to this project in general, or in particular how you intend to contribute to this project by protecting ciaranm against this project. JeR PS: I wanted to respond to many more of your comments, but then I always thought: who is this man anyway and does he perhaps contribute to Gentoo in some obscure way? Now I tend to think you don't. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:11:11 +0100 Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 19 June 2008 02:43:12 Chris Gianelloni wrote: Nope. What I see as a problem is that the primary author and current de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was forcibly removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to be written for, and has ostracized (at least) one of the package manager's development team with his constant not-so-subtle attacks. Quite frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over the specification that defines the most important single feature of Gentoo and remove the non-Gentoo developers from its development. No offense, but you're not a Gentoo developer any longer and you shouldn't have a say in how *we* manage ourselves. You're more than welcome to contribute code, fork, or whatever the hell you want. This is open source, after all, but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to hold the position of power over Gentoo that you've been granted. I would like to see Gentoo grow some balls and start banning people from -dev and other media used. I don't mean temporary bans, I mean for life. Yes, it's not nice. Yes, Gentoo should be open for all and encourage participation from all. However, some people have demonstrated time and time again over quite a number of years that they wont change no matter what. These people are posionous [1]. Slightly ironic for me to suggest this, but... It is the gentoo-dev mailing list, restrict posting to gentoo devs (i.e. only people with a @gentoo.org email address) would make a lot of sense. Rob. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 18:28 +0100, Robert Bridge wrote: On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:11:11 +0100 Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 19 June 2008 02:43:12 Chris Gianelloni wrote: Nope. What I see as a problem is that the primary author and current de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was forcibly removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to be written for, and has ostracized (at least) one of the package manager's development team with his constant not-so-subtle attacks. Quite frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over the specification that defines the most important single feature of Gentoo and remove the non-Gentoo developers from its development. No offense, but you're not a Gentoo developer any longer and you shouldn't have a say in how *we* manage ourselves. You're more than welcome to contribute code, fork, or whatever the hell you want. This is open source, after all, but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to hold the position of power over Gentoo that you've been granted. I would like to see Gentoo grow some balls and start banning people from -dev and other media used. I don't mean temporary bans, I mean for life. Yes, it's not nice. Yes, Gentoo should be open for all and encourage participation from all. However, some people have demonstrated time and time again over quite a number of years that they wont change no matter what. These people are posionous [1]. Slightly ironic for me to suggest this, but... It is the gentoo-dev mailing list, restrict posting to gentoo devs (i.e. only people with a @gentoo.org email address) would make a lot of sense. Not really. It's there for general discussion of development matters, not developer matters. Some of the most interesting posts are from non-developers. gentoo-core is restricted. Rob. Regards, Ferris -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thursday 19 June 2008 18:06:17 Jeroen Roovers wrote: In this case the attacks seem to be targeting a person who has been attacking an entire ~300 person project for a few years now. Is it considered acceptable to attack someone as long as the attacker thinks they deserve it? I honestly don't see how you are contributing to this project in general, Well, I'm no vapier, but I have filed the occasional bug, submitted the occasional patch, that sort of thing. or in particular how you intend to contribute to this project by protecting ciaranm against this project. 21:28 dberkholz@ jmbsvicetto: bheekling did an outstanding job of stepping in on that thread and one or two others. he's setting a great role model for what the rest of us should do 21:30 jmbsvicett let me read the mails again. 21:30 Ford_Prefe I guess peer-directed intolerance for bad behaviour is really the ideal solution for this 21:30 jmbsvicett skim* 21:33 jmbsvicett dberkholz: hmm, I can't find any mesage from bheekling on the -dev ml. Different name on the from address? 21:33 Ford_Prefe http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_4211dc4054de30f2ff52f6f8a2e2466e.xml might be it 21:33 rane Nirbheek 21:34 dberkholz@ yeah, that's him. 21:34 Ford_Prefe (name is right, this might be the thread dberkholz is referring to) 21:34 rane or sth like that 21:34 rane no idea if it's his real name 21:34 jmbsvicett thanks 21:34 dberkholz@ the specific post i had in mind was a wikipedia reference to flames and personal attacks 21:35 rane yeah, this new idea of people telling others they are behaving like jerks 21:35 rane it looks like it worked 21:35 Ford_Prefe Indeed 21:40 rane silent majority stepping in and kicking ass 21:40 rane a great idea indeed 21:47 Ford_Prefe Maybe we can have a won't-tolerate-bad-behaviour pledge. :P -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Arun Raghavan wrote: | On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Richard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot | | This is the second time in 8 days that you are doing this. Please stop | filling our inboxes with this puerile trolling. | | Devrel team: I do appreciate that the Gentoo Way has been to keep the | communication channels as open as possible, but a line must be drawn | *somewhere*. Hello. The userrel team has decided to request a 5 day ban to the -dev ml for rbrown for his repeated misbehaviour, as noticed above, and that' now in place. - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / SPARC / KDE -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkhaxXkACgkQcAWygvVEyAITtACbBf2V4PVlQFIRCDyw7Kq6M61L F1kAniSQm9B2Q35fwWec0ERe38dnR0l3 =zj14 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:45:45 + Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The userrel team has decided to request a 5 day ban to the -dev ml for rbrown for his repeated misbehaviour, as noticed above, and that' now in place. It's good to see the userrel team is active. Will you be looking at bug 228321 sometime soon please? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Luca Barbato wrote: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/#doc_chap5 The latest release of Gentoo Linux is: Gentoo Linux 2007.0 for Alpha, AMD64, HPPA, IA64, MIPS, PPC, S390, SH, SPARC, and x86 architectures. Good point, doc team please update those places. The GDP has zero control over /proj/en/releng (well, in fact any developer can commit to that area, but you generally aren't supposed to change a project's web page without their approval). This document is maintained by releng. Additionally, if you really expect any action from us (the GDP), please file a bug. We don't read every thread on the -dev ML. Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub more beer /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Jeroen Roovers wrote: PS: I wanted to respond to many more of your comments, but then I always thought: who is this man anyway and does he perhaps contribute to Gentoo in some obscure way? Now I tend to think you don't. David seems to be a PMS contributor [1]. Cheers, -jkt [1] http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git -- cd /local/pub more beer /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Jan Kundrát wrote: The GDP has zero control over /proj/en/releng (well, in fact any developer can commit to that area, but you generally aren't supposed to change a project's web page without their approval). This document is maintained by releng. Ok Additionally, if you really expect any action from us (the GDP), please file a bug. We don't read every thread on the -dev ML. I bugged the releng =) lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:14 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: But some EAPI-0 accepting Portage versions don't accept inline comments. Using inline comments in the tree will break those Portage versions. Yes, and EAPI=0 accepting Portage versions also didn't accept things like package.use and use.mask in the profiles, considering that EAPI=0 doesn't have a set definition and was based upon a particular portage version that did