Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-24 Thread Paul de Vrieze
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 23:06, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 A GLEP doesn't have to be bureaucracy. It can be nothing more than a
 way of ensuring that the correct technical decisions are made. For a
 project that could end up affecting a lot of people, getting the design
 right and determining exact goals is a very useful first step.

As much as ISO-9002 certification doesn't guarantee quality products/services, 
a GLEP does not ensure correct decisions. It just ensures that some things 
will not get done because they are red-taped to death.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net


pgp3XFlEo4k9g.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-22 Thread Alin Nastac
Dice R. Random wrote:
 What control mechanisms are there within the Gentoo community to keep
 a few bad apples from spoiling the whole barrel, as it were?  I do not
 wish to name any names, but it seems to me from having skimmed this
 list for the past few years that there are a couple people who are
 continually embroiled in flame wars and, in my opinion, are bringing
 discredit to Gentoo in general and the developers in particular.

Enough is enough! Just because some devs are more temperamental than the
others, doesn't make them bad apples!

Our civilized disputes are taken place in public because we are an open
organization. If this looks bad in the eyes of some, so be it, but
please keep your opinions out of this list.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-22 Thread Simon Stelling
Alin Nastac wrote:
 Our civilized disputes are taken place in public because we are an open
 organization. If this looks bad in the eyes of some, so be it, but
 please keep your opinions out of this list.

Except that they're not always that civilized, which was his entire point.

-- 
Kind Regards,

Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 developer
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-21 Thread Nick Rout
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:53:39 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:42:13 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 | As Donnie said; if this is the thanks one gets for trying out a new
 | idea; then why try at all.
 
 The complaints are not that Stuart tried a new idea. Stop trying to
 spin things that way. The complaints are that he allegedly did it
 without consultation, and that he sprang this unexpectedly.
 
 -- 
 Ciaran McCreesh
 Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org
 
 


I am replying here at no particular point in the thread because its
hard to find the right spot to interject. 

I am a lurker on this list, I joined it a few years ago because I was
interested in the development process for gentoo, and because I like to
early adopt and be aware of impending changes.

I am a long time user of gentoo, a strong gentoo advocate, almost to
the point of zealotry. I have introduced many people to gentoo, and
have given talks to my local LUG, run gentoo installfests and
contributed to the -users list, the forums and the bugzilla.

However the behaviour displayed in this list, and in particular this
thread are downright embarassing. I used to be proud of being a gentoo
user and following a group of dedicated and clever developers. Now I
just want to find a quick and easy way to get rid of it. You have had
your antics displayed to the world via a thrashing on slashdot, and
most of you thoroughly deserve the public outing.

Its time you people had a good look at yourselves. Start behaving like
adults, not children fighting over the toys in the sandpit. You make it
hard to promote gentoo when you are arguing over the wording of people
announcing a new project. 

Nick.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-21 Thread Alec Warner

However the behaviour displayed in this list, and in particular this
thread are downright embarassing. I used to be proud of being a gentoo
user and following a group of dedicated and clever developers. Now I
just want to find a quick and easy way to get rid of it. You have had
your antics displayed to the world via a thrashing on slashdot, and
most of you thoroughly deserve the public outing.

Its time you people had a good look at yourselves. Start behaving like
adults, not children fighting over the toys in the sandpit. You make it
hard to promote gentoo when you are arguing over the wording of people
announcing a new project. 


Nick.



Recall that the majority of developers barely respond on this list and 
just *develop*; I wouldn't suggest lumping everyone in that category; 
although I'm sure I fall into it from time to time.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-21 Thread Nick Rout

On 9/21/2006, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 However the behaviour displayed in this list, and in particular this

 thread are downright embarassing. I used to be proud of being a gentoo

 user and following a group of dedicated and clever developers. Now I

 just want to find a quick and easy way to get rid of it. You have had

 your antics displayed to the world via a thrashing on slashdot, and

 most of you thoroughly deserve the public outing.



 Its time you people had a good look at yourselves. Start behaving like

 adults, not children fighting over the toys in the sandpit. You make it

 hard to promote gentoo when you are arguing over the wording of people

 announcing a new project.



 Nick.





Recall that the majority of developers barely respond on this list and

just *develop*; I wouldn't suggest lumping everyone in that category;

although I'm sure I fall into it from time to time.



Ahh thats a fair point indeed.







--

gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-21 Thread Dice R. Random

On 9/21/06, Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Please keep in mind that only a few of the approximately 300 Gentoo
developers are taking part in this discussion and only a few of them
actually seem to get a bit more heated than it should be.
If you think they are behaving poorly, feel free to think so, but
remember that they do not entirely represent Gentoo.


I agree entirely, however I also think that the actions of a few can
be magnified in the public's eye and reflect upon a the whole group.

I think that many (most?) people would agree that in both this
discussion and the one surrounding the Sunrise project lines have been
crossed.  The Etiquette Policy [1] specifies that ... as a developer,
what you say and do reflects upon Gentoo and the project as a whole.
We just require you to be equally respectful to developers and users
alike, and to value the opinion of everybody - even if you think it's
totally wrong.

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3chap=2

What control mechanisms are there within the Gentoo community to keep
a few bad apples from spoiling the whole barrel, as it were?  I do not
wish to name any names, but it seems to me from having skimmed this
list for the past few years that there are a couple people who are
continually embroiled in flame wars and, in my opinion, are bringing
discredit to Gentoo in general and the developers in particular.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Thomas Cort
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:11:17 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 why does it need to be part of releng ?

releng and seeds will be doing similar tasks, releasing stage tarballs.

-Thomas


pgpIH4JTTufWm.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Stuart Herbert

On 9/20/06, Daniel Ostrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 00:56 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
 First step should imho be, that you work with the Portage team on having
 proper set support implemented. Current meta ebuilds do suck, really.

No need for meta ebuilds...stage4 specs + catalyst.

--Dan


To start with, we'll be using meta ebuilds as well as a catalyst spec
file.  We'd like to keep the door open for folks who want to install a
seed from an existing Gentoo installation.

Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 20:00 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
 Hi,
 
 I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1].  The aim of the project
 is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new boxes with
 ready-built Gentoo solutions.

Uhh... seeds?

 Until we've gone through a few iterations and worked out the best way to
 create seeds, we're working in an overlay [2].  We certainly hope to bring
 the work into the main tree once things have settled down.

bring the work to the main tree?

As in... duplicate functionality already provided by catalyst for quite
some time?

Why hasn't anybody even *tried* to contact Release Engineering on
something like this, considering we already have all of the tools
necessary to complete this, as well as the expertise?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


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


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz

Chris Gianelloni wrote:

bring the work to the main tree?

As in... duplicate functionality already provided by catalyst for quite
some time?


Catalyst doesn't provide ongoing maintenance or migration of installed 
systems ... you need more than just a spec file for one of these seeds.



Why hasn't anybody even *tried* to contact Release Engineering on
something like this, considering we already have all of the tools
necessary to complete this, as well as the expertise?


Perhaps because anyone can use the tools, and they don't need to be a 
releng member to do so?


Thanks,
Donnie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Stuart Herbert

On 9/20/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Uhh... seeds?


Yes, seeds.  Seems to describe what we're working towards as well as
any other name.


bring the work to the main tree?

As in... duplicate functionality already provided by catalyst for quite
some time?


No.  As in, bring the packages and profiles from the overlay into the
main tree, once we're happy with them.


Why hasn't anybody even *tried* to contact Release Engineering on
something like this, considering we already have all of the tools
necessary to complete this, as well as the expertise?


We have, and folks there have been very helpful.

Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 21:11 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 why does it need to be part of releng ?  GNAP does releases with catalyst, 
 but 
 it's part of embedded

We also consider Koon to be a part of Release Engineering and he works
with us and we work with him for GNAP.  He even has access to the
Release Engineering build box to do his work on GNAP.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


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


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 07:04 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
  bring the work to the main tree?
  
  As in... duplicate functionality already provided by catalyst for quite
  some time?
 
 Catalyst doesn't provide ongoing maintenance or migration of installed 
 systems ... you need more than just a spec file for one of these seeds.

Like what?  It sounds like they aren't providing anything but tarballs.

  Why hasn't anybody even *tried* to contact Release Engineering on
  something like this, considering we already have all of the tools
  necessary to complete this, as well as the expertise?
 
 Perhaps because anyone can use the tools, and they don't need to be a 
 releng member to do so?

Because it's *REALLY* stupid and shows just how unprofessional we are
when we have multiple groups doing the *EXACT* same thing using
different policies and procedures and all pushing it as if it were
*OFFICIAL* for the distribution.

I mean, we're really getting to the point where this is getting
*COMPLETELY* ludicrous.  Instead of trying to work together, we have
every yahoo with an @gentoo.org address who wants to do something
*slightly* differently coming up with a new project for it.

Why can't we simply try to work *together* on things instead of this
whole I'll start a new project mentality that we have?  It seems that
this *exact* sort of action is what causes frustrations between
developers and serves to strengthen the territorial pissing contests
that are going on daily all over Gentoo.  The reason why it seems Gentoo
is fracturing is because of multiple people doing the exact same thing
in slightly different ways.  Our users don't know what the hell is going
on anymore.  Well, they're not alone... neither do I.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


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


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 15:07 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
  Why hasn't anybody even *tried* to contact Release Engineering on
  something like this, considering we already have all of the tools
  necessary to complete this, as well as the expertise?
 
 We have, and folks there have been very helpful.

Really?  Who?

You haven't spoken to anyone that I've asked in #gentoo-releng.  You
haven't spoken to anyone on the genkernel or catalyst development teams.
Who exactly is it that you're talking to about this?

Anyway, I'm not saying I dislike the idea.  I'm just sick of new
projects spawning off without being thought out in the least, and
making us all look like jackasses.  Is it honestly going to be the new
tradition that every single new project that starts out is going to be
completely undiscussed, poorly thought-out, poorly implemented, and
cause us all to look like a bunch of fools for weeks on end before it
*finally* gets into a half-way workable state?  What ever happened to
*talking* about something before going off and announcing it to the
world as if it's some kind of completed project and ready for public
consumption?  Why is it necessary to even...

*sigh*

Nevermind.

I apologise to everyone for my responses to this.  I'm done.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


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


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Stuart Herbert

On 9/20/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Catalyst doesn't provide ongoing maintenance or migration of installed
 systems ... you need more than just a spec file for one of these seeds.

Like what?  It sounds like they aren't providing anything but tarballs.


Tarballs, VMware images, vserver images, Xen images, and CDs are what
we'll eventually deliver, sure.  Before then, we'll be putting
together packages and (we expect) profiles too.  It's likely that
we'll also support folks who want to install seeds from source (ie,
from a generic stage3 install) as well as folks who want to seed
directly from a stage4 tarball or equivalent.  We have already made a
(small) start in the project's overlay, and we've started documenting
our ideas and hopes on our project's wiki.

We don't pretend to have all the answers; part of the joy of this
project will be learning how to do this stuff, and what can be
achieved with the tools that we all have access to.


Because it's *REALLY* stupid and shows just how unprofessional we are
when we have multiple groups doing the *EXACT* same thing using
different policies and procedures and all pushing it as if it were
*OFFICIAL* for the distribution.


How exactly do rants like this look professional at all?


I mean, we're really getting to the point where this is getting
*COMPLETELY* ludicrous.  Instead of trying to work together, we have
every yahoo with an @gentoo.org address who wants to do something
*slightly* differently coming up with a new project for it.


We are working together.  I'm sorry if you feel left out, but we've
been talking to the folks that we need help from, and I'd like to
publicly say thank you to them for how helpful and supportive
they've been.  I hope Chris' email won't discourage anyone from
continuing to help us.

Until this childish tantrum arrived in my Inbox, I didn't know anyone
was unhappy.

