Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition - round 2

[Dan McGee]

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Gerardo Exequiel
Pozzi wrote:
> Ronald van Haren wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Pierre Schmitz > > wrote:
>>
>>     On Thursday 23 July 2009 14:21:43 Allan McRae wrote:
>>     > Allan McRae wrote:
>>     > > A couple of fixes have been applied to these packages since
>>     the last
>>     > > signoff message.  The list of packages looking for signoffs
>>     now are:
>>     > >
>>     > > filesystem 2009.07-1
>>     > > initscripts 2009.07-3
>>     > > syslog-ng 3.0.3-2
>>     > > udev 141-5
>>     >
>>     > Anybody?
>>
>>     sign-off both
>>
>>     --
>>
>>     Pierre Schmitz, http://users.archlinux.de/~pierre
>>     
>>
>>
>> signoff both ++
>>
>> Ronald
> Sign-off X4: (* (+ real vm) (+ i686 x86_64))

Working well here on i686 and x86_64. Thanks for the auto-inittab update. :)

-Dan

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition - round 2

[Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi]

Ronald van Haren wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Pierre Schmitz  > wrote:
>
> On Thursday 23 July 2009 14:21:43 Allan McRae wrote:
> > Allan McRae wrote:
> > > A couple of fixes have been applied to these packages since
> the last
> > > signoff message.  The list of packages looking for signoffs
> now are:
> > >
> > > filesystem 2009.07-1
> > > initscripts 2009.07-3
> > > syslog-ng 3.0.3-2
> > > udev 141-5
> >
> > Anybody?
>
> sign-off both
>
> --
>
> Pierre Schmitz, http://users.archlinux.de/~pierre
> 
>
>
> signoff both ++
>
> Ronald
Sign-off X4: (* (+ real vm) (+ i686 x86_64))

-- 
Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera )
http://www.djgera.com.ar
KeyID: 0x1B8C330D
Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219  76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty*?transition

[clemens fischer]

Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi wrote:

>  __
> /  \  ___
> |  | /   \
> @  @ | It looks like you are |
> || ||| trying to update your |
> || || <--| system, are you sure? |
> |\_/|\___/
> \___/

The ASCII-art is by far the best post in this thread.  And I am for
installing a .pacnew on meeting a changed inittab and a big message.
And I'm sort of against packages doing out-of-bailiwick business for me.


clemens

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[David Rosenstrauch]

Allan McRae wrote:
And given the number of complaints I got about libjpeg7 (wheres 
the thanks now gtk and kde are working?)


Thank you!

:-)

DR

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition - round 2

[Matthew]

Allan McRae wrote:
A couple of fixes have been applied to these packages since the last 
signoff message.  The list of packages looking for signoffs now are:


filesystem 2009.07-1
initscripts 2009.07-3
syslog-ng 3.0.3-2
udev 141-5

Cheers,
Allan

Would it be possible to have a news item, after the move to core, 
letting users know of the change and that pacman will be touching their 
/etc/inittab file?


~pyther

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Xavier]

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:23, Randy Morris wrote:
>> I think of out all the options here, copying the current inittab to
>> .pacsave and installing a new, working inittab makes the most sense.
>> Then a user would at least have a chance to boot and read their logs to
>> see what happened if they even notice there is a problem.
>>
>
> This is exactly what Arch *doesn't* do, and it provides .pacnew files
> for this purpose.
>

But in this special case, you could always do :
sed -i'.pacsave' 's#vc/\([0-9]\)#tty\1#' /etc/inittab

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Loui Chang]

On Sun 19 Jul 2009 13:43 -0400, Daenyth Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:23, Randy Morris wrote:
> > I think of out all the options here, copying the current inittab to
> > .pacsave and installing a new, working inittab makes the most sense.
> > Then a user would at least have a chance to boot and read their logs to
> > see what happened if they even notice there is a problem.
> 
> This is exactly what Arch *doesn't* do, and it provides .pacnew files
> for this purpose.

Well, I do think saving the current config as a pacsave is a hell of a
lot better than altering it and wondering what the hell happened to your
original config. So that's a compromise I'd be willing to accept.

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Daenyth Blank]

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:23, Randy Morris wrote:
> I think of out all the options here, copying the current inittab to
> .pacsave and installing a new, working inittab makes the most sense.
> Then a user would at least have a chance to boot and read their logs to
> see what happened if they even notice there is a problem.
>

This is exactly what Arch *doesn't* do, and it provides .pacnew files
for this purpose.

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Randy Morris]

FWIW, I subscribe to this list and have read every post in this thread,
and my system was killed because I didn't fix the file before a reboot
out of my own laziness.  It took me all of 2 minutes to fix my system.
Could it have been prevented? Yes.  Do I really give a shit that I had
to fix it?  No, because it was my own fault.  Had this been one of the
remote machines that I administer I would have been more careful when
doing the upgrade and this wouldn't have happened.

I think of out all the options here, copying the current inittab to
.pacsave and installing a new, working inittab makes the most sense.
Then a user would at least have a chance to boot and read their logs to
see what happened if they even notice there is a problem.

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Baho Utot]

On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 10:13 -0400, Matthew wrote:
> Baho Utot wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-07-18 at 22:34 -0400, Loui Chang wrote:
> >   
> >> If you expect the users to be stupid they will be stupid, and you will
> >> hold their hand, and they will begin to expect you to hold their hand,
> >> and then we're in trouble. We will snowball right into Archbuntu.
> >>
> >> So. Do what's right. Give users a warning, give them time to adjust.
> >> If people start complaining, give them the straight line, plug your ears
> >> and sing 'Lalalala I warned you.' Don't stress yourself.
> >> You're not even being paid after all.
> >>
> >> 
> >
> > Are you saying to users.
> >
> > Don't use Arch we don't care or Piss off we do what we want?
> >
> >   
> Exactly. Right on the dot! That was the way it once was and that is what 
> made arch great.

That is sad.

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Matthew]

Baho Utot wrote:

On Sat, 2009-07-18 at 22:34 -0400, Loui Chang wrote:
  

If you expect the users to be stupid they will be stupid, and you will
hold their hand, and they will begin to expect you to hold their hand,
and then we're in trouble. We will snowball right into Archbuntu.

So. Do what's right. Give users a warning, give them time to adjust.
If people start complaining, give them the straight line, plug your ears
and sing 'Lalalala I warned you.' Don't stress yourself.
You're not even being paid after all.




Are you saying to users.

Don't use Arch we don't care or Piss off we do what we want?

  
Exactly. Right on the dot! That was the way it once was and that is what 
made arch great.

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Baho Utot]

On Sat, 2009-07-18 at 23:03 -0400, Matthew wrote:
> Allan McRae wrote:
> > First off, I don't like modifying config files.  But, given I did this 
> > update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it with a 
> > reboot...
> >
> > So it is a question of which I hate more; post install messages or 
> > automatically fixing the file. 
> > A post install message means that I tell all complaining users that 
> > they should have read their pacman output.  But hang on, they are 
> > already told that there is a .pacnew file for what is a very important 
> > config file.  So I can say that anyway. 
> >
> > ...
> >
> > A simple sed of the config file means much, much less complaining 
> > users.  And given the number of complaints I got about libjpeg7 
> > (wheres the thanks now gtk and kde are working?), I am very, very 
> > tempted just to do the sed.
> >
> > Allan
> Could someone please enlighten me why you and Thomas want to please the 
> users that complain? I simply do not understand. You said yourself that 
> you don't like modifying config files, so don't. To hell with the users 
> that don't like it. There are a lot of people that appreciate all the 
> work that went into to the libjpeg and readline rebuilds.You don't hear 
> from the users that appreciate all of your hard work. All you guys 
> see/hear are the users that complain. Many times we take it for granted 
> that things just works! And we are at fault for not speaking up and 
> saying, "Hey thanks for the hard work!"
> 
> I haven't yet heard any users on the Mailing List who are in favor of 
> sedding /etc/inittab. Many of the ML followers probably use testing and 
> reports bugs when ever they encounter anything. Going out on a limb, I 
> would say nearly all users that read the ML want to be involved with 
> arch in one way or the other. I, personally, run testing and I am always 
> amazed at how smoothly things run.
> 
> I was on IRC earlier today and somebody posted a youtube video on how to 
> install arch linux: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIVcF5t1kZw
> Now just look at some of the comments on the video. These users are 
> probably on the extreme, but these are some of our users. We also have 
> many users that have just a little bit more knowledge, but they are 
> still left clueless. I'd guess these are the users that complain.
> 
> Point is users, that complain, probably lack the skills needed to run arch.
> 
> If you think that automating file modifications is good and in the best 
> interest of the users that you are targeting then go for it. To hell 
> with me and the others. After all, the distro is your work. If that is 
> the path chosen, it is sad to see something so great dissolve away. In 
> that case thank you for the ride and good luck in the future.
> 
> ~pyther

1st off I am just one of those "ignorant users".  Yes I do complain but
I am only complaining so others don't have the same problem I did.  I am
only trying to help.

If I find a problem in a PKGBUILD or when building a package I file a
bug report.  I think packages should build with little or no problems.
If devs or anyone at Arch thinks it is bogus you can simply close it.

If I post something to help with a problem and it is wrong or can be
done better, then some one corrects me then everyone has an opportunity
to learn,  that is how me/us "ignorant users" learn so have a little
patient with us.

I don't see anything dissolving away.

It is just you have a problem with a update and need to solve it.  

I am for solving this problem on its own merits and not "only by the
rules" then doing the proper thing.

Any way you have been warned, that one of your config files may have
been edited.. so respond appropriately.  

Oh see it works both ways.