have the required support. So should we ban those from the tree, too? Oh yeah, PMS isn't approved, anyway, so there's no policy *at all* within Gentoo that denies a package manager from being used that doesn't conform to your idea of how things should work. This one's especially an issue when you consider how long it's been since Gentoo has released official stage tarballs... Wow. Your second stab at my team in 3 days, without me even responding. I should probably be blushing if it weren't for the fact that I really don't give a damn about you or anything that you say. Quite honestly, the same goes for pretty much anybody who works with you. You are a poisonous person to Gentoo and I sincerely wish that some day people around here will grow a pair and realize that your incessant self-absorbed bullshit simply isn't something we really want around here. I mean, we've already thrown out you and three of your cronies because your attitude sucks and you're all a pain in the ass to work with. What exactly do we need to do here? Ban you all? I find it massively amusing that most of the traffic on this list over the past 3 days has come from people that have been *FORCIBLY* removed from the Gentoo project. Oh yeah, don't bother responding to me. I've decided to put you and all of your little cohorts into my killfile so I no longer have to read your constant barrage of bullshit. Seriously, you're a complete fucking waste. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Games Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:22 +0100, David Leverton wrote: PS: An example of something in PMS that is different from Portage: inline comments are disallowed. The only reason I can think for doing this is to not make Paludis change it's behaviour. Fortunately you don't have to think, you can just read Ciaran's explanation. Yes, because we all should stop thinking for ourselves and let Ciaran tell us what to think. After all, we all want to be like the cool Paludis developers. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Games Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:22 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
David Leverton wrote:
On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.
There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason
applies
to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS doesn't allow
them. There's no evil conspiracy here, just pure logic.
Care to share the logic and wise reasoning ?
[ ${IDEA_ORIGIN} != Ciaran ] die
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:23 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Did you check whether Portage that's included in current Gentoo releases supports inline comments in profiles? Yeah, the version in 2008.0_beta2 surely does. Perhaps you meant something else? Well, either that, or you're just posting more of your bullshit where you obscure or otherwise lie about the facts to suit yourself. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Games Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:27 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Well, then it should be updated to match current Portage behaviour. PMS is not supposed to document How portage worked at one point of time or The intersection of the capabilities of Portage and Paludis. It should follow the current portage's behaviour as closely as possible. Do you really want to make it impossible to install Gentoo using the most recent official release? Because that's what will happen if we do what you're suggesting... Considering that the most recent official release is 2008.0_beta2, I don't see where you have a point, at all. Sure, you're going to mention something about being labeled a beta, to which my response will be that you're simply backpedaling and changing the facts to suit your needs. After all, looking at /releases on the mirrors, I see a nice and shiny 2008.0_beta2 on all of the officially-supported arches. Isn't it about time that you gave up on your little mission to consistently undermine the hard work put in by a community of volunteers? Of course not... You need to stroke your ego some more. Pfft... -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Games Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:44 +, Duncan wrote: Ciaran's right on this one. It may have been a bug in portage, now fixed, but at least until a stable current release media set, a working PMS can't change the EAPI-0 definition to fail with portage on the old release media, however stale it might be. If a current release happens before PMS EAPI-0 finalization, this could possibly be subject to debate, but until then, it just doesn't work, however much we might wish it could. No, he isn't. For one, we're talking make.conf, not the profiles. Second, there's a newer official (and stable) media set. Sorry if you don't like the beta moniker, which applies to the media set. After all, does a package suddenly become less stable because it is included in a tarball that has beta in the *FILE NAME* ? I don't think so. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Games Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 15:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the proportion of patches from 'Portage people' or 'Pkgcore people' indicates a problem? Nope. What I see as a problem is that the primary author and current de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was forcibly removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to be written for, and has ostracized (at least) one of the package manager's development team with his constant not-so-subtle attacks. Quite frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over the specification that defines the most important single feature of Gentoo and remove the non-Gentoo developers from its development. No offense, but you're not a Gentoo developer any longer and you shouldn't have a say in how *we* manage ourselves. You're more than welcome to contribute code, fork, or whatever the hell you want. This is open source, after all, but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to hold the position of power over Gentoo that you've been granted. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Games Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 16:04 +0100, David Leverton wrote: On Sunday 15 June 2008 15:42:28 Peter Volkov wrote: For example, currently, PMS team does not include anybody from portage team - official PM team and thus this team can't represent Gentoo interests. The Portage team is perfectly welcome to contribute if they wish. zmedico is on the alias, although he seems to have been focussing on working on Portage itself. genone, from what I've seen, seems to be indifferent at best to the idea of PMS. I'm curious as to why you think the actively contributing members of the PMS team aren't acting in Gentoo's interests, though. Maybe because they were booted from Gentoo for not acting in Gentoo's best interest? -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Games Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Chris++ On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 15:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the proportion of patches from 'Portage people' or 'Pkgcore people' indicates a problem? Nope. What I see as a problem is that the primary author and current de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was forcibly removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to be written for, and has ostracized (at least) one of the package manager's development team with his constant not-so-subtle attacks. Quite frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over the specification that defines the most important single feature of Gentoo and remove the non-Gentoo developers from its development. No offense, but you're not a Gentoo developer any longer and you shouldn't have a say in how *we* manage ourselves. You're more than welcome to contribute code, fork, or whatever the hell you want. This is open source, after all, but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to hold the position of power over Gentoo that you've been granted. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Games Developer -- Mauricio Lima Pilla Polytechnic Center - UCPEL [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://g3pd.ucpel.tche.br/~pilla key 0x37705BE0 I'm just very selective about the reality I choose to accept. -- Calvin
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
