Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 2006.1
On 9/3/06, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And no one has implemented any kind of solution. You need someone to implement a solution? Surely what we need is for folks to actually make an announcement in the first place? I asked for what has become GLEP 42 because we do have a problem reaching folks with announcements. But you know what? GLEP 42 wouldn't help in cases like this, where there's either no announcement at all, or the announcement comes at the last minute. Technology is just a tool. A technical solution needs something fed into it. Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 2006.1
Stuart Herbert wrote: On 9/3/06, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And no one has implemented any kind of solution. You need someone to implement a solution? Surely what we need is for folks to actually make an announcement in the first place? I asked for what has become GLEP 42 because we do have a problem reaching folks with announcements. But you know what? GLEP 42 wouldn't help in cases like this, where there's either no announcement at all, or the announcement comes at the last minute. Technology is just a tool. A technical solution needs something fed into it. I never specified that the solution had to be technical in nature ;) We have the Gentoo Status project, but it's been rather dead lately. We have PR, but they are more concerned with the release; in the end GCC-4.1 going stable is up to releng and arch teams (heck it doesn't technically have to go stable on all arches). So who screwed up in this case? Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 2006.1
It seams that USE flags are not realy tested or howcan it happen that there are already know bugs in thestable distro ?Just like to make the point that if something requires a dependency in ~arch (unstable), then it isn't/shouldn't be in arch (stable).
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 2006.1
On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 10:36 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: Stuart Herbert wrote: On 9/3/06, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And no one has implemented any kind of solution. You need someone to implement a solution? Surely what we need is for folks to actually make an announcement in the first place? I asked for what has become GLEP 42 because we do have a problem reaching folks with announcements. But you know what? GLEP 42 wouldn't help in cases like this, where there's either no announcement at all, or the announcement comes at the last minute. Technology is just a tool. A technical solution needs something fed into it. I never specified that the solution had to be technical in nature ;) We have the Gentoo Status project, but it's been rather dead lately. We have PR, but they are more concerned with the release; in the end GCC-4.1 going stable is up to releng and arch teams (heck it doesn't technically have to go stable on all arches). So who screwed up in this case? Actually, we spent a fair amount of time talking about Gentoo Status in yesterdays meeting and how to move forwards with that. As for PR, after the Userrel + PR merge we have more manpower, and we're not concerned with just the release. Hell, as far as the release goes, PR for that is done by the Releng team and their PR coordinator. Don't assume that PR isn't interested, but we can't read minds and if people don't keep us in the loop then chances are we miss stuff that could be news worthy. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 2006.1
Jeff Rollin wrote: It seams that USE flags are not realy tested or how can it happen that there are already know bugs in the stable distro ? Just like to make the point that if something requires a dependency in ~arch (unstable), then it isn't/shouldn't be in arch (stable). Because the thought that stable is always stable or that because we released things are stable is incorrect ;) Stable is more or less stable; almost all of the packages work out of the box (at least for me) and things generally go well. In some cases, a weird USE combination or an odd package breaks things; there are forums, mailing lists, and irc, as well as bugs.gentoo.org to help you find and report problems/fixes. I don't know where these magical expectations come from? If you want everything to always work; thats just not possible (in any endeavor, let alone this one.) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 2006.1
On 9/3/06, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because the thought that stable is always stable or that because we released things are stable is incorrect ;) You're not supposed to break the stable tree; that surely must include stabilising a compiler (which is the _default_ for new installs) that can't compile all the packages marked stable for your arch. grumbleFeels like one rule for one group (the package maintainers) and another for another group (releng / x86 arch team) to me./grumble Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 2006.1