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Baho Utot]

On Sat, 2009-07-18 at 22:34 -0400, Loui Chang wrote:
> On Sun 19 Jul 2009 12:01 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> > First off, I don't like modifying config files.  But, given I did
> > this update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it
> > with a reboot...
> > 
> > So it is a question of which I hate more; post install messages or
> > automatically fixing the file.
> > 
> > A post install message means that I tell all complaining users that
> > they should have read their pacman output.  But hang on, they are
> > already told that there is a .pacnew file for what is a very
> > important config file.  So I can say that anyway.  So here is my
> > prototype install file...
> > 
> > post_install()
> > {
> >  if [ -f "/etc/inittab.pacnew" ]; then
> >echo "You are being very stupid if you did not take notice of that
> > warning about a .pacnew file"
> >  fi
> > }
> > 
> > A simple sed of the config file means much, much less complaining
> > users.  And given the number of complaints I got about libjpeg7
> > (wheres the thanks now gtk and kde are working?), I am very, very
> > tempted just to do the sed.
> 
> If you expect the users to be stupid they will be stupid, and you will
> hold their hand, and they will begin to expect you to hold their hand,
> and then we're in trouble. We will snowball right into Archbuntu.
> 
> So. Do what's right. Give users a warning, give them time to adjust.
> If people start complaining, give them the straight line, plug your ears
> and sing 'Lalalala I warned you.' Don't stress yourself.
> You're not even being paid after all.
> 

Are you saying to users.

Don't use Arch we don't care or Piss off we do what we want?

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Baho Utot]

On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 12:20 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> Daenyth Blank wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 22:01, Allan McRae wrote:
> >   
> >> post_install()
> >> {
> >>  if [ -f "/etc/inittab.pacnew" ]; then
> >>   echo "You are being very stupid if you did not take notice of that 
> >> warning
> >> about a .pacnew file"
> >>  fi
> >> }
> >> 
> >
> > +1 to this solution from me.
> >   
> 
> I guess you missed my sarcasm.  It is difficult to convey across email.  
> I see absolutely no point in repeating warnings.  If they did not read 
> the first, why would they read the second?
> 
> Allan
> 
> 


Because their machine is broke?

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Baho Utot]

On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 12:01 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> First off, I don't like modifying config files.  But, given I did this 
> update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it with a 
> reboot...
> 
> So it is a question of which I hate more; post install messages or 
> automatically fixing the file.  
> 
> A post install message means that I tell all complaining users that they 
> should have read their pacman output.  But hang on, they are already 
> told that there is a .pacnew file for what is a very important config 
> file.  So I can say that anyway.  So here is my prototype install file...
> 
> post_install()
> {
>   if [ -f "/etc/inittab.pacnew" ]; then
> echo "You are being very stupid if you did not take notice of that 
> warning about a .pacnew file"
>   fi
> }
> 
> A simple sed of the config file means much, much less complaining 
> users.  And given the number of complaints I got about libjpeg7 (wheres 
> the thanks now gtk and kde are working?), I am very, very tempted just 
> to do the sed.
> 
> Allan
> 

Not that my option means squat but

I agree.  Since this update/upgrade will break everyone/most peoples
systems I think a relaxing of the rule for this one is justified
.
Rules are meant to be broken, that's why there are rules :)

You do want to be a distro without rules don't you?

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Roman Kyrylych]

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 13:16, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Aaron Griffin schrieb:
>>
>> However, I must point out: odds are most people don't touch inittab, so
>> the
>> upgrade will do things as expected and the sed line will only do work a
>> small subset of end users.
>
> You are wrong here. I would guess virtually any user touched it.

That's questionable.
It depends if users configured their X login manager in inittab
or just added gdm/kdm/slim/whatever to DAEMONS in rc.conf (as I did).
I doubt there is any statistics on it, so it's hard to correctly
assume anything.

Anyway these are valid points:
> That said, we do modify configuration files all the time. We run grpck on a
> shadow update so users can still log in, some gtk update generate files in
> /etc so it still finds its plugins and more. We just don't do it ourselves,
> but hide behind some program provided to us and tell ourselves "It's okay,
> upstream wanted it this way". And guess what, nobody even notices.

The whole discussion is getting on a way to flamewar IMO.
I'm fine with just newsitem in advance and a post_upgrade message,
but Thomas' idea about doing sed and saving user's config as .pacsave
and posting a message about what was done is reasonable as well:
* users who weren't careful will have a working system after reboot,
* users who are careful will see the .pacsave and will check\
  if sed didn't break their config.

-- 
Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[vlad]

i don't get the point of this discussion!
isn't it the devs choice to do it how _he_ thinks it's good and
reasonable?
if thomas thinks putting a sed line in the .install is the best way,
then he should do it! 

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 12:57:30PM +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Pierre Chapuis schrieb:
>> That teaching might require breaking the system of those that don't follow 
>> simple rules such as read the output of Pacman.
>
> How can a user distinguish between important pacman output and the crap  
> that is put everywherre?
>
>> Moreover, I have modified /etc/inittab, and depending on what the sed does, 
>> it might break my system. I don't think I'm the only user to have done that. 
>> So, even if you go the sed way, you will need to use post_upgrade() to warn 
>> the users that you changed something, and probably create a .pacsave... But 
>> in fact, if your goal is to make the systems of people who don't know what 
>> /etc/inittab is work, why use sed and not just replace the file with a new 
>> one using tty?
>
> There was the time when pacman saved the old file as .pacsave and put  
> the new one in place, effectively restoring the default configuration  
> and leaving it to the user to merge in his custom configuration. I am  
> beginning to understand why someone would do it this way.

yes, creating a pacsave file is an elegant solution. 

vlad
-- 

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Thomas Bächler]

Pierre Chapuis schrieb:

That teaching might require breaking the system of those that don't follow 
simple rules such as read the output of Pacman.


How can a user distinguish between important pacman output and the crap 
that is put everywherre?



Moreover, I have modified /etc/inittab, and depending on what the sed does, it 
might break my system. I don't think I'm the only user to have done that. So, 
even if you go the sed way, you will need to use post_upgrade() to warn the 
users that you changed something, and probably create a .pacsave... But in 
fact, if your goal is to make the systems of people who don't know what 
/etc/inittab is work, why use sed and not just replace the file with a new one 
using tty?


There was the time when pacman saved the old file as .pacsave and put 
the new one in place, effectively restoring the default configuration 
and leaving it to the user to merge in his custom configuration. I am 
beginning to understand why someone would do it this way.


Nowadays, as soon as you modify the file, the new files are installed as 
.pacnew which makes sense most of the time. But in this case ... let's 
admit it, most users don't really care about inittab. Some HOWTO told 
them to uncomment a line for their login manager and they forgot about 
it. If you really want to educate users, remove all those HOWTOs that 
people follow step-by-step without understanding a word and let them 
figure it out themselves.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Pierre Chapuis]

Le Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:29:28 -0500,
Aaron Griffin  a écrit :

> And to be clear, I definitely do not like the pandering to users thing... if
> people whining about stupid shit gets on your nerves, stop visiting the
> forums and IRC. It worked for me! ( google 'eternal september' for kicks :).
> Pyther, I like your sentiment.

Same here. I'm just a user but I like to think that Arch is a distribution that 
gives control to power users, and that teaches other users how things work.

That teaching might require breaking the system of those that don't follow 
simple rules such as read the output of Pacman.

Moreover, I have modified /etc/inittab, and depending on what the sed does, it 
might break my system. I don't think I'm the only user to have done that. So, 
even if you go the sed way, you will need to use post_upgrade() to warn the 
users that you changed something, and probably create a .pacsave... But in 
fact, if your goal is to make the systems of people who don't know what 
/etc/inittab is work, why use sed and not just replace the file with a new one 
using tty?

Anyway, I second pyther, phrakture and all those who are against automatic 
changes to critical configuration files. And I think every post or bug report 
complaining about that should be closed with a link to the news post about the 
move from vc to tty.

-- 
catwell

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Thomas Bächler]

Allan McRae schrieb:
First off, I don't like modifying config files.  But, given I did this 
update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it with a 
reboot...


So, the average advanced user won't even notice the problem, even you 
didn't (and you did get a .pacnew and a warning, didn't you?). It would 
take someone like me to notice it on his own - and let's admit it, 
there's not too many people like me.


Let's view this from another angle: It's not just the noobs and the 
unattentive users that will fall for this, it's also over half of the 
advanced and experienced users.


That said, we do modify configuration files all the time. We run grpck 
on a shadow update so users can still log in, some gtk update generate 
files in /etc so it still finds its plugins and more. We just don't do 
it ourselves, but hide behind some program provided to us and tell 
ourselves "It's okay, upstream wanted it this way". And guess what, 
nobody even notices.


So it is a question of which I hate more; post install messages or 
automatically fixing the file. 
A post install message means that I tell all complaining users that they 
should have read their pacman output.  But hang on, they are already 
told that there is a .pacnew file for what is a very important config 
file.


Yes, and there has been a warning for inittab.pacnew several times in 
the past few months, always with some completely irrelevant added 
comment or added default lines. So, we give the user a pacnew with 
irrelevant things until he knows he can ignore it and THEN we break his 
system, how nice is that?


A short and simple message explaining what about this .pacnew is rather 
important might be in order. It could be as short as "Please read 
http://www.archlinux.org/news/1234 before you reboot." Or a bit more 
pragmatic, like "Your system is cannot reboot now. Please thank the Arch 
developers".




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Thomas Bächler]

Aaron Griffin schrieb:

However, I must point out: odds are most people don't touch inittab, so the
upgrade will do things as expected and the sed line will only do work a
small subset of end users.


You are wrong here. I would guess virtually any user touched it.


And to be clear, I definitely do not like the pandering to users thing... if
people whining about stupid shit gets on your nerves, stop visiting the
forums and IRC. It worked for me! ( google 'eternal september' for kicks :).