Btw, I would thank you for coming to talk to me directly about this
issue first (which is how we ask Gentoo developers to behave) - but
unfortunately, you didn't, so I can't.


Why can't we simply try to work *together* on things instead of this
whole I'll start a new project mentality that we have?


I think you've just demonstrated the problem far better than I could have.

Best regards,
Stu
--
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
 I apologise to everyone for my responses to this.

Thank you.

Donnie



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Ramon van Alteren

Hi,

I'm one of the people working on seeds.
It's not a new project afaic i produce seed-alike things anyway because 
I need to run a large serverpark on gentoo and I can't hand-install 
servers anymore. We generate custom stage4's tailored to our environment.


One of the reasons i was/am interested in working on seeds is to learn 
more about the official tools like genkernel and catalyst.
And a side goal is to get them better documented while learning how to 
use them.


Chris Gianelloni wrote:

On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 15:07 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:

Why hasn't anybody even *tried* to contact Release Engineering on
something like this, considering we already have all of the tools
necessary to complete this, as well as the expertise?

We have, and folks there have been very helpful.


Really?  Who?

You haven't spoken to anyone that I've asked in #gentoo-releng.  You
haven't spoken to anyone on the genkernel or catalyst development teams.
Who exactly is it that you're talking to about this?


I've sent mail to plasmaroo/Tim wrt catalyst and genkernel and how to 
get started. Mainly because he gave a interesting demonstration of both 
at Gentoo UK 2006 conference. He seemed like the right guy to contact.

He was kind enough to provide starting instructions.


Anyway, I'm not saying I dislike the idea.


Great, I feel it would fill a gap for folks like me, who are in need of 
a repeatable process of generating stage4's or seeds. I also hope that 
the stages/seeds I cook up might be of use to others and at the same 
time hope to improve my own by cooperating with others on generating 
them. They way I'm generating them now could definitly use some improvement.



I'm just sick of new
projects spawning off without being thought out in the least, and
making us all look like jackasses.  Is it honestly going to be the new
tradition that every single new project that starts out is going to be
completely undiscussed, poorly thought-out, poorly implemented, and
cause us all to look like a bunch of fools for weeks on end before it
*finally* gets into a half-way workable state?  What ever happened to
*talking* about something before going off and announcing it to the
world as if it's some kind of completed project and ready for public
consumption?  Why is it necessary to even...


I've seen an announcement to -dev which is hardly the world but a place 
where new developments are discussed ?


Apart from that:
I fail to understand the fierceness of your reaction. I was (and still 
am) looking forward to cooperating as much as possible with releng on 
this since releng is indeed a place where much knowledge on the 
technology we plan to use is centered.


I looked at the dev-manual which states the following on projects:

*   A project exists if it has a web page at 
www.gentoo.org/proj/en/project name that is maintained. (Maintained 
means that the information on the page is factually correct and not 
out-of-date.) If the webpage isn't maintained, it is presumed dead.


* It may have one or many leads, and the leads are selected by the 
members of the project. This selection must occur at least once every 12 
months and may occur at any time.


* It may have zero or more sub-projects. Sub-projects are just projects 
that provide some additional structure, and their web pages are in the 
project's space.


* Not everything (or everyone) needs a project.

* Projects need not be long-term.

* Projects may well conflict with other projects. That's okay.

* Any dev may create a new project just by creating a new page (or, more 
realistically, directory and page) in gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en.


The text seems to encourage people to start projects if they want work 
together on common goals. It does not require new projects to provide a 
well thought-out roadmap with stated approval of relevant other 
projects. Neither does it require projects to be discussed on -dev 
before inception.


If you feel in anyway mistreated or offended by the fact that this 
project was started I would like to know why, and if possible remedy the 
situation.


FWIW: I've been looking at catalyst and genkernel the last two days and 
am trying to get both properly setup in the limited spare-time I have 
after work. They both look like awesome tools for what I want to do.


I hope that your view on the matter does not reflect the view of the 
entire -releng team. I would like to work together as much as possible, 
however the first reaction is not exactly favorable.



I apologise to everyone for my responses to this.  I'm done.


Thank you.
I hope that with that any resentment is out of the air, if not feel free 
to grab me in IRC:Innocenti. I currently hang out on #gentoo-php, I'll 
try and make a habit of logging into #gentoo-releng more often from now on.


Best Regards,

Ramon



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 12:38, Alec Warner wrote:
 I think Chris's primary concern is one of Tell us whats up before it
 happens.

why should he care ?  some Gentoo guys take catalyst and produce stage4s 
directed at certain applications

they arent talking about any of the tools releng develops other than using 
them ... do i have to notify people everytime i turn around and start using 
their tools in a new project ?  GNU WH0RES LOOK OUT
-mike


pgp5AWWWklAO9.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Jon Portnoy
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 10:49:40AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
 
 Because it's *REALLY* stupid and shows just how unprofessional we are
 when we have multiple groups doing the *EXACT* same thing using
 different policies and procedures and all pushing it as if it were
 *OFFICIAL* for the distribution.
 
 I mean, we're really getting to the point where this is getting
 *COMPLETELY* ludicrous.  Instead of trying to work together, we have
 every yahoo with an @gentoo.org address who wants to do something
 *slightly* differently coming up with a new project for it.
 

Once upon a time, all us yahoos with @gentoo.org addresses could start 
doing something new and interesting without getting chewed on.

I don't see you wanting to work together with anyone, I see you 
attacking this with no apparent justification provided except we could 
have done this too

 Why can't we simply try to work *together* on things instead of this
 whole I'll start a new project mentality that we have?  It seems that
 this *exact* sort of action is what causes frustrations between
 developers and serves to strengthen the territorial pissing contests
 that are going on daily all over Gentoo.  The reason why it seems Gentoo
 is fracturing is because of multiple people doing the exact same thing
 in slightly different ways.  Our users don't know what the hell is going
 on anymore.  Well, they're not alone... neither do I.
 

Chris, I have all the respect in the world for releng and the work you 
do there. I know firsthand that releng is a very difficult task.