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 17:44:32 +0100 Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/3/06, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because the thought that stable is always stable or that because we released things are stable is incorrect ;) You're not supposed to break the stable tree; that surely must include stabilising a compiler (which is the _default_ for new installs) that can't compile all the packages marked stable for your arch. That's just not feasible, as we've identified before. You can't expect sys-devel/gcc to take responsibility for every package in the tree in all configurations. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 2006.1
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 12:34 +0200, Edgar Hucek wrote: Apeal on extended testing : Developer, please test things more carefull before you release it. I hear this (pardon my French) BULLSHIT all the time from our developers. Look, people, I asked multiple times for assistance with testing. Guess what? Very few developers did any testing. We started a Release Tester program to try to improve testing. It helped somewhat, bust most of the release testers never bothered doing installations. Some of them were very helpful, but most didn't do much of anything. Release Engineering can not, and WILL not, be responsible for the state of all 10,000+ packages and all of their possible USE combinations. That is the individual ebuild maintainer job. Our job is to make sure that the *media* works with the *default* set of USE as we have laid out. If something other than what is provided by us does not work, it is *not* our fault, nor our responsibility. Remember that our releases are a snapshot of the state of the tree. If the tree is messed up, then it will be reflected in the tree. If you want better releases, quit trying to lay blame on other people and get off your ASS and HELP fix the problems. Seriously, if you want to see improved releases, then help out. Quit your bitching, as it doesn't accomplish *anything* to improve the releases. -- 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] Gentoo 2006.1
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 22:55 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: On 9/2/06, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Give us about 3000 more developers, and sure* ;) I don't think that that's good thing to be saying to our users. We didn't need 3000 more developers ... we just needed to give the developers we have more reasonable notice. This is the second time in recent weeks that we've acted like this, by stabilising a major package with little or no notice. It's the same group of folks involved both times. Excuse me? TWO GWN articles wasn't enough notice? Maybe you should do your homework before you go about pointing fingers? -- 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] Gentoo 2006.1
Edgar Hucek wrote: Apeal on extended testing : Developer, please test things more carefull before you release it. I already found things which does not compile out of the box. 1.) Use wacom does not compile out of the box. You have to unmask linuxwacom. Shrug. Noone even filed a stabilization bug, ask x11-drivers folks why. There's one now: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145891 2.) Enable the use flage accessibility gnome cant be merged. It fails on compile the speech-tools. It seams that USE flags are not realy tested or how can it happen that there are already know bugs in the stable distro ? http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116030 Festival and the speech-tools are well know not to compile with gcc =4. Well, you know - if you go to read the speech-tools/festival co. bug, and read the ebuild, you'll see that the whole thing and code is one huge mess, that doesn't compile even w/ gcc-3.3 without patching. You'd probably prefer to never put out a new release, I guess? How many people are using this one, and how does it justify delaying the release even more? -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 2006.1
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 12:34:38 +0200 Edgar Hucek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apeal on extended testing : Developer, please test things more carefull before you release it. There are over 10,000 packages in the tree (11247 to be exact); each of which can be built many ways with USE flags. It is simply not feasible to test all of the packages in all possible combinations in all possible USE configurations for all architectures. The number of combinations is literally astronomical. So, we test what we can, but rely on users to raise a bug in bugzilla when a combination they try, that we haven't, fails. I already found things which does not compile out of the box. So raise bugs on bugs.gentoo.org. Make sure you include data about the configuration of your system (i.e. the output of 'emerge --info'). 1.) Use wacom does not compile out of the box. You have to unmask linuxwacom. Raise a bug, if one hasn't already been raised. 2.) Enable the use flage accessibility gnome cant be merged. It fails on compile the speech-tools. Raise a bug, if one hasn't already been raised. It seams that USE flags are not realy tested or how can it happen that there are already know bugs in the stable distro ? http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116030 Festival and the speech-tools are well know not to compile with gcc =4. Er, because the bug is not yet fixed. If we were to hold up the release of everything until all bugs are fixed, we'd never release anything. You have the power to sort out this problem on your own system. Just build the relevant packages with gcc-3.4.6 instead of gcc-4.1.1 (see gcc-config for switching your selected compiler). -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 2006.1