++ It's about time someone said this and I honestly think that lots of developers will be thinking the same. In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda and force it on both the developers and the users so maybe it would be best for all if paludis and it's developers were to concentrate on making paludis for a different distro. Trollix may be a good place to start... Mauricio Lima Pilla wrote: Chris++ On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 15:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the proportion of patches from 'Portage people' or 'Pkgcore people' indicates a problem? Nope. What I see as a problem is that the primary author and current de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was forcibly removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to be written for, and has ostracized (at least) one of the package manager's development team with his constant not-so-subtle attacks. Quite frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over the specification that defines the most important single feature of Gentoo and remove the non-Gentoo developers from its development. No offense, but you're not a Gentoo developer any longer and you shouldn't have a say in how *we* manage ourselves. You're more than welcome to contribute code, fork, or whatever the hell you want. This is open source, after all, but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to hold the position of power over Gentoo that you've been granted. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Games Developer -- Mauricio Lima Pilla Polytechnic Center - UCPEL [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://g3pd.ucpel.tche.br/~pilla key 0x37705BE0 I'm just very selective about the reality I choose to accept. -- Calvin -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thursday 19 June 2008 04:09:26 George Prowse wrote: In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda Lies and FUD. maybe it would be best for all if paludis and it's developers were to concentrate on making paludis for a different distro. Trollix may be a good place to start... Oh look, speaking of agendas -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thursday 19 June 2008 01:23:33 Chris Gianelloni wrote: Considering that the most recent official release is 2008.0_beta2, I don't see where you have a point, at all. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/#doc_chap5 The latest release of Gentoo Linux is: Gentoo Linux 2007.0 for Alpha, AMD64, HPPA, IA64, MIPS, PPC, S390, SH, SPARC, and x86 architectures. 2007.0 is also the first version listed at http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/where.xml The point is to avoid breaking Portage versions that users might reasonably be using, even if only briefly. Do you really expect /all/ users doing a new installation to choose the scary beta instead of the nice safe release? Perhaps we all know that the beta is better because it's so much more up to date. Maybe it's even just as stable, if not more so (I wouldn't know, I haven't tried it). But as long as it's labelled beta, at least some people are going to avoid it in favour of 2007.0, and breaking the tree for those people such that they can't upgrade is unacceptable. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
В Чтв, 12/06/2008 в 09:36 +0200, Markus Ullmann пишет: The PMS maintainers were withholding information on compatibility issues they've seen. As such we can't be sure this will pop up again in the future and so I strongly suggest dismissing this as something official for gentoo. Dismissing does not fix PMS. Since PMS requires some specific knowledge about package manager (PM) internals only few people can decide on this matters and do actual work. I think what council could do is to formalize PMS process and thus move from this draft point. By formalizing I mean the following: call for and form PMS team. Team must represent portage developers and could paludis and pkgcore. All suggestions for PMS draft must go into bugzilla and after patch for PMS is created PMS team members should vote on that patch. After voting patch is applied or discarded. Until there are open bugs in bugzilla council can not approve PMS. Of course this is just a sketch of idea. I'm not expanding it and not trying to discuss details at the moment as to make it viable at least one portage developer should support this idea... But even without portage developers this process at least could clear a bit the situation. For example, currently, PMS team does not include anybody from portage team - official PM team and thus this team can't represent Gentoo interests. So until team which will represent Gentoo interests arise, they'll work on PMS bugs and tell us that PMS is ready we should not spend our time discussing PMS and trying to approve it. -- Peter. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:42:28 +0400 Peter Volkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By formalizing I mean the following: call for and form PMS team. Team must represent portage developers and could paludis and pkgcore. All suggestions for PMS draft must go into bugzilla and after patch for PMS is created PMS team members should vote on that patch. After voting patch is applied or discarded. Until there are open bugs in bugzilla council can not approve PMS. How would a voting system be better than the current if anyone doesn't like it, don't commit it until whatever they don't like is fixed process? Do you think that the current proportion of patches that are rejected for PMS inclusion is too high or too low? Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the proportion of patches from 'Portage people' or 'Pkgcore people' indicates a problem? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Sunday 15 June 2008 15:42:28 Peter Volkov wrote: For example, currently, PMS team does not include anybody from portage team - official PM team and thus this team can't represent Gentoo interests. The Portage team is perfectly welcome to contribute if they wish. zmedico is on the alias, although he seems to have been focussing on working on Portage itself. genone, from what I've seen, seems to be indifferent at best to the idea of PMS. I'm curious as to why you think the actively contributing members of the PMS team aren't acting in Gentoo's interests, though. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
В Вск, 15/06/2008 в 15:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет: On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:42:28 +0400 Peter Volkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By formalizing I mean the following: call for and form PMS team. Team must represent portage developers and could paludis and pkgcore. All suggestions for PMS draft must go into bugzilla and after patch for PMS is created PMS team members should vote on that patch. After voting patch is applied or discarded. Until there are open bugs in bugzilla council can not approve PMS. How would a voting system be better than the current if anyone doesn't like it, don't commit it until whatever they don't like is fixed process? Voting makes the process converging. It helps to avoid same arguments in the next cycle of discussions. If you failed to find arguments and convince majority - you have to live with decision which you don't agree with. Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the proportion of patches from 'Portage people' or 'Pkgcore people' indicates a problem? No. Part of the problem is that working group on PMS does not include developers from other PMs. В Вск, 15/06/2008 в 16:04 +0100, David Leverton пишет: zmedico is on the alias, although he seems to have been focussing on working on Portage itself. genone, from what I've seen, seems to be indifferent at best to the idea of PMS. But without their voice I don't see how council could approve PMS. As it was told in this thread at least some parts of PMS does not reflect the things portage works. Thus by silence it's not possible to assume that they agree with PMS. I'm curious as to why you think the actively contributing members of the PMS team aren't acting in Gentoo's interests, though. Actually I don't think so. That's why I don't want to dismiss PMS and I'm looking how to make it official. But as I see asking council another time to discuss PMS does not makes it official... So we should look for other ways to get from situation. Basically what was suggested is to put in one team all three PM developers, but taking into account that sometimes it's hard for them to discuss things - voting should make this working group to proceed. And yes, without portage developers in PMS team (I even think portage developers should have 50% of voices in voting and council to resolve moot situations) I don't think Gentoo could call final PMS official. The reasoning is simple - how we can call PMS official if none of Gentoo portage gurus voiced to support it? And if portage developers are not interested in PMS I don't think council could do something besides trying to convince them or until new portage developer arise and fix/approve PMS... You know the rules: want to change things happen in Gentoo - became active developer. In this case you have to became active portage developer. -- Peter. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:27:35 +0400 Peter Volkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How would a voting system be better than the current if anyone doesn't like it, don't commit it until whatever they don't like is fixed process? Voting makes the process converging. It helps to avoid same arguments in the next cycle of discussions. If you failed to find arguments and convince majority - you have to live with decision which you don't agree with. Please point to specific examples of discussions we've had so far regarding patches for PMS where a consensus has not been reached without having to resort to voting. Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the proportion of patches from 'Portage people' or 'Pkgcore people' indicates a problem? No. Part of the problem is that working group on PMS does not include developers from other PMs. Every patch submitted by developers of other PMs has been accepted. I'm curious as to why you think the actively contributing members of the PMS team aren't acting in Gentoo's interests, though. Actually I don't think so. That's why I don't want to dismiss PMS and I'm looking how to make it official. PMS is already an official Gentoo project. how we can call PMS official if none of Gentoo portage gurus voiced to support it? The people who know Portage and ebuilds best, and who are most aware of the implications of PMS, aren't the Portage developer. Have a read of bug 222721 if you want a perfect example. And if portage developers are not interested in PMS I don't think council could do something besides trying to convince them or until new portage developer arise and fix/approve PMS... You know the rules: want to change things happen in Gentoo - became active developer. In this case you have to became active portage developer. Most of the difficult bits of PMS have an awful lot to do with ebuilds and very little to do with Portage. The Portage developer is more interested in doing other things, and there's no reason to hold PMS up until another person can be given the Portage developer label. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:26:12 +0100: On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:30:54 +0530 Arun Raghavan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And why do you have to be plain insulting about it? Nobody can magically spot every single bug in any piece of code presented to them. In fact it's why the given enough eyes ... adage is one of the bases of open source development. Which is why any responsible person ensures good test coverage. I _honestly_ do not understand why there is so much trouble in simple cooperation amongst adults. I agree entirely. Why the pkgcore people refuse to do basic automated tests is completely beyond me. That may or may not be, but it's beside the point. The point is that a bug was found, that fact was stated, and regardless of other points that could be made, the developer of the code in question was all but forced to call the person who caught the bug God and ask forgiveness for his sin, in ordered to find out what the bug was. Cooperation is understanding that people may have different development methods and reporting the bug as found so it can be fixed, possibly pointing out while doing so how much simpler it would be to find such bugs in the future if an automated test case was created. Cooperation is not forcing them to do it my way now, or at least admit my way's better, before deigning to reveal the bug I know and they don't. If enough bugs happen due to the lack of those tests and they hit enough people, the problem will one way or another take care of itself as the test cases are either provided and integrated somehow some way, or people move on to more stable solutions. If not, perhaps those test cases weren't so vital after all, and fixing the handful of bugs as they appeared ultimately worked just as well as doing all those extra corner-case tests. -- 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 -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:16:57 + (UTC) Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree entirely. Why the pkgcore people refuse to do basic automated tests is completely beyond me. That may or may not be, but it's beside the point. The point is that a bug was found, that fact was stated, and regardless of other points that could be made, the developer of the code in question was all but forced to call the person who caught the bug God and ask forgiveness for his sin, in ordered to find out what the bug was. No no, calling me God won't get anyone anywhere... He was forced to do the kind of extremely basic testing that should have been done before an EAPI 1 accepting package manager was put in the tree. Unfortunately, he then committed a fix and didn't add unit tests to prevent future regressions, nor did he add unit tests to cover the rest of EAPI 1 functionality. There is a big difference between obscure bugs and blatant irresponsibility here. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:30:54 +0530 Arun Raghavan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And why do you have to be plain insulting about it? Nobody can magically spot every single bug in any piece of code presented to them. In fact it's why the given enough eyes ... adage is one of the bases of open source development. Which is why any responsible person ensures good test coverage. Just to pour some oil on the flames - Y'all are aware that paludis can't parse a valid make.conf and does ignore package.keywords at times, yes? Test case is: FEATURES=strict # test and stricter fail in make.conf ... if you had the tests you claim others lack that would have been fixed a long time ago. So please stop trolling when you fail so badly at it. I _honestly_ do not understand why there is so much trouble in simple cooperation amongst adults. I agree entirely. Why the pkgcore people refuse to do basic automated tests is completely beyond me. Mirror, mirror on the wall. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On 13 Jun 2008, at 11:01, Patrick Lauer wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:30:54 +0530 Arun Raghavan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And why do you have to be plain insulting about it? Nobody can magically spot every single bug in any piece of code presented to them. In fact it's why the given enough eyes ... adage is one of the bases of open source development. Which is why any responsible person ensures good test coverage. Just to pour some oil on the flames - Then don't do it. You are doing a very bad marketing for the pkgcore guys with your whinnings. Y'all are aware that paludis can't parse a valid make.conf and does ignore package.keywords at times, yes? Test case is: FEATURES=strict # test and stricter fail in make.conf ... if you had the tests you claim others lack that would have been fixed a long time ago. Yes, we are aware of that bug in a feature we consider highly experimental. You are amusing... - ferdy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:01:19 +0200 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just to pour some oil on the flames - Y'all are aware that paludis can't parse a valid make.conf and does ignore package.keywords at times, yes? Yep. We don't claim to or aim to completely support Portage configs. Test case is: FEATURES=strict # test and stricter fail in make.conf ... if you had the tests you claim others lack that would have been fixed a long time ago. No, we just don't bother supporting it. Remember that configs aren't part of PMS. Also note that if you had something like this in package.use: foo/bar baz # monkey Portage would until relatively recently (and after that section of PMS was written, for the profiles side of it) set USE=baz # monkey. Paludis chose to indicate an error rather than accept clearly nonsense input. There's no PMS violation here -- user configs aren't covered (and if you do use a Portage user configuration with Paludis, you get a big fat warning saying this probably won't work, file tickets if you want stuff fixed), and PMS restricts profile use files to behaviour safely supported by all EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Fernando J. Pereda wrote: Just to pour some oil on the flames - Then don't do it. You are doing a very bad marketing for the pkgcore guys with your whinnings. Dude. Shut up. I'm not a pkgcore guy. If anything I'm a portage supporter. That I accidentally host pkgcore.org doesn't mean I'm one of them. Y'all are aware that paludis can't parse a valid make.conf and does ignore package.keywords at times, yes? Test case is: FEATURES=strict # test and stricter fail in make.conf ... if you had the tests you claim others lack that would have been fixed a long time ago. Yes, we are aware of that bug in a feature we consider highly experimental. Hmm, I'd have guessed config files are moderately relevant. And why don't y'all fix a bug like that? First you insult others for not doing tests, then you show a lack of tests and are proud of it. Augh. You are amusing... Hey, I gave you a testcase - now fix it, chop chop! -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:16:31 +0200 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, we are aware of that bug in a feature we consider highly experimental. Hmm, I'd have guessed config files are moderately relevant. You didn't notice the large warning telling you not to use Portage config files? And why don't y'all fix a bug like that? We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments (which is the same as what some EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions do, so PMS can't allow inline comments), and indicate an error (rather than writing junk, as older Portage did) when inline comments are used. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On 13 Jun 2008, at 11:16, Patrick Lauer wrote: Then don't do it. You are doing a very bad marketing for the pkgcore guys with your whinnings. I'm not a pkgcore guy. If anything I'm a portage supporter. That I accidentally host pkgcore.org doesn't mean I'm one of them. Were you able to read English you'd have noted that I implicitly excluded you from the pkgcore guys in that sentence. Yes, we are aware of that bug in a feature we consider highly experimental. Hmm, I'd have guessed config files are moderately relevant. And why don't y'all fix a bug like that? First you insult others for not doing tests, then you show a lack of tests and are proud of it. Augh. Use of Portage configuration files will lead to sub-optimal performance and loss of functionality. Full support for Portage configuration formats is not guaranteed; issues should be reported via trac. That's the pretty nice warning. Full support is not guaranteed. We do take sane patches, however. Stop flaming, please. - ferdy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:16:31 +0200 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, we are aware of that bug in a feature we consider highly experimental. Hmm, I'd have guessed config files are moderately relevant. You didn't notice the large warning telling you not to use Portage config files? I did. But how else can I compare things or move back to portage if I don't like it? And why don't y'all fix a bug like that? We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments (which is the same as what some EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions do, so PMS can't allow inline comments), and indicate an error (rather than writing junk, as older Portage did) when inline comments are used. So you say the thing you wrote excludes things you don't like so you can claim things by referencing it as authoritative. Does anyone else think that maybe there's a slight conflict of interest there? I hope that PMS, as it stands now, does not become a standard. It is obviously very leaky and ignores issues so that you can claim PMS compatibility without being compatible to each other. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:53:02 +0200 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You didn't notice the large warning telling you not to use Portage config files? I did. But how else can I compare things or move back to portage if I don't like it? You can set up a Paludis config. It's nice and easy. We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments (which is the same as what some EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions do, so PMS can't allow inline comments), and indicate an error (rather than writing junk, as older Portage did) when inline comments are used. So you say the thing you wrote excludes things you don't like so you can claim things by referencing it as authoritative. Does anyone else think that maybe there's a slight conflict of interest there? I hope that PMS, as it stands now, does not become a standard. It is obviously very leaky and ignores issues so that you can claim PMS compatibility without being compatible to each other. Where possible, we exclude things that break Portage. Are you suggesting that we should instead ignore what EAPI-0-supporting Portage does and does not handle and just document things the way we'd like them to be? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And why don't y'all fix a bug like that? We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments (which is the same as what some EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions do, so PMS can't allow inline comments), and indicate an error (rather than writing junk, as older Portage did) when inline comments are used. I believe this is reasoning is no longer valid. Current versions of Portage accepts inline comments just fine (so does pkgcore). So, your logic for PMS not allowing inline comments is based on some [...] [old] Portage versions and does not specify current Portage behaviour. IMO, it should be fixed to reflect majority (and specifically portage) behaviour. Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline comments, and this behaviour predates PMS. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:40:46 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And why don't y'all fix a bug like that? We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments (which is the same as what some EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions do, so PMS can't allow inline comments), and indicate an error (rather than writing junk, as older Portage did) when inline comments are used. I believe this is reasoning is no longer valid. Current versions of Portage accepts inline comments just fine (so does pkgcore). So, your logic for PMS not allowing inline comments is based on some [...] [old] Portage versions and does not specify current Portage behaviour. IMO, it should be fixed to reflect majority (and specifically portage) behaviour. But some EAPI-0 accepting Portage versions don't accept inline comments. Using inline comments in the tree will break those Portage versions. This one's especially an issue when you consider how long it's been since Gentoo has released official stage tarballs... Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline comments, and this behaviour predates PMS. Paludis behaviour there matches Portage behaviour at the time it was written, except that instead of proceeding with garbage values, Paludis gives an error. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where possible, we exclude things that break Portage. Are you suggesting that we should instead ignore what EAPI-0-supporting Portage does and does not handle and just document things the way we'd like them to be? Wait, what? Where possible ? PMS is supposed to be a specification which is as close to Gentoo's Official Package manager's behaviour as possible while (preferably) leaving out deprecated behaviour. But right now you're saying: We're writing a spec that's somewhat like Portage, but where it breaks Paludis, we prefer to get Portage to change it's behaviour instead. Don't crib about this however. We could just have easily have created a whole new spec which broke Portage completely. I hope everyone realises just how ridiculous this is. PS: An example of something in PMS that is different from Portage: inline comments are disallowed. The only reason I can think for doing this is to not make Paludis change it's behaviour. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline comments, and this behaviour predates PMS. There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason applies to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS doesn't allow them. There's no evil conspiracy here, just pure logic. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But some EAPI-0 accepting Portage versions don't accept inline comments. Using inline comments in the tree will break those Portage versions. This one's especially an issue when you consider how long it's been since Gentoo has released official stage tarballs... Which versions exactly? How old? Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline comments, and this behaviour predates PMS. Paludis behaviour there matches Portage behaviour at the time it was written, except that instead of proceeding with garbage values, Paludis gives an error. Well, then it should be updated to match current Portage behaviour. PMS is not supposed to document How portage worked at one point of time or The intersection of the capabilities of Portage and Paludis. It should follow the current portage's behaviour as closely as possible. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Friday 13 June 2008 11:18:53 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Wait, what? Where possible ? You'd prefer us to do impossible things too? PMS is supposed to be a specification which is as close to Gentoo's Official Package manager's behaviour as possible while (preferably) leaving out deprecated behaviour. But right now you're saying: We're writing a spec that's somewhat like Portage, but where it breaks Paludis, we prefer to get Portage to change it's behaviour instead. Don't crib about this however. We could just have easily have created a whole new spec which broke Portage completely. No, we're saying nothing of the sort. Please feel free to browse the history and see where we've changed both Paludis and PMS to match Portage, when we become aware of differences - preferably before posting such nonsense in future. PS: An example of something in PMS that is different from Portage: inline comments are disallowed. The only reason I can think for doing this is to not make Paludis change it's behaviour. Fortunately you don't have to think, you can just read Ciaran's explanation. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