However, I am having great difficulty comprehending why you even 
bothered sending this mail. Are you trying to say releng was already 
doing this and nobody knew about it, or that releng should've been asked 
to approve this, or what? You're the only one getting territorial about 
it, I'm curious as to what the real issue is.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Danny van Dyk wrote:
 * How do you want to implement the profiles?
 
 * Re: the meta-ebuilds you'd been talking about in this thread: Have you
   yet considered to use the profiles' packages file?

I've mentioned this idea to Stuart. Thanks for bringing it up again. Do
you think it's the best way to go?

Thanks,
Donnie



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Joshua Jackson wrote:
 However, as
 Chris stated loudly, that this is something that falls directly in
 line with Release Engineerings goal. Its not a top level project that
 creates something entirely new. Its a extension of the release of
 images that allow you to install a system.

Sure, neither is releng creating something entirely new. They're
deriving tarballs and CDs using ebuilds to build packages, so perhaps it
should be a subproject of the base project. You can make the not
entirely new argument for literally anything. Oh, and ebuilds wouldn't
work without a package manager, so perhaps all of this should fall under
the Portage project. But Portage wouldn't exist without people to work
on it, so maybe Devrel should be in charge of everything.

 Thus in my opinion it being a top level project is to use what someone
 else said is ludicrous.
 Treecleaners is another newer project that has
 spawned and its a subproject of the QA team. Why can't the seeds group
 be a part of the Releng group. The entire point of the teams is to
 assist each other for a combined benefit. Being a top level project,
 you are in essence saying that we want to do this on our own without
 the help of a group that has been doing a less focused version of what
 you are aiming to provide.

What I am getting from this is that you do not think people can
collaborate if they're not part of the same project. Being a project
just says that a group of developers want to work toward a certain goal.

I encourage everyone to read over
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html and look at exactly
what a project is.

Thanks,
Donnie



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Andrew Gaffney

Donnie Berkholz wrote:

Andrew Gaffney wrote:

Mike Frysinger wrote:

On Wednesday 20 September 2006 12:38, Alec Warner wrote:

I think Chris's primary concern is one of Tell us whats up before it
happens.

why should he care ?  some Gentoo guys take catalyst and produce
stage4s directed at certain applications

He cares because they're basically extending the roll of releng without
it being under releng's control. I know I'd be annoyed if they release a
x86 stage4 and then *I* gets bugs, but I know absolutely nothing about
it. Having 2 projects doing almost the same thing is just going to
confuse users.


As somebody's already mentioned, the embedded project releases GNAP and
has a releng liaison. There's no reason the seeds project couldn't also
have a releng liaison, which seems to resolve the main dispute here.


That's not the issue. The issue is that there should *already* be a releng 
liason, but nobody from releng seems to know anything about this project.


--
Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer   Installer Project

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Stuart Herbert

On 9/20/06, Matthew Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

3) We are where we are at today.  Stuart comes up with a great idea for the
seeds project which might help address the virtualization address image and
it appears releng doesnt like it, so progress could be delayed by another 6
months to year.


I can't claim credit for the idea; plenty of other folks have had the
same idea, and I'm sure plenty of our users are already doing this for
themselves in their own way.

Please be assured that Chris's comments today haven't discouraged me
(or, as best I know, any of the other contributors) from making this
happen.

I was hoping to avoid having to say this - actually I was hoping to
avoid this whole drama -  but we _don't_ need releng's approval to do
this.  To delay progress, Chris will need to make a formal complaint
to the Council.

I don't think Chris wants that.  Everyone, please give him some credit.

Besides, I'm sure we'll delay our own progress whilst we figure out
how to make seeds work well ;-)  I think folks are getting carried
away here!  Let's get stuff working first, eh?


Note that I am only bringing this issue up because I thought releng was being
unfair to stuart's proposal.


I wouldn't like to assume that Chris is speaking for releng here.  I
think it'd be fairer to assume that this is his personal opinion,
until something is explicitly said to the contrary.

Best regards,
Stu
--
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Steve Dibb

Stuart Herbert wrote:

Besides, I'm sure we'll delay our own progress whilst we figure out
how to make seeds work well ;-)  I think folks are getting carried
away here!  Let's get stuff working first, eh?


I think its also worth mentioning that the whole thing is also currently 
in *planning* stage only.  It's not like we're going to upload a stage4 
release tomorrow or anything.


Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 15:26, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
 That's not the issue. The issue is that there should *already* be a releng
 liason, but nobody from releng seems to know anything about this project.

they havent even started releasing anything yet, they're just getting started

why are you throwing paperwork at them before they even need it ?  otherwise 
you're saying anyone who ever plans at any point in the future on making 
releases needs to be part of releng
-mike


pgpfEljK71lRX.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Josh Saddler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Andrew Gaffney wrote:
 That's not the issue. The issue is that there should *already* be a
 releng liason, but nobody from releng seems to know anything about this
 project.
 

I dunno . . . does releng really need to be involved, except if these stage4
tarballs were to be included on regular 200X.X media?

I simply don't see why this has to be a releng project -- I'm surprised anyone
thinks it should be. Give releng a break; they have enough hard work to do.
That's my mindset, anyway. Seems to be that any project could roll up a stage4
release for their stuff (LAMP, GNAP type stuff comes to mind immediately) using
existing stages, since they've already been validated, else releng wouldn't have
released 'em in the first place.

The potentially tricky issue I see is the question of support -- supposing one
project screws up their canned stage -- who takes the blame? Who takes the QA
hit? Probably there should be some central guidelines/plans/docs on the stage4
process, so that it can be adhered to and be beneficial for more than one 
project.

I'm still getting used to this new definition of stage4 -- on the forums at
least, the concept of stage4 has been around for years, though its definition
refers to canned backups of one's current system. ;)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFEZzJrsJQqN81j74RAv4IAJ93bRpfuLvJ7vrmquYi+cETE/J+VgCghXZv
hIokAc23Y7BZfacMFe70wmI=
=hAV2
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz

Stuart Herbert wrote:

To delay progress, Chris will need to make a formal complaint
to the Council.


