[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:39:35 -0400: On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 19:18 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: Hi Kevin, On 6/15/06, Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I read the should as implying that all new packages must have it, and packages existing before the introduction of metadata should get it as and when maintainer gets around to it (i.e. at least on the next bump). Chris's argument was that this doc _requires_ packages to belong to herds (specifically, that all packages that are games automatically belong to the games herd). The document clearly doesn't support his argument. I said no such thing. This is clearly a case of you trying to assume what I'm saying in such a way that it matches with what you want me to say. I'd take exception to that clearly, as I don't see that being the case at all, so it's clearly as mudly, to coin a phrase. g I said that all games in the tree should be in the games herd. We like it this way. Trying to make it out like I said something that I didn't does what for you, exactly? To me (and evidently to Stuart H), those say exactly the same thing, that is: Stu H (arguing that this is what you said, but against the viewpoint): this doc _requires_ packages to belong to herds (specifically, that all packages that are games automatically belong to the games herd). to me is so similar as to be equivalent to: Chris G: I said that all games in the tree should be in the games herd. It has long been my personal observation that many arguments aren't in fact arguments at all, once the meaning assigned by the different sides to each word is translated. That may or may not be the case here, but it's certainly true that I (and evidently Stu H) see no difference between the the two statements above, while you vehemently argue there IS a difference, and that in fact it's apparently so clear that someone must be deliberately distorting your statement to make it into the other. (OK, that's what I read into Trying to make it out like I said something I didn't, but to be entirely fair, maybe you mean something different there than the way I read it too?) That being the case, perhaps if you could try to explain what you see as the difference between the two statements, the discussion can progress beyond this point. It does (to me) seem useless to continue, if what appears to be the very basic difference of whether the two above statements are effectively equivalent cannot be resolved. The arguments are just going past each other, since the two sides apparently are arguing different things due to differences in received meanings. (General observation... It generally does little to progress a discussion, and much to heat it up, when someone accuses the other side of deliberate distortion, when it may rather be a basic definitional difference, and therefore not deliberate at all. Even if there's no conceivable way you can see that the opposing viewpoint makes sense, it's generally far more conducive to progress to assume an honest attempt at understanding on the part of the other side, an honest misunderstanding, and try to find the definitional difference, than to heat up the discussion by saying something is clear, when it's obviously not or the statement wouldn't have been made in the first place. That said, both sides continued the discussion past the point where it was obvious this was a sticking point, rather than stopping right there to address it, so both sides are guilty. I just picked this point to step in and ask for the clarification myself, since I honestly don't see the difference in the two statements you say are so different, myself.) -- 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@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 08:52 +, Duncan wrote: But as Stuart Herbert pointed out, a project can be self-authorized, by the current rules. Project Sunrise therefore didn't /need/ permission to come into existence and set up its own overlay. The announcement here, while perhaps it /should/ have been discussed as a proposal first, therefore didn't break the rules as they are now. Abusing loopholes in the rules doesn't make something right. Meanwhile, the Project Sunrise overlay /is/ a project specific overlay, and /is/ maintained by the project in question (Sunrise). That has been specifically stated in the Project Sunrise formulation. Correct. However, it is attempting to work with ebuilds/packages that are owned by other projects currently. *This* is my objection. Furthermore, there's specific allowance for competing projects, and as Stuart again points out, ebuilds form herds which are maintained by projects, and once a project rejects the ebuild, it can then be picked up by another developer or project, in which case the project that rejected it is no more responsible for it except that they can continue to refuse that it be in that project. The competing projects idea really is stupid. Unfortunately, there's nothing that I can do about that at this time except ask that the idea be either clarified or rejected by the council. Two projects competing to produce a similar product (like, say two projects trying to come up with a next-generation genkernel) is one thing. Two competing projects maintaining the same herd space within the portage tree is something else. This creates animosity between the projects, is completely against the ideas of fostering cooperation and teamwork, and generally sticks it to our users due to a few egos. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 10:09 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:52:37 + (UTC) Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | But as Stuart Herbert pointed out, a project can be self-authorized, | by the current rules. Project Sunrise therefore didn't /need/ | permission to come into existence and set up its own overlay. The | announcement here, while perhaps it /should/ have been discussed as a | proposal first, therefore didn't break the rules as they are now. The rules call for a GLEP for any wide ranging change. And funnily enough, they do so to avoid exactly the kind of mess that Sunrise is. Amen. This is *exactly* what the GLEP process was created to prevent. This project has the potential to impact almost every team in Gentoo. I'd call that a wide-ranging change. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:54:47 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 01:29:55PM -0400, Peter wrote: [snip] This kernel source will not cause Armageddon to arrive, cause smoke to issue from your power supply, nor interfere with other ebuilds. That's funny. Did you just claim that a sys-kernel/*-sources ebuild with the patch-sets listed below would have no possibility of interfering with other ebuilds? If so, you've just proven my point that many users wont be able to judge how ebuilds from overlays may affect the stable tree. I did. Sources don't affect anything. The ck-sources are in the tree, and there is dire warning associated with them. Only the -mm sources have any sort of warning. If a user CHOOSES to use a hacked up kernel, then they obviously choose to. Just like, if a user chooses to try out reiserfs-4, they get what they pay for. Sources don't affect anything. Features -ck(s) Con Kolivas Patchset, (server version available as option) -ide libATA/ide updates, Alsa updates and fixes, Dothan Speedstep, Pentium M undervolt, IBM ACPI fan control, Suspend2, vesafb-tng, reiser4, unionfs squashfs, realtime-lsm, fbsplash, configurable mouse polling support, custom dsdt, Layer7, various fixes and updates. [1] Am I being to simplistic or naive? Both, it seems. Regards, Brix [1]: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103354#c51 And I think these are worthwhile features. Some, actually are part of the gentoo-base and gentoo-extra patches (see the excludes list). It also includes spocks vesa-tng and fbsplash. Look, you can't micro-control all aspects of a user's computing experience. If someone downloads tmpwatch and mistakenly puts / in the list of directories to prune, what will you do? Put tmpwatch into package.mask because it MIGHT be misued? Or, will you package.mask vixie.cron because someone may not be capable of writing a bash script? Honestly, I do not see the difference, AND because the kernel is experimental (or, at least I call it experimental), and widely followed, I think Sunrise is ideal for it. JM2C. -- Peter -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:14:24PM -0400, Peter wrote: I did. Sources don't affect anything. The ck-sources are in the tree, and there is dire warning associated with them. Only the -mm sources have any sort of warning. If a user CHOOSES to use a hacked up kernel, then they obviously choose to. Just like, if a user chooses to try out reiserfs-4, they get what they pay for. Sources don't affect anything. I rest my case. ./Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd pgpVvny7JAkoB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 01:41:21PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: Care to elaborate? The wise, all-knowing Zen argument isn't particularly helpful All software runs on top of the core of the operating system, the kernel. If the kernel is buggy it will be reflected in all the software running on top of it, be it portage, compilers, daemons or graphical user environments. Regards, Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd pgpaXplztf3ud.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: [Tue Jun 13 2006, 01:52:18PM CDT] All software runs on top of the core of the operating system, the kernel. If the kernel is buggy it will be reflected in all the software running on top of it, be it portage, compilers, daemons or graphical user environments. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to the kernel in terms of ebuild dependencies. Isn't your reason why emerge --info lists the kernel? (Also, the kernel probably isn't the best example, since I suspect that if there's any single package that people are likely to install outside of portage, the kernel would be it.) -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpong75Uwgt9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:41:21 -0500 Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: [Tue Jun 13 2006, 01:30:27PM CDT] | On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:14:24PM -0400, Peter wrote: | I did. Sources don't affect anything. The ck-sources are in the | tree, and there is dire warning associated with them. Only the | -mm sources have any sort of warning. If a user CHOOSES to use a | hacked up kernel, then they obviously choose to. Just like, if a | user chooses to try out reiserfs-4, they get what they pay for. | Sources don't affect anything. | | I rest my case. | | Care to elaborate? The wise, all-knowing Zen argument isn't | particularly helpful It's perfect proof that there are users that are utterly clueless about what is best for their system, and utterly clueless about how using third party software can cause problems for other software. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:30:27 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:14:24PM -0400, Peter wrote: I did. Sources don't affect anything. The ck-sources are in the tree, and there is dire warning associated with them. Only the -mm sources have any sort of warning. If a user CHOOSES to use a hacked up kernel, then they obviously choose to. Just like, if a user chooses to try out reiserfs-4, they get what they pay for. Sources don't affect anything. I rest my case. ./Brix I fail to understand your case, and I will admit to not having followed this thread extremely closely due to the fact that we are getting ready to roll out our 2.0 release, you are saying that people should, or should not have the choice? Or that people are free to have the choice as long as it isn't on infra controlled Gentoo hardware? Emerging the kernel sources, as far as I understand it, doesn't affect anything (except perhaps external drivers, but then again, what doesn't - you have some wireless drivers that require some options be set in the kernel, and others not be set, and it gets worse when you are trying to test both pieces of hardware at the same time as they refuse to co-exist due to the way the drivers are being written these days) The way I see it, this could be a huge step forward, and bug reports should have the emerge --info in them anyways, and you would see they are using sunrise there. So is the real issue that people would use the overlay or that the overlay is hosted on Gentoo hardware and that makes it bad? I really wish I could follow this thread better. Can someone summarize? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