Jakub Moc schrieb: Edgar Hucek wrote: Apeal on extended testing : Developer, please test things more carefull before you release it. I already found things which does not compile out of the box. 1.) Use wacom does not compile out of the box. You have to unmask linuxwacom. Shrug. Noone even filed a stabilization bug, ask x11-drivers folks why. There's one now: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145891 2.) Enable the use flage accessibility gnome cant be merged. It fails on compile the speech-tools. It seams that USE flags are not realy tested or how can it happen that there are already know bugs in the stable distro ? http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116030 Festival and the speech-tools are well know not to compile with gcc =4. Well, you know - if you go to read the speech-tools/festival co. bug, and read the ebuild, you'll see that the whole thing and code is one huge mess, that doesn't compile even w/ gcc-3.3 without patching. You'd probably prefer to never put out a new release, I guess? How many people are using this one, and how does it justify delaying the release even more? From my point of view, should it be garanted that a package and depencies compiles when all use flags are enabled. If a depency can't be compiled the use flag and depence should be dissabled/removed from a package. cu Edgar (gimli) Hucek -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
The Age of the Universe (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 2006.1)
Am Samstag, 2. September 2006 13:18 schrieb Edgar Hucek: 2.) Enable the use flage accessibility gnome cant be merged. It fails on compile the speech-tools. It seams that USE flags are not realy tested or how can it happen that there are already know bugs in the stable distro ? http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116030 Festival and the speech-tools are well know not to compile with gcc =4. Well, you know - if you go to read the speech-tools/festival co. bug, and read the ebuild, you'll see that the whole thing and code is one huge mess, that doesn't compile even w/ gcc-3.3 without patching. You'd probably prefer to never put out a new release, I guess? How many people are using this one, and how does it justify delaying the release even more? From my point of view, should it be garanted that a package and depencies compiles when all use flags are enabled. If a depency can't be compiled the use flag and depence should be dissabled/removed from a package. Please _think_ before you make such a demand. Just a small investigation would show this: dev-lang/php-5.1.4-r6 has _96_ USE flags. That makes 2^96 = 7.9928+28 combinations. Given the (unreasonable) assumption that each compilation would only take 1s and each compilation would actually succeed, you'd still have ~8e28 seconds. The age of the universe is approximately 4e17 seconds. This hasn't yet investigated allt he possible combinations of packages depending on dev-lang/php, or the ~10,000 other packages in the tree. Danny -- Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 2006.1
Edgar Hucek wrote: From my point of view, should it be garanted that a package and depencies compiles when all use flags are enabled. If a depency can't be compiled the use flag and depence should be dissabled/removed from a package. cu Edgar (gimli) Hucek Give us about 3000 more developers, and sure* ;) (*)Gentoo as a community distribution guarantees nothing (excluding a few contracts with some sponsors) about really anything we do. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 2006.1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Edgar Hucek wrote: Apeal on extended testing : Developer, please test things more carefull before you release it. I already found things which does not compile out of the box. 1.) Use wacom does not compile out of the box. You have to unmask linuxwacom. 2.) Enable the use flage accessibility gnome cant be merged. It fails on compile the speech-tools. It seams that USE flags are not realy tested or how can it happen that there are already know bugs in the stable distro ? http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116030 Festival and the speech-tools are well know not to compile with gcc =4. cu Edgar (gimli) Hucek Well, thank you for your concern Edgar, however in the future would you please at least look at all the work that went into the release of this. There were months of testing by the releng team in association with the arch teams to ensure that as much was ready to go. I'd like to also point out a few people who went above the call on x86 to get things filed. Ryan Hill (dirtyepic) filed many many many bugs as blockers for 4.1.1 going stable at my request. The Archtesters for all teams as well worked very hard testing things to make sure they worked as w ell. Before it went stable, almost all were stabilized if they could be. There are a few packages not ported yet in the games category but we weren't going to let that stop the progress either. Quite frankly saying that we didn't do enough testing, is a insult to everyone who worked on this release. No release is going to be perfect for us as a project, what we have attempted and I believe been successful with is making the transition as painless as possible. ~Joshua -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE+es0SENan+PfizARAmeFAJ9cNsqzCtlU3KRu225GB5I1Yz+RGACdElH+ uOxr1Zx35l/K1i6CLeYmpHA= =AZjO -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 2006.1