About what? Our own metastructure proposal explicitly says competing 
projects are allowed. There is no complaint, there's just attempts to 
convince each other that a formal hierarchy is actually relevant in some 
way to whether the work gets done.


I'm about sick enough of this bullshit to never start anything new 
within Gentoo again, and just put it over on sourceforge, berlios or 
freedesktop.org.


Thanks,
Donnie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:27:50 +0100 Stuart Herbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I was hoping to avoid having to say this - actually I was hoping to
| avoid this whole drama -  but we _don't_ need releng's approval to do
| this.  To delay progress, Chris will need to make a formal complaint
| to the Council.

I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything of
this scope and get council approval... The anyone can make a project
rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP large changes.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Stuart Herbert

On 9/20/06, Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hi Stuart,

The pages are correct.


Cool.


He didn't called you a liar.


You haven't spoken to anyone on the genkernel or catalyst development
teams.  - was in response to me saying that I had.  It's difficult to
interpret that as anything other than calling me a liar.


However, what you wrote is not quite
correct. You did talk to 2 people of a whole bunch of people. Neither
Chris, Lars, Tobias, Andrew nor me knew anything about it.


??  I never said we'd talked to all of you.  I said we'd spoken to
folks on the teams.  What I said is correct.


If I understand you correctly, you did talk about usage of catalyst,
but you never informed Releng (as a project) about your intentions.
And that is what Chris is complaining about. And I agree with him here.


Duly noted.


Your project sounds really interesting though. I'd like to ask you some
questions:

* Are you aiming to release vserver images/stage4s together with
  the normal bianual releases?


Sorry, thought I'd covered this earlier (in fact, I know we did).
We're not at the stage of having that answer.  Our focus at the moment
is on getting a working seed defined and tested.

My personal feeling is that seeds are more likely to have a release
schedule based on what their respective $UPSTREAMs are doing.
$UPSTREAMs have their own, individual schedules; I believe that we
need agility to match.  Tying all seeds, irrespective of their
purpose, to the release of our generic release media doesn't seem like
the only answer that will work here.


* If yes, are you going to use the same snapshots?


We haven't discussed it.  Atm, we're focused on step 1, which is to
get the seeds themselves working from our overlay.


* If yes, for what arches do you want to release?


That will vary from seed to seed.  There's no automatic need to try
and release each seed on each and every arch that Gentoo as a whole
supports.

The advantage of the meta-package approach is that the bulk of the
value of the seed will be available on any arch where the packages are
keyworded.  We don't need create release media for each and every seed
for each and every arch.  We can deliver that release media for the
seed/arch combos where it makes sense.

A blanket policy of creating release media for every seed on every
arch doesn't seem practical or desirable.


* How do you want to implement the profiles?


We've only talked about profiles so far for a single seed.  We'd
prefer to inherit from the hardened profile, but we have a number of
questions that we need to answer before we can be sure on that.  We
won't know for certain what the answer is until we've been able to
define and field-test the LAMP Developer Desktop seed.  We don't
expect to deliver that seed until we've put out a LAMP Server seed for
testing and feedback.


* Re: the meta-ebuilds you'd been talking about in this thread: Have you
  yet considered to use the profiles' packages file?


Yes.  We think that we'll be making use of that, but we don't want
profiles to replace the meta-ebuilds.  We're going to try both, and
play with that for awhile to see where the balance best lies.

Best regards,
Stu
--
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Stuart Herbert

On 9/20/06, Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

As long as we have no package sets support in portage, I do indeed think
that this is the best way to go. Didn't realize that you mentioned it,
too.
@Stuart: What do you think?


Right now, I'm not too concerned about the lack of package set
support.  That might change down the road, after we've lived with it
for awhile.

One of the things we're going to trial is supporting USE flags in the
seeds themselves.  We'll try out having the
seeds/lamp-server/release-1 profile (or whatever it ends up being
called) setting a suitable set of USE flags to support a LAMP
environment that includes Apache, PHP45, Perl, Python, and Rails.
The seeds-base/lamp-server package itself will rely on USE flags to
switch on all those options.  If anyone wants to build the seed from
source locally, they'll be able to change the USE flags (for example)
to build a LAMP Server that's dedicated to just Rails, or just Python.

We think that'll make the LAMP Server seed more useful to our users in
practice.  The folks who want a quick stage4 tarball to seed a box -
they'll get the whole nine yards.  But folks who want to customise
things (by compiling from source, probably using a stage3 tarball and
the standard minimal install CD) - they're catered for too.

That's why - atm - we don't want to just lump everything into a
profile, or just into a catalyst spec file.  Maybe one of those will
turn out to be the right way to go, but we'd like to explore this
approach first, and see how things turn out.

Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 16:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:27:50 +0100 Stuart Herbert
 | I was hoping to avoid having to say this - actually I was hoping to
 | avoid this whole drama -  but we _don't_ need releng's approval to do
 | this.  To delay progress, Chris will need to make a formal complaint
 | to the Council.

 I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything of
 this scope and get council approval... The anyone can make a project
 rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP large changes.

i dont see any sort of scope that requires a GLEP

we're talking about improving packages and making stage4 tarballs
-mike


pgpf7P2iaWamq.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Josh Saddler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 | I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1].  The aim of the
 | project is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new
 | boxes with ready-built Gentoo solutions.
 
 Wouldn't this be considered a wide ranging feature or enhancement to
 Gentoo?
 
*shrug* depends on who would want to use it. just because it has the potential
to cover a wide range of projects and packages in terms of usefulness, doesn't
mean it automatically changes things for those projects/packages. at least, not
to the point that it has a wide-ranging *effect* on Gentoo as a whole. i see
potential usefulness and immediate effect aka GLEP as separate issues.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFEalTrsJQqN81j74RApUQAKCH0J6w184/PeE7TVD/lKMTImT1FwCgn+cS
1+JM88eSuEVKQtcpdyY3H2E=
=6XJK
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Jakub Moc
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything of
 this scope and get council approval... The anyone can make a project
 rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP large changes.
 

http://dev.gentoo.org/~chriswhite/xml_source/flame.xml - Code Listing 1.12

WTF really...