Yeah, we are proud of our great community which we like to ignore.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Aaron Griffin]

Holy hell this is out of control. Here's the two sides, boiled down:

* Use an automatic sed to prevent people from complaining
* Post a news item and let people do it manually.

As we can tell from this thread, people are going to bitch either way -
making the 'no bitching' argument a little moot.

Personally, I am against this but I can see it simplifying this process, so
I understand why people would want this. My biggest fear is that it goes
downhill from here. 'We did it for the tty change' will be used to justify
more and more. It's a slippery slope. Sometimes these things happen where
you need to be slightly inconvienanced in order to protect yourself from
falling into a trap like this.

However, I must point out: odds are most people don't touch inittab, so the
upgrade will do things as expected and the sed line will only do work a
small subset of end users.

And to be clear, I definitely do not like the pandering to users thing... if
people whining about stupid shit gets on your nerves, stop visiting the
forums and IRC. It worked for me! ( google 'eternal september' for kicks :).
Pyther, I like your sentiment.

On Jul 18, 2009 10:14 PM, "Daenyth Blank"
>
wrote:

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 23:03, Matthew wrote: > Could
someone please enlighten me...
Too true. totally agree with all of the above

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Daenyth Blank]

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 23:03, Matthew wrote:
> Could someone please enlighten me why you and Thomas want to please the
> users that complain? I simply do not understand. You said yourself that you
> don't like modifying config files, so don't. To hell with the users that
> don't like it. There are a lot of people that appreciate all the work that
> went into to the libjpeg and readline rebuilds.You don't hear from the users
> that appreciate all of your hard work. All you guys see/hear are the users
> that complain. Many times we take it for granted that things just works! And
> we are at fault for not speaking up and saying, "Hey thanks for the hard
> work!"
Too true. totally agree with all of the above

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Matthew]

Allan McRae wrote:
First off, I don't like modifying config files.  But, given I did this 
update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it with a 
reboot...


So it is a question of which I hate more; post install messages or 
automatically fixing the file. 
A post install message means that I tell all complaining users that 
they should have read their pacman output.  But hang on, they are 
already told that there is a .pacnew file for what is a very important 
config file.  So I can say that anyway. 


...

A simple sed of the config file means much, much less complaining 
users.  And given the number of complaints I got about libjpeg7 
(wheres the thanks now gtk and kde are working?), I am very, very 
tempted just to do the sed.


Allan
Could someone please enlighten me why you and Thomas want to please the 
users that complain? I simply do not understand. You said yourself that 
you don't like modifying config files, so don't. To hell with the users 
that don't like it. There are a lot of people that appreciate all the 
work that went into to the libjpeg and readline rebuilds.You don't hear 
from the users that appreciate all of your hard work. All you guys 
see/hear are the users that complain. Many times we take it for granted 
that things just works! And we are at fault for not speaking up and 
saying, "Hey thanks for the hard work!"


I haven't yet heard any users on the Mailing List who are in favor of 
sedding /etc/inittab. Many of the ML followers probably use testing and 
reports bugs when ever they encounter anything. Going out on a limb, I 
would say nearly all users that read the ML want to be involved with 
arch in one way or the other. I, personally, run testing and I am always 
amazed at how smoothly things run.


I was on IRC earlier today and somebody posted a youtube video on how to 
install arch linux: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIVcF5t1kZw
Now just look at some of the comments on the video. These users are 
probably on the extreme, but these are some of our users. We also have 
many users that have just a little bit more knowledge, but they are 
still left clueless. I'd guess these are the users that complain.


Point is users, that complain, probably lack the skills needed to run arch.

If you think that automating file modifications is good and in the best 
interest of the users that you are targeting then go for it. To hell 
with me and the others. After all, the distro is your work. If that is 
the path chosen, it is sad to see something so great dissolve away. In 
that case thank you for the ride and good luck in the future.


~pyther

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Loui Chang]

On Sun 19 Jul 2009 12:01 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> First off, I don't like modifying config files.  But, given I did
> this update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it
> with a reboot...
> 
> So it is a question of which I hate more; post install messages or
> automatically fixing the file.
> 
> A post install message means that I tell all complaining users that
> they should have read their pacman output.  But hang on, they are
> already told that there is a .pacnew file for what is a very
> important config file.  So I can say that anyway.  So here is my
> prototype install file...
> 
> post_install()
> {
>  if [ -f "/etc/inittab.pacnew" ]; then
>echo "You are being very stupid if you did not take notice of that
> warning about a .pacnew file"
>  fi
> }
> 
> A simple sed of the config file means much, much less complaining
> users.  And given the number of complaints I got about libjpeg7
> (wheres the thanks now gtk and kde are working?), I am very, very
> tempted just to do the sed.

If you expect the users to be stupid they will be stupid, and you will
hold their hand, and they will begin to expect you to hold their hand,
and then we're in trouble. We will snowball right into Archbuntu.

So. Do what's right. Give users a warning, give them time to adjust.
If people start complaining, give them the straight line, plug your ears
and sing 'Lalalala I warned you.' Don't stress yourself.
You're not even being paid after all.

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Allan McRae]

Daenyth Blank wrote:

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 22:01, Allan McRae wrote:
  

post_install()
{
 if [ -f "/etc/inittab.pacnew" ]; then
  echo "You are being very stupid if you did not take notice of that warning
about a .pacnew file"
 fi
}



+1 to this solution from me.
  


I guess you missed my sarcasm.  It is difficult to convey across email.  
I see absolutely no point in repeating warnings.  If they did not read 
the first, why would they read the second?


Allan

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Daenyth Blank]

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 22:01, Allan McRae wrote:
> post_install()
> {
>  if [ -f "/etc/inittab.pacnew" ]; then
>   echo "You are being very stupid if you did not take notice of that warning
> about a .pacnew file"
>  fi
> }

+1 to this solution from me.

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Allan McRae]

First off, I don't like modifying config files.  But, given I did this 
update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it with a 
reboot...


So it is a question of which I hate more; post install messages or 
automatically fixing the file.  

A post install message means that I tell all complaining users that they 
should have read their pacman output.  But hang on, they are already 
told that there is a .pacnew file for what is a very important config 
file.  So I can say that anyway.  So here is my prototype install file...


post_install()
{
 if [ -f "/etc/inittab.pacnew" ]; then
   echo "You are being very stupid if you did not take notice of that 
warning about a .pacnew file"

 fi
}

A simple sed of the config file means much, much less complaining 
users.  And given the number of complaints I got about libjpeg7 (wheres 
the thanks now gtk and kde are working?), I am very, very tempted just 
to do the sed.


Allan

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Daenyth Blank]

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 20:09, Loui Chang wrote:
> Haha. Yeah I just don't want packages to be messing with my configs
> behind my back. Post a message with a sed command, or a .pacnew file, or
> something. Don't do it without letting me have that control.
>
> That's rude.
>
>

Agreed. I'm very much against automatically modifying any config files.

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Loui Chang]

On Sun 19 Jul 2009 01:39 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Matthew schrieb:
> >What if the post_upgrade() message gives the users the sed command to run?
> 
> Seems kind of pointless.
> 
> >Who cares about the users? Arch has been a distro that is made the
> >way the developers want it, not the users. The users just reap the
> >benefits of all the developers hard work. It seems as if more devs
> >care about the users, especially the new users. We get lucky if you
> >(the devs) listen to us. So what if we loose 50% of the user base?
> >Does that really matter?
> 
> What the developers want, at least me, is not spend the next two
> weeks being bitched at because philosophy forbids us to change a file
> automatically.
> 
> >Back in the day, the devs got their way. They listened to user
> >input, but more times than not they did what they wanted. They
> >didn't give a squat about the users. IMHO this was one of the
> >qualities that made arch great! And know it is disappearing.
> 
> In fact, it is not disappearing. I'll just listen to what you said,
> then ignore it and get it my way. I beat you with your own logic, how
> nice is that?

Haha. Yeah I just don't want packages to be messing with my configs
behind my back. Post a message with a sed command, or a .pacnew file, or
something. Don't do it without letting me have that control.

That's rude.

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[André Ramaciotti]

I have to agree with pyther. You, devs, have been doing all you can to
warn the users. There is the arch-announce mailing list, there are
messages from pacman when it installs something that might break
others, there is the forum, there are announcements on Arch's home
page... Damn! there are even RSS feeds!

Even though, many users will complain, just like when X got updated
and HAL needed to be running. IMHO, you should say "We're sorry, but
we did try to warn you". I mean, what else could you do? Call every
user and tell them that there'll be a big update?

You're doing a great job, don't let the few people from the Arch
community that don't know how to read upset you.

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Thomas Bächler]

Matthew schrieb:

What if the post_upgrade() message gives the users the sed command to run?


Seems kind of pointless.

Who cares about the users? Arch has been a distro that is made the way 
the developers want it, not the users. The users just reap the benefits 
of all the developers hard work. It seems as if more devs care about the 
users, especially the new users. We get lucky if you (the devs) listen 
to us. So what if we loose 50% of the user base? Does that really matter?


What the developers want, at least me, is not spend the next two weeks 
being bitched at because philosophy forbids us to change a file 
automatically.


Back in the day, the devs got their way. They listened to user input, 
but more times than not they did what they wanted. They didn't give a 
squat about the users. IMHO this was one of the qualities that made arch 
great! And know it is disappearing.


In fact, it is not disappearing. I'll just listen to what you said, then 
ignore it and get it my way. I beat you with your own logic, how nice is 
that?


It is sad to see arch turning into just another distro. The many things 
that made arch great are dissolving. :-(


Oh my god, Arch is becoming one of those distros that will actually 
reboot after an upgrade.


Anyway, I will go with whatever the rest says. If it's really necessary 
to be narrow-minded about our own philosophy, then I won't stand in 
anyone's way. You see, my own computer still works - as always.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Matthew]

Thomas Bächler wrote:

Aaron Griffin schrieb:

Loui stated it very well.


I also agree with Loui. We've always tried to avoid these automatic
sed type things. I think a message and a news item should be enough


It seems wrong to me to let so many people perform the same step by 
hand when we could have done it automatically and completely safe.


We have to think about what's simpler here: Have a short and safe 
sed-line in post_upgrade, or have a shitload of users spend their time 
booting with live CDs and editing files because they weren't careful. 
This thing is a huge breaker.



What if the post_upgrade() message gives the users the sed command to run?

Who cares about the users? Arch has been a distro that is made the way 
the developers want it, not the users. The users just reap the benefits 
of all the developers hard work. It seems as if more devs care about the 
users, especially the new users. We get lucky if you (the devs) listen 
to us. So what if we loose 50% of the user base? Does that really matter?


Back in the day, the devs got their way. They listened to user input, 
but more times than not they did what they wanted. They didn't give a 
squat about the users. IMHO this was one of the qualities that made arch 
great! And know it is disappearing.


It is sad to see arch turning into just another distro. The many things 
that made arch great are dissolving. :-(


~pyther

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[bardo]

2009/7/19 Thomas Bächler :
> We have to think about what's simpler here: Have a short and safe sed-line
> in post_upgrade, or have a shitload of users spend their time booting with
> live CDs and editing files /and opening bugs and shouting in the forums and
> crying on the mailing lists/ because they weren't careful. This thing is a
> huge breaker.

There, fixed it for you. I concur :)

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Thomas Bächler]

Aaron Griffin schrieb:

Loui stated it very well.


I also agree with Loui. We've always tried to avoid these automatic
sed type things. I think a message and a news item should be enough


It seems wrong to me to let so many people perform the same step by hand 
when we could have done it automatically and completely safe.


We have to think about what's simpler here: Have a short and safe 
sed-line in post_upgrade, or have a shitload of users spend their time 
booting with live CDs and editing files because they weren't careful. 
This thing is a huge breaker.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi]

Loui Chang wrote:
> Hah. It seems that Arch is turning into one of them user friendly
> distros where things are automatically configured and all eh
Feature request for pacman-4.0: Please add a Clippy like assistant :P
 __
/  \  ___
|  | /   \
@  @ | Its looks like you are|
|| ||| trying to update your |
|| || <--| system, are you sure? |
|\_/|\___/
\___/

-- 
Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera )
http://www.djgera.com.ar
KeyID: 0x1B8C330D
Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219  76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Aaron Griffin]

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Matthew wrote:
> Loui Chang wrote:
>>
>> On Sat 18 Jul 2009 22:11 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Matthew schrieb:
>>>

 Although you are correct, I do not think automatically fixing the
 problem is a good solution here.

 First, I am not a big fan of the idea of package modifying a core
 file. Secondly what will happen when a user reinstalls the
 initscripts? If my memory holds me correctly the sed command will
 fail which will cause the post_install() to fail, because the file
 already has the correct modifications.

>>>
>>> No, all that will happen is ... nothing. And there is a difference
>>> between post_upgrade and post_install!
>>>
>>> I don't want to spend the next 3 weeks responding to forum posts,
>>> mailing list threads and irc rants about the same little thing that
>>> could have been fixed safely and easily! Do you?
>>>
>>
>> Hah. It seems that Arch is turning into one of them user friendly
>> distros where things are automatically configured and all eh?
>>
>> Really I think the proper thing would be to put out a notice that it
>> will be changed, give users a chance to adjust, then change it.
>>
>> Don't bother answering those who are unattentive. Let them suffer or
>> choose another distro.
>>
>>
>
> Loui stated it very well.

I also agree with Loui. We've always tried to avoid these automatic
sed type things. I think a message and a news item should be enough

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Matthew]

Loui Chang wrote:

On Sat 18 Jul 2009 22:11 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
  

Matthew schrieb:


Although you are correct, I do not think automatically fixing the
problem is a good solution here.

First, I am not a big fan of the idea of package modifying a core
file. Secondly what will happen when a user reinstalls the
initscripts? If my memory holds me correctly the sed command will
fail which will cause the post_install() to fail, because the file
already has the correct modifications.
  

No, all that will happen is ... nothing. And there is a difference
between post_upgrade and post_install!

I don't want to spend the next 3 weeks responding to forum posts,
mailing list threads and irc rants about the same little thing that
could have been fixed safely and easily! Do you?



Hah. It seems that Arch is turning into one of them user friendly
distros where things are automatically configured and all eh?

Really I think the proper thing would be to put out a notice that it
will be changed, give users a chance to adjust, then change it.

Don't bother answering those who are unattentive. Let them suffer or
choose another distro.

  

Loui stated it very well.

I must admit that I forgot about post_upgrade, however I still think it 
is a poor idea to let a package modify a critical system file. In this 
instance, modifying the file is not that big of a deal, but by modifying 
the file a precedents gets sets. Where does the line get drawn, then? 
What do we start automatically modifying next?


Over the past year or so, we have seen a great deal of new users, which 
IMHO do not fully appreciate arch for what arch truly is. Does that mean 
we should make arch easier? I think by automating this processes it 
would be the start of arch becoming a ubuntu, fedora, suse type of 
distribution.


One of the things that made arch great was that you knew exactly what 
was going on with your system and how it worked. By automating this 
task, you lose a bit of that. A few years ago, this idea would have been 
shot down in an instant.


As for the users who don't like it, simply ignore them. If you want to 
be "helpful" post a link to the news entry and leave it at that. Those 
who want to help such users can do so in the Newbie conner of the forum.


~pyther

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Loui Chang]

On Sat 18 Jul 2009 22:11 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Matthew schrieb:
> >Although you are correct, I do not think automatically fixing the
> >problem is a good solution here.
> >
> >First, I am not a big fan of the idea of package modifying a core
> >file. Secondly what will happen when a user reinstalls the
> >initscripts? If my memory holds me correctly the sed command will
> >fail which will cause the post_install() to fail, because the file
> >already has the correct modifications.
> 
> No, all that will happen is ... nothing. And there is a difference
> between post_upgrade and post_install!
> 
> I don't want to spend the next 3 weeks responding to forum posts,
> mailing list threads and irc rants about the same little thing that
> could have been fixed safely and easily! Do you?

Hah. It seems that Arch is turning into one of them user friendly
distros where things are automatically configured and all eh?

Really I think the proper thing would be to put out a notice that it
will be changed, give users a chance to adjust, then change it.

Don't bother answering those who are unattentive. Let them suffer or
choose another distro.

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Thomas Bächler]

Matthew schrieb:
Although you are correct, I do not think automatically fixing the 
problem is a good solution here.


First, I am not a big fan of the idea of package modifying a core file. 
Secondly what will happen when a user reinstalls the initscripts? If my 
memory holds me correctly the sed command will fail which will cause the 
post_install() to fail, because the file already has the correct 
modifications.


No, all that will happen is ... nothing. And there is a difference 
between post_upgrade and post_install!


I don't want to spend the next 3 weeks responding to forum posts, 
mailing list threads and irc rants about the same little thing that 
could have been fixed safely and easily! Do you?




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Matthew]

Dan McGee wrote:

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
  

Allan McRae schrieb:


 From experience...  not necessarily.  I got into X without doing that
although I had no tty's.
But exactly how do we deal with this?  Post a new item before the move?
  

Fix it: apply a cool sed line that seds vc/$NUMBER to tty$NUMBER on inittab.
This will not destroy anything, but potentially fix it.



Those of us not using X on certain machines would get burned here, so
its definitely worth attempting to fix...

-Dan
  
Although you are correct, I do not think automatically fixing the 
problem is a good solution here.


First, I am not a big fan of the idea of package modifying a core file. 
Secondly what will happen when a user reinstalls the initscripts? If my 
memory holds me correctly the sed command will fail which will cause the 
post_install() to fail, because the file already has the correct 
modifications. This will also happen with users who switch between the 
official initscripts and unofficial initscripts (faster boot, 
bootsplash, etc...).


I would suggest including a post_install() message and posting a news 
item a couple days before the move, instead. This way users can find out 
about this change via the news or via pacman's output. Finally this 
might be a good "reality" check for users who just install packages and 
don't pay attention to pacman's output or the news.


~pyther

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Allan McRae]

Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi wrote:

Allan McRae wrote:
  

Signoffs needed for the following packages:

filesystem 2009.07-1
initscripts 2009.07-2 (what I tagged as -1 did not shutdown correctly)
syslog-ng 3.0.3-2
udev 141-4


Allan






For udev missing the last patch for PKGBUILD [#1] in my last-1 comment [#2]
  


This was deliberate - I did not want to deal with needing a -Sf for udev 
when these four packages are kind of tied together with this update.



And for initscript the patch for fix the rtc path [#3] (oops!)
  


This is not too much of an issue so I will hold of fixing for a bit in 
case other issues occur.  Will push an update before all this moves out 
of [testing].


Allan

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

[Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi]

Allan McRae wrote:
> Signoffs needed for the following packages:
>
> filesystem 2009.07-1
> initscripts 2009.07-2 (what I tagged as -1 did not shutdown correctly)
> syslog-ng 3.0.3-2
> udev 141-4
>
>
> Allan
>
>
>
>
For udev missing the last patch for PKGBUILD [#1] in my last-1 comment [#2]

And for initscript the patch for fix the rtc path [#3] (oops!)

[#1] http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/11352?getfile=3790
[#2] http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/11352#comment46855
[#3] http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/11352?getfile=3810

-- 
Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera )
http://www.djgera.com.ar
KeyID: 0x1B8C330D
Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219  76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D