David Leverton wrote: On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline comments, and this behaviour predates PMS. There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason applies to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS doesn't allow them. There's no evil conspiracy here, just pure logic. Care to share the logic and wise reasoning ? -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM, David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline comments, and this behaviour predates PMS. There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason applies to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS doesn't allow them. There's no evil conspiracy here, just pure logic. Then I believe we would all like to know the reason why. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:48:53 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PMS is supposed to be a specification which is as close to Gentoo's Official Package manager's behaviour as possible while (preferably) leaving out deprecated behaviour. But right now you're saying: We're writing a spec that's somewhat like Portage, but where it breaks Paludis, we prefer to get Portage to change it's behaviour instead. Don't crib about this however. We could just have easily have created a whole new spec which broke Portage completely. I hope everyone realises just how ridiculous this is. No, we're saying: There are some things that Portage does that're so obviously weird or wrong that it's impossible to document that behaviour in a standard, so occasionally we'll have to consider Portage to have bugs. PS: An example of something in PMS that is different from Portage: inline comments are disallowed. The only reason I can think for doing this is to not make Paludis change it's behaviour. Did you check whether Portage that's included in current Gentoo releases supports inline comments in profiles? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On 13 Jun 2008, at 12:18, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: We're writing a spec that's somewhat like Portage, but where it breaks Paludis, we prefer to get Portage to change it's behaviour instead. Don't crib about this however. We could just have easily have created a whole new spec which broke Portage completely. Care to give an example instead of FUDing? Paludis is written to match PMS, not the other way around. And when PMS changes, Paludis is changed to reflect such changes. Don't be childish. - ferdy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:52:30 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline comments, and this behaviour predates PMS. Paludis behaviour there matches Portage behaviour at the time it was written, except that instead of proceeding with garbage values, Paludis gives an error. Well, then it should be updated to match current Portage behaviour. PMS is not supposed to document How portage worked at one point of time or The intersection of the capabilities of Portage and Paludis. It should follow the current portage's behaviour as closely as possible. Do you really want to make it impossible to install Gentoo using the most recent official release? Because that's what will happen if we do what you're suggesting... -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Friday 13 June 2008 11:23:29 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM, David Leverton There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason applies to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS doesn't allow them. There's no evil conspiracy here, just pure logic. Then I believe we would all like to know the reason why. The same reason the Ciaran already explained in this very thread. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:32:20AM +0100, David Leverton wrote: On Friday 13 June 2008 11:23:29 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM, David Leverton There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason applies to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS doesn't allow them. There's no evil conspiracy here, just pure logic. Then I believe we would all like to know the reason why. The same reason the Ciaran already explained in this very thread. Ciaran/Company actually are subtly wrong on this one. Reason is miscommunication/misreading. Quoting the original flamebait posting by patrick- Test case is: FEATURES=strict # test and stricter fail in make.conf ... flamebait Note 'make.conf'. User configuration. Not make.profile, or any other profile file. Meaning not under PMS jurisdiction, via the line in the sand ciaran has drawn to exclude portage configuration from PMS. Now if the discussion *was* about profile files, yes, inline comments are not allowed due to backwards compatibility requirements. In other words, ciaran is wrong about make.conf, but right about make.defaults and friends, which is what he probably interpretted the thread about. Screwups happen, unfortunately w/ the air of gentoo-dev being one of hostility, it sprawls into mega-threads like this. Either way, this isn't particularly relevant to -dev; belongs on -project at best, else the paludis mls due to it being a discussion of paludis incompatibility with existing portage configuration support. Hopefully the statements above clear up any further reason for this thread to continue, so kindly leave it dead/buried. Cheers, ~harring pgp3RhBf3NiGd.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:52:30 +0530: Well, then it should be updated to match current Portage behaviour. PMS is not supposed to document How portage worked at one point of time or The intersection of the capabilities of Portage and Paludis. It should follow the current portage's behaviour as closely as possible. Ciaran's right on this one. It may have been a bug in portage, now fixed, but at least until a stable current release media set, a working PMS can't change the EAPI-0 definition to fail with portage on the old release media, however stale it might be. If a current release happens before PMS EAPI-0 finalization, this could possibly be subject to debate, but until then, it just doesn't work, however much we might wish it could. Additionally, he and Brian both agree (!!) that out-of-tree portage config is outside the PMS domain, so the make.conf example doesn't have anything to do with PMS in any case. Anyway, I agree with Brian in a different subthread post. The council has met and this thread and discussions on it are stale, so best to let it die. I'd have not replied here except after my earlier negative posts, I felt the need to provide some balance, and take the opportunity to point out that here, the Paludis devs are right, both practically (breaking new installs) and theoretically (out of PMS domain). -- 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 -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Donnie Berkholz schrieb: Status of PMS - ferringb said: I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes this side of'09. Preparation: Post your opinion to the -dev thread One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June 2+ hours before the meeting. After investing more than two hours to just read the Mails that popped up yesterday regarding this stuff, I'd say we can't really take this serious. The PMS maintainers were withholding information on compatibility issues they've seen. As such we can't be sure this will pop up again in the future and so I strongly suggest dismissing this as something official for gentoo. Best Regards Markus Ullmann Gentoo Council Member signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:36:18 +0200 Markus Ullmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After investing more than two hours to just read the Mails that popped up yesterday regarding this stuff, I'd say we can't really take this serious. The PMS maintainers were withholding information on compatibility issues they've seen. No, we were trying to get the pkgcore people to write some frickin' test cases for their code rather than continuing to screw up the process by incorrectly claiming support for an EAPI. You should instead be asking the pkgcore guys why they should be allowed to continue keeping a package in the tree when they're blatantly ignoring the EAPI process. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: No, we were trying to get the pkgcore people to write some frickin' test cases for their code rather than continuing to screw up the process by incorrectly claiming support for an EAPI. That isn't what has been perceived. Whoever will take the portage specification will have to provide testcases while updating the spec, correctly split an version it to make implementation easier and behave properly. You should instead be asking the pkgcore guys why they should be allowed to continue keeping a package in the tree when they're blatantly ignoring the EAPI process. The eapi process is something not defined so they cannot do much about it, same for the portage people. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:52:13 +0200 Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You should instead be asking the pkgcore guys why they should be allowed to continue keeping a package in the tree when they're blatantly ignoring the EAPI process. The eapi process is something not defined so they cannot do much about it, same for the portage people. The EAPI process requires that any package manager that claims to support a particular EAPI really does. When someone releases a package manager that has significant bugs in new EAPI handling, we have to decide: * whether we can use the EAPI in the tree * whether we have to avoid the bits of that EAPI that are broken * whether we have to release a new EAPI n+1 that's identical to EAPI n, and completely ban EAPI n. Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If package manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible thing, the whole point of EAPIs is lost. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If package manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible thing, the whole point of EAPIs is lost. Thats a circular argument since portage and pkgcore developers are complaining about eapi definition and PMS management. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:12:47 +0200 Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If package manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible thing, the whole point of EAPIs is lost. Thats a circular argument since portage and pkgcore developers are complaining about eapi definition and PMS management. Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't? Please stop your incessant and gratuitous insinuations. Denis. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:24:14 +0200 Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't? Please stop your incessant and gratuitous insinuations. Then please explain what else Luca could possibly be implying with his incessant and gratuitous interjections. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:16:51AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:12:47 +0200 Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If package manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible thing, the whole point of EAPIs is lost. Thats a circular argument since portage and pkgcore developers are complaining about eapi definition and PMS management. Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't? When paludis hit the tree, it claimed to support eapi0. Did it fully? No, bugs existed. Via your logic, paludis should've never been in the tree. See the failing here? Bugs occur, you're claiming perfection is required when your own code hasn't met said standards. You're also dodging the fact that apparently you've known about eapi1 incompatibilities and intentionally withheld that information for the apparent purpose of discrediting pkgcore. You've been stating for a long while eapi1 support was broke- for the default iuse support months back, and ongoing- I get the very strong vibe you've been sitting on bugs for a long while. I've put up with lies from y'all for a long while- simplest gross example is the claims pkgcore devs were forking the format when in actuality paludis devs (you) were forking off exheres at the time of the accusation. I'm accustomed to that bullshit, and I stomach it because limited dealing with you benefits gentoo, at least as long as you wield the political hammer that is PMS. What's over the line however is that via your withholding of information, you intentionally allowing users to see breakage to try and discredit the competition. That's not acceptable in any form. Actual bug reports, for ebuild support bugs turn around (including release) for pkgcore is typically within same day. I give a *damn* about compatibility, even if it means enabling paludis to grow (thus providing more power for your insepid games). The fact that the -r0 incident occured out of the blue a month or two back isn't exactly heartening either- proving it was intentional breakage admittedly is not possible. However considering the behaviour displayed here, it's a pretty logical assumption to presume the -r0 was an intentional breakage for yet more discrediting BS. You pulled a pretty major no-no here, and the fact you can't admit it is pretty fricking sad. ~harring pgp7VMFyQ2dhh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:40:06 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't? When paludis hit the tree, it claimed to support eapi0. Did it fully? No, bugs existed. Via your logic, paludis should've never been in the tree. See the failing here? Bugs occur, you're claiming perfection is required when your own code hasn't met said standards. Except that there's no well defined way of testing EAPI 0. There is a well defined way of testing EAPI 1. That's not acceptable in any form. Actual bug reports, for ebuild support bugs turn around (including release) for pkgcore is typically within same day. I give a *damn* about compatibility, even if it means enabling paludis to grow (thus providing more power for your insepid games). If you care, why don't you write simple test cases? The fact that the -r0 incident occured out of the blue a month or two back isn't exactly heartening either- proving it was intentional breakage admittedly is not possible. However considering the behaviour displayed here, it's a pretty logical assumption to presume the -r0 was an intentional breakage for yet more discrediting BS. And you accuse us of spreading FUD? If anyone really wanted to break a package manager, there'd be much more spectacular ways of doing it... You pulled a pretty major no-no here, and the fact you can't admit it is pretty fricking sad. No, *you* 'pulled a pretty major no-no' by refusing to do basic testing, and the fact that you're trying so hard to make it look like someone else's fault is pretty fricking sad. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thursday 12 June 2008 08:36:18 Markus Ullmann wrote: After investing more than two hours to just read the Mails that popped up yesterday regarding this stuff, I'd say we can't really take this serious. The PMS maintainers were withholding information on compatibility issues they've seen. As such we can't be sure this will pop up again in the future and so I strongly suggest dismissing this as something official for gentoo. Ciaran already explained about that, but even if you don't agree with the reasoning, that's no reason to shut down a project that will benefit Gentoo as a whole. If you have a problem with the content of PMS, then as I already said, please file bugs or send patches. As the history shows, we are willing to change Paludis and PMS to match Portage behaviour, when we become aware of any discrepancies. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Luca Barbato wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If package manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible thing, the whole point of EAPIs is lost. Thats a circular argument since portage and pkgcore developers are complaining about eapi definition and PMS management. lu If the bickering is stopping development then maybe it should be given to a 3rd party to complete and have the last word. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:32:35 +0100 George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the bickering is stopping development then maybe it should be given to a 3rd party to complete and have the last word. Considering third parties have at best contributed a few small patches, I don't see that getting very far... If a third party's genuinely prepared to take over and do the work they're more than welcome to. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:36:18AM +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote: After investing more than two hours to just read the Mails that popped up yesterday regarding this stuff, I'd say we can't really take this serious. The PMS maintainers were withholding information on compatibility issues they've seen. As such we can't be sure this will pop up again in the future and so I strongly suggest dismissing this as something official for gentoo. Agreed, if this is the way PMS is done, we should either get rid of it or do it differently. The current status as presented here is inacceptable. cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org forum-mods (at) gentoo.org #gentoo-forums (freenode) pgpdDn7lFUESx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thursday 12 June 2008 22:21:48 Wernfried Haas wrote: Agreed, if this is the way PMS is done, we should either get rid of it or do it differently. The current status as presented here is inacceptable. Could someone please explain what's wrong with PMS, other than needs moar XML and I hate the people doing it? -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:32:35 +0100 George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the bickering is stopping development then maybe it should be given to a 3rd party to complete and have the last word. Considering third parties have at best contributed a few small patches, I don't see that getting very far... If a third party's genuinely prepared to take over and do the work they're more than welcome to. I dont see that the work isn't done, I see arguing about standards and implementations and as there is 3 voices in this and little is being decided then anything that can't be sorted should be submitted for review and decisions taken. There are things that I don't understand about the EAPI structure (why versions may be incompatible with each other) but it seems like we are heading for differing standards soon. Feel free to flame and call me a fool... -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:58:26 +0100: On Thursday 12 June 2008 22:21:48 Wernfried Haas wrote: Agreed, if this is the way PMS is done, we should either get rid of it or do it differently. The current status as presented here is inacceptable. Could someone please explain what's wrong with PMS, other than needs moar XML and I hate the people doing it? Umm... pardon me for speaking my mind a bit here, and nothing personal, particularly since I have the utmost respect for the talent and skills of the people involved, but after seeing a pattern repeated over the last couple days I've seen time and time before, it's getting tiresome enough to write up! In this instance, it's the pulling teeth to get info on a claimed known bug from PMS folks on pkgcore, while at the same time, complaints about the non-clarity of PMS is met with remarks (by the same group of people) of (paraphrased) filed a patch yet? The problem is that this hasn't been the only case. There's a pattern. It /frequently/ takes a day or two's worth of mails to get any decent info out of this paludis/PMS lead, with him claiming it should be obvious, but it's not, and while even the slightest criticism the other way is met with filed a patch yet? Eventually the dog and pony circus every time to drag out the needed information gets old -- both for those forced to be the dog and ponies, and for those reading it. Ultimately, something's going to give. Either information won't require a dog and pony show to get so often from the current solution, or another solution, perhaps inferior otherwise and certainly a duplication of effort, will have to be found. It's not just pkgcore either, it's two of the three current PMs having problems, with the One True Way that everyone with any sense must /surely/ see is superior (or so it seems the thought is) gets filed a bug (or patch) yet if met with any criticism as well, from the same folks that it's like pulling teeth from to get any info from them. It has also been a pattern in quite a number of previous multi-day multi-hundred-post threads on various topics, involving the same people with the same pattern, refusing to answer a simple request for info on the one hand, while demanding bugs and/or patches when it's their turn. What if the filed a bug yet attitude held on both sides, or even if one side simply refused to play that begging dog or tricking pony the other side expects them to be? It simply cannot go on that way forever. Something's going to give, now, or later, when there's ultimately no more Gentoo to pull apart and therefore no more Gentoo PMs or PMS to continue fighting over. -- 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 -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:42:34 +: Umm... pardon me for speaking my mind a bit here, and nothing personal, particularly since I have the utmost respect for the talent and skills of the people involved, but after seeing a pattern repeated over the last couple days I've seen time and time before, it's getting tiresome enough to write up! What if the filed a bug yet attitude held on both sides, or even if one side simply refused to play that begging dog or tricking pony the other side expects them to be? It simply cannot go on that way forever. Something's going to give, now, or later, when there's ultimately no more Gentoo to pull apart and therefore no more Gentoo PMs or PMS to continue fighting over. OK, blame the continued posting on lack of sleep if you'd like, but it's an honestly held opinion. What makes it worse is that the people involved are, honestly, very skilled. Were it not so, were they say, more like me (heh), it'd be easy enough to simply ignore them. However, they can be very helpful when they want to be, it's a big loss, and it's only this sick idea of entertainment, forcing humans to the humiliation of basically doing tricks like animals for a bit of what after all is claimed to be so simple information but that others can't seem to see, that's the problem. The trouble is, the info, once the performance has been deemed to have gone on long enough, is so often right... Still, ultimately, there are better ways to get it. If one person won't provide it without someone stooping to his low idea of entertainment, well, either time will provide, or perhaps it was a not-so-critical corner case after all. If we could only treat each other as humans instead of trained circus animals, something I'm still endeavoring to do, even in all this, thus pointing out the virtues and a very good reason for respect, as well. No, the information doesn't /have/ to be provided as has been well demonstrated, but it sure hopes when we're all at least ideally targeting a similar goal, if we cooperate in going that direction, instead of fighting over it. Poisonous people indeed... I was skeptical at first, but the demonstration has continued until I'm beginning to come, ever so regretfully, to the same conclusion. -- 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 -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
2008/6/13 Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In this instance, it's the pulling teeth to get info on a claimed known bug from PMS folks on pkgcore, while at the same time, complaints about the non-clarity of PMS is met with remarks (by the same group of people) of (paraphrased) filed a patch yet? In the case of the pkgcore bug, there was an objective statement of the fact that a bug existed, including simple instructions for reproducing it (which were dismissed by a certain person claiming he had already done so and found no bug - clearly a lie). In the case of PMS, we have vague ad-hominems - not even complaints about the non-clarity, which in any case would be highly subjective, but just a shrill inacceptable. The problem is that this hasn't been the only case. There's a pattern. It /frequently/ takes a day or two's worth of mails to get any decent info out of this paludis/PMS lead, with him claiming it should be obvious, but it's not, and while even the slightest criticism the other way is met with filed a patch yet? The pkgcore was (or should have been) highly obvious to anyone who had so much glanced at the offending code. It's not just pkgcore either, it's two of the three current PMs having problems, with the One True Way that everyone with any sense must /surely/ see is superior (or so it seems the thought is) gets filed a bug (or patch) yet if met with any criticism as well, from the same folks that it's like pulling teeth from to get any info from them. I can't even parse this sentence. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:43 AM, David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/6/13 Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In this instance, it's the pulling teeth to get info on a claimed known bug from PMS folks on pkgcore, while at the same time, complaints about the non-clarity of PMS is met with remarks (by the same group of people) of (paraphrased) filed a patch yet? In the case of the pkgcore bug, there was an objective statement of the fact that a bug existed, including simple instructions for reproducing it (which were dismissed by a certain person claiming he had already done so and found no bug - clearly a lie). In the case There's a bug is an objective statement, I agree. Write some tests and figure it out for yourself is simply malice (yes, I realise it was you who provided the failing ebuild, and that is appreciated). And why do you have to be plain insulting about it? Nobody can magically spot every single bug in any piece of code presented to them. In fact it's why the given enough eyes ... adage is one of the bases of open source development. I _honestly_ do not understand why there is so much trouble in simple cooperation amongst adults. Regards, -- Arun Raghavan (http://nemesis.accosted.net) v2sw5Chw4+5ln4pr6$OFck2ma4+9u8w3+1!m?l7+9GSCKi056 e6+9i4b8/9HTAen4+5g4/8APa2Xs8r1/2p5-8 hackerkey.com -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