-- 

jakub



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 15:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 | I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1].  The aim of the
 | project is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new
 | boxes with ready-built Gentoo solutions.

 Wouldn't this be considered a wide ranging feature or enhancement to
 Gentoo?

no
-mike


pgpnXnlsjqpAs.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:45:24 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 20:33 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
|  On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert
|  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|  | I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1].  The aim of
|  | the project is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to
|  | 'seed' new boxes with ready-built Gentoo solutions.
|  
|  Wouldn't this be considered a wide ranging feature or enhancement to
|  Gentoo?
| 
| It doesn't seem to affect a large set of people, it's totally
| optional, and right now, it's just exploratory.  Do we really need to
| mire it in bureaucracy?  I'm honestly asking.

A GLEP doesn't have to be bureaucracy. It can be nothing more than a
way of ensuring that the correct technical decisions are made. For a
project that could end up affecting a lot of people, getting the design
right and determining exact goals is a very useful first step.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:41:11 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
|  I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything
|  of this scope and get council approval... The anyone can make a
|  project rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP large changes.
|  
| 
| http://dev.gentoo.org/~chriswhite/xml_source/flame.xml - Code Listing
| 1.12
| 
| WTF really...

That Chris White has used a poorly written and terribly thought out GLEP
as an alternative to doing things properly does not mean that GLEPs are
wrong. By quoting that ridiculous document you are contributing nothing
to the discussion.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Chris White
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 13:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything of
 this scope and get council approval... The anyone can make a project
 rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP large changes.

Why?  It's in an overlay so it's not actually part of the Gentoo project, it's 
using existing methods with a difference in distribution formats to provide 
something that will be hopefully usefull to the community.  I'm also sorry 
that you think my flame guide is a ... um.. GLEP(?).  I guess I'm enhancing 
Gentoo by requesting that more llama action be put in GLEPS (rar?).

-- 
Chris White
Gentoo Developer aka:
xx (Scissors Were Here) xx


pgpKA5TkpTaOu.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Michael Cummings
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 21:27 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:27:50 +0100 Stuart Herbert
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 | I was hoping to avoid having to say this - actually I was hoping to
 | avoid this whole drama -  but we _don't_ need releng's approval to do
 | this.  To delay progress, Chris will need to make a formal complaint
 | to the Council.
 
 I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything of
 this scope and get council approval... The anyone can make a project
 rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP large changes.
 

So far in this discussion, as an observer I haven't seen anyone mention
any large changes. So far most of this discussion has been about the
concept. If the end result is a toolset for creating stage4's for
people, does that need a glep? Did we glep making livecd's the default
for x86 and a few other platforms (the ones that launch X, not just
bootable cd's with install tools)? I find a few of the concepts
intriguing enough to like the project, but since at this stage it isn't
in a position to be glepable (that's a word, i swear). if it moves
beyond the discussion phase and has usable stage4 scenarios (maybe it
does already, i'm just basing this on the thread here) then i think at
that point discussions should start with releng on whether this
something that should be made part of the release media cycle - but even
then, a glep?

nb. I was dealing with a box today that couldn't be updated for over a
year and a half. Being able to seed it up to a semi-current state and
toss a finger towards the ubuntu-fanatics in the office with their we
just installed a new cd over the old install and it worked fine would
be nice. so maybe i'm already biased in all of this.

nb2. maybe i'm also missing the point of parts of this discussion.

nb3. there is no nb3.


-- 

-o()o--
Michael Cummings   |#gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl
Gentoo Perl Dev|on irc.freenode.net 
Gentoo/SPARC
Gentoo/AMD64
GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7  8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E
-o()o--


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Jakub Moc
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:41:11 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 |  I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything
 |  of this scope and get council approval... The anyone can make a
 |  project rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP large changes.
 |  
 | 
 | http://dev.gentoo.org/~chriswhite/xml_source/flame.xml - Code Listing
 | 1.12
 | 
 | WTF really...
 
 That Chris White has used a poorly written and terribly thought out GLEP
 as an alternative to doing things properly does not mean that GLEPs are
 wrong. By quoting that ridiculous document you are contributing nothing
 to the discussion.
 

Not that bugging people w/ pointless paperwork would contribute anything
useful to this new project or get any work done... What exactly is there
to GLEP at this point?


-- 

jakub




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:42:02 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Not that bugging people w/ pointless paperwork would contribute
| anything useful to this new project or get any work done... What
| exactly is there to GLEP at this point?

A GLEP is not pointless paperwork if done correctly. It can be an
extremely useful way of working out and setting down exactly what the
goals are, and determining how best to achieve them. It's also a good
way of getting input from concerned parties rather than pissing them
off royally by sticking out an announcement about something that could
be seen as stepping on their toes.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Jakub Moc
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:42:02 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 | Not that bugging people w/ pointless paperwork would contribute
 | anything useful to this new project or get any work done... What
 | exactly is there to GLEP at this point?
 
 A GLEP is not pointless paperwork if done correctly. It can be an
 extremely useful way of working out and setting down exactly what the
 goals are, and determining how best to achieve them. It's also a good
 way of getting input from concerned parties rather than pissing them
 off royally by sticking out an announcement about something that could
 be seen as stepping on their toes.
 

You still didn't tell us what's there to GLEP at this point... Oh well,
never mind.



-- 

jakub



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Josh Saddler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:42:02 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 | Not that bugging people w/ pointless paperwork would contribute
 | anything useful to this new project or get any work done... What
 | exactly is there to GLEP at this point?
 
 A GLEP is not pointless paperwork if done correctly. It can be an
 extremely useful way of working out and setting down exactly what the
 goals are, and determining how best to achieve them. It's also a good
 way of getting input from concerned parties rather than pissing them
 off royally by sticking out an announcement about something that could
 be seen as stepping on their toes.
 
In this case, it's not GLEP-worthy. Perhaps the original mail could have been
more clear, so that releng would not have felt that someone was dumping more
work on them; when, in fact, Seeds can exist independently.

With the exception of some members of releng (whom I would ask to reconsider
their initial worries, now that further discussion and clarification has
ensued), no one else is noticeably concerned.

If Seeds decides they want to *make* some things happen to all/some of the
projects, maybe at that point a GLEP will be needed to address that issue. But
re-using and re-issueing existing resources doesn't warrant a GLEP. Well, maybe
infra might disagree if the tarball load gets hosted on their hardware.

But for now, it's not even a Gentoo-hosted project; seems to just be on
overlays. Quit whining.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFEbvVrsJQqN81j74RAjMHAJ9ejn8PUDXTsnFAu3MiFmc53exSYwCfQLi8
RObT4gxx7K6uIlCZtI/gVK4=
=RFI+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Danny van Dyk
Am Mittwoch, 20. September 2006 23:33 schrieb Chris White:
 On Wednesday 20 September 2006 13:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
  I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything
  of this scope and get council approval... The anyone can make a
  project rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP large
  changes.

 Why?  It's in an overlay so it's not actually part of the Gentoo
 project,
Wrong. It is a new (top-level) project.
 it's using existing methods with a difference in 
 distribution formats
Partly wrong. Gentoo/Seeds wants to use stage4 tarballs, among other 
things.
 to provide something that will be hopefully 
 usefull to the community.  I'm also sorry that you think my flame
 guide is a ... um.. GLEP(?).  I guess I'm enhancing Gentoo by
 requesting that more llama action be put in GLEPS (rar?).
Senseless.

What did you want to contribute to the discussion?

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Alec Warner
This whole thread is quite disappointing to me.  Someone comes up with a
new way to use Gentoo; to make it a viable tool for a job; to make it
USEFUL.  This is what we are about here (or were?).

Put another way, the Gentoo philosophy is to create better tools.

-Daniel Robbins
Previous Chief Architect

So unless that has changed and no one has updated the webpages...

I don't think Gentoo should be about finding the perfect technical
solution.  You notice the quote doesn't say perfect tools or the
best tools, just better ones.

I don't think new projects should be subjected to some crazy GLEP
process just because they might be relevant to the entire community at
some point in the foreseeable future (which is every project).  Hell I
started TreeCleaners; We remove packages from the tree; where was the
call for a GLEP then?

I don't savor the way this project was announced (I only know of it via
Stuart's blog; and I personally would want some working stuff before
making a project page); however I appreciate even less the amount of
flak that he has taken for trying something new.

Once again; if you have technical considerations about his idea then I'm
sure he would like to hear them.  However I didn't see any in my
gentoo-dev-ml scrollback; so I'll assume everyone has mostly baseless
comments to make.

As Donnie said; if this is the thanks one gets for trying out a new
idea; then why try at all.

-Alec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:42:13 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| As Donnie said; if this is the thanks one gets for trying out a new
| idea; then why try at all.

The complaints are not that Stuart tried a new idea. Stop trying to
spin things that way. The complaints are that he allegedly did it
without consultation, and that he sprang this unexpectedly.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 18:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 The complaints are that he allegedly did it
 without consultation, and that he sprang this unexpectedly.

he started a new project and he announced, whoopity do

stop making a big deal over nothing
-mike


pgppKe9FuRp5z.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Daniel Ostrow
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 18:42 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
 This whole thread is quite disappointing to me.  Someone comes up with a
 new way to use Gentoo; to make it a viable tool for a job; to make it
 USEFUL.  This is what we are about here (or were?).
 
 Put another way, the Gentoo philosophy is to create better tools.
 
   -Daniel Robbins
   Previous Chief Architect
 
 So unless that has changed and no one has updated the webpages...

Here is my take on the issue, it's something I saw happen when Gentoo on
Mac OSX was announced, again with Sunrise, and now with Seeds (also note
I'm not making a value judgment about any of the aforementioned
projects, I just note a similar progression of events). There are those
among us (myself often included, and mostly because I had a hand in the
way the OSX port was handled at the outset) that believe that you
shouldn't announce things in the manner of Gentoo is doing XYZ now. in
public fora (lists, gwn whataveyou) without first talking internally to
verify the viability of the project, it's impacts on other projects,
potential points of collaboration etc. This also coming up with a
rational reference implementation and a list of tools that you will
need. Now I realize that this means that there is less public visibility
for projects in their larval stage, which can mean less (new) hands
helping to figure out the above, but it also means an informed set of
peers and no surprises.

I believe that what Ciaran (and others) have been trying to say with
suggesting that a GLEP might have been worthwhile isn't so much the
statement that this (or any of the other projects) necessarily *need* a
GLEP per se, but the GLEP process itself can act as a method to hash out
any issues *and* inform your peers. Maybe we just need something along
the lines of a GLPP (Gentoo Linux Project Proposal) mechanism wherein
the Council specifically does *not* need to approve the project, or for
that matter be involved at all, but can, at their discretion, deny the
project existence. The format of the proposal could follow that of the
current GLEP structure, and it's entire purpose would be to foster peer
review and to spread information. Once a general level of consensus, and
not I specifically did not say a full consensus, is reached then the
project can officially be born.

Hell we just recently went through the whole process of coming up with a
good GLEP to disseminate news to our users and it seems that we have the
same problem internally...

A lot of it comes down to wording in my mind, and granted it is a bunch
of semantic bull but words matter. For instance in Stuart's original
e-mail (and I'm sorry to pick on you, just happens to be the topic at
hand) the subject was New project: Gentoo Seeds  and the first
paragraph read I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1].
The aim of the project is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to
'seed' new boxes with ready-built Gentoo solutions. A simple change to
Subject: New Project Proposal: Gentoo Seeds with the first paragraph
being I'd like to create a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1].  The
aim of the project would be to create stage4 tarballs which can be used
to 'seed' new boxes with ready-built Gentoo solutions. If you are
interested in working on this type of project come by #foo or discuss it
here. I will be sending all online discussions to the list so that the
community can stay informed. Once we get a finalized plan we'll create
an official project. It really comes down to understanding that once it
is called a project it should already be known to be a good idea, and
the whole community should have had time to think about it.

In the court of public opinion there is a huge difference between saying
Gentoo has a project providing XYZ service. and Gentoo is looking
into the viability of providing XYZ service. Especially when it comes
to the potential failure of that service. It looks *way* better to say
We found out that the project would not have been viable. or We had
to modify our idea in this way to make it viable. then causing what
happened today. I'd also say that the *first* discussion of any new
projects should happen on internal lists with the *first* round of
comments coming from within the dev ranks. That way, if a project is
particularly untenable mention of it won't ever have to be made public.
If it is clear that the project just needs some shake out time then
discussion could move to a public list for further scrutiny and
community involvement.

Again...all semantics...and a load of bull...but bull matters.

--Dan


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


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Luca Barbato
Stuart Herbert wrote:
 Hi,
 
 I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1].  The aim of the project
 is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new boxes with
 ready-built Gentoo solutions.

Interestingly enough releng was planning some stage4 support for the
next release and now their toes are feeling steppend on...

 
 At the moment, we're working on a basic LAMP Server (which is why we're
 hanging out in #gentoo-php), and talking about following up with a LAMP
 Developer Desktop.  If you'd like to help, we'd love to work with you.

Looks a nice idea as I said before.

 
 We'd more than welcome other people who want to create completely different
 seeds.  We're doing LAMP because it's an obvious thing to seed; we hope that
 all sorts of seeds will appear down the road.

Could you please planning something about acting as liason between
projects touched by seeds?

E.G. random guy starts contributing a media seed, I'd like to be
notified and maybe have also x11 people notified, just in case the seed
overlay is doing something that I won't support.

Sounds reasonable?

lu

PS: I'd put a rule that will bar seed contribution if there isn't a
liason to a touched project just to keep hardtotrack bugs to the minimum.

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Jakub Moc
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:42:13 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 | As Donnie said; if this is the thanks one gets for trying out a new
 | idea; then why try at all.
 
 The complaints are not that Stuart tried a new idea. Stop trying to
 spin things that way. The complaints are that he allegedly did it
 without consultation, and that he sprang this unexpectedly.
 

Oh noes! Someone had an unexpected and unconsulted idea that he wanted
to share with others, shoot him!!!111! OMG, so much for inovation and
progress...


-- 

jakub



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Seemant Kulleen
In that case, why don't we just consider Stuart's initial mail on this
thing to *be* the effing announcement and be done with it?   Fact is, no
matter how something is brought up, there is a dependable group of
people who will have something against it (oh fuck it, we know I'm
referring to Ciaran here), and then something against the things that
are solved with that, and on and on ad nauseum.  And quite honestly, at
this point, it is nauseating.  Get over yourselves.

-- 
Seemant Kulleen
Trustee, Gentoo Foundation
Developer, Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 01:29:58 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Oh noes! Someone had an unexpected and unconsulted idea that he wanted
 to share with others, shoot him!!!111! OMG, so much for inovation and
 progress...

Sharing the idea and looking for consultation is one thing. Saying
Gentoo is now doing this, like it or not is quite another.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Josh Saddler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Oh look, we just got Slashdotted by someone doing their level best to create a
smear campaign, or at least to spread FUD:
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/09/20/2246231.shtml

As I said on IRC, new project, new whiteboard. why don't we leave it up to
*those project heads* to decide what kind of structure they want, how
inter-project liaisons work, and so on, and generally let themselves run without
everyone policing their _non-existent_ objectives? I mean, _please_ people, they
don't have much firmly settled yet, and everyone is already making judgment 
calls.

Stop with the what-if-omgs and oh, it'll be horrible because of... and wait
to see what they come up with.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFEdZ2rsJQqN81j74RAgf3AJ46RKCpxR/OcYkfGqX5NlgUAki03wCeKrkE
9bky9oYAf1grDoHMoQ5hhqY=
=luzD
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 19:50, Stephen Bennett wrote:
 Sharing the idea and looking for consultation is one thing. Saying
 Gentoo is now doing this, like it or not is quite another.

funny, i dont recall him forcing anyone to help him
-mike


pgp1ZuNPbbA3B.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-20 Thread Stuart Herbert

On 9/21/06, Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Could you please planning something about acting as liason between
projects touched by seeds?

E.G. random guy starts contributing a media seed, I'd like to be
notified and maybe have also x11 people notified, just in case the seed
overlay is doing something that I won't support.

Sounds reasonable?


Very reasonable.  We'll do our very best to achieve that.

One other rule I'll be operating is that every seed needs to be owned
by a full Gentoo developer, preferably someone who is from the project
that the seed most directly relates to.

Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-19 Thread Carsten Lohrke
First step should imho be, that you work with the Portage team on having 
proper set support implemented. Current meta ebuilds do suck, really.


Carsten


pgpY3uwbpcikw.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-19 Thread Daniel Ostrow
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 00:56 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
 First step should imho be, that you work with the Portage team on having 
 proper set support implemented. Current meta ebuilds do suck, really.

No need for meta ebuilds...stage4 specs + catalyst.

--Dan


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


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-19 Thread Thomas Cort
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100
Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/seeds/

Why is this being done as a top level project instead of as a subproject
of Release Engineering?

-Thomas


pgpNbVfRl5I2l.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds

2006-09-19 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 19 September 2006 19:32, Thomas Cort wrote:
 Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/seeds/

 Why is this being done as a top level project instead of as a subproject
 of Release Engineering?

why does it need to be part of releng ?  GNAP does releases with catalyst, but 
it's part of embedded

in fact, this sort of thing would help greatly i think with producing images 
for embedded boards ...
-mike


pgpX0t2PXZZeC.pgp
Description: PGP signature