On 9/2/06, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Give us about 3000 more developers, and sure* ;) I don't think that that's good thing to be saying to our users. We didn't need 3000 more developers ... we just needed to give the developers we have more reasonable notice. This is the second time in recent weeks that we've acted like this, by stabilising a major package with little or no notice. It's the same group of folks involved both times. Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 2006.1
On 9/2/06, Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/2/06, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Give us about 3000 more developers, and sure* ;) I don't think that that's good thing to be saying to our users. Is it a bad thing to be saying to your developers? We didn't need 3000 more developers ... we just needed to give the developers we have more reasonable notice. This is the second time in recent weeks that we've acted like this, by stabilising a major package with little or no notice. It's the same group of folks involved both times. The gcc-4.1 stabilization bug has been open for a month and a half. Thats fairly good notice... Warnings have also appeared on planet.gentoo.org, and in the GWN. Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 2006.1
On 9/2/06, Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/2/06, Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/2/06, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Give us about 3000 more developers, and sure* ;) I don't think that that's good thing to be saying to our users. Is it a bad thing to be saying to your developers? It wasn't said to developers, it was said to a user. The gcc-4.1 stabilization bug has been open for a month and a half. That's great, but that's not an announcement. Folks aren't going to go digging through bugs to find stuff like this. Thats fairly good notice... Only to the folks who knew about that bug. For the wider community ... it's not notice. Warnings have also appeared on planet.gentoo.org, and in the GWN. Tsunam posted that there was a push on to get gcc-4.1 stable, but there was no target date, and no firm statement that said it would definitely be happening. He posted this on July 19th. Was there another warning, with dates and stuff? The GWN warning was last week. My apologies if there was an earlier one that I missed. My apologies, but I've been unable to find an announcement on -dev. Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 2006.1
On 9/2/06, Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/2/06, Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/2/06, Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/2/06, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Give us about 3000 more developers, and sure* ;) I don't think that that's good thing to be saying to our users. Is it a bad thing to be saying to your developers? It wasn't said to developers, it was said to a user. It was in response to gimli, who unless he stole his @g.o address is a developer. The gcc-4.1 stabilization bug has been open for a month and a half. That's great, but that's not an announcement. Folks aren't going to go digging through bugs to find stuff like this. Thats fairly good notice... Only to the folks who knew about that bug. For the wider community ... it's not notice. The wider community will not be effected until they manually make the switch to 4.1, just like any other gcc upgrade. Before doing this one would assume they would do a little research. Warnings have also appeared on planet.gentoo.org, and in the GWN. Tsunam posted that there was a push on to get gcc-4.1 stable, but there was no target date, and no firm statement that said it would definitely be happening. He posted this on July 19th. Was there another warning, with dates and stuff? The GWN warning was last week. My apologies if there was an earlier one that I missed. My apologies, but I've been unable to find an announcement on -dev. I do not know if there was on on -dev, I remember hearing for a little while now that 2006.1 was going to be gcc-4.1.1, but I don't remember if I read that or heard it in the -x86 irc channel, it may have been there which doesn't really count :) Beyond the stabilization warnings however, I would think that gcc-4.1.1 entering unstable (which had a number of announcements IIRC) should be warning to all users that it was now on track to be stable, and to be prepared. I really do not see what kind of further warning was necessary or even possible... maybe I'm missing something. (Other than the yet-to-be-implemented GLEP42 of course) Dan, Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
