Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Neither of I or Frans said that it need to be done until today or tomorrow. We just asked for the fix. You misunderstand it as I was forcing you to fix it ASAP and it's not true. Well, you sure where putting lot of pressure on me, and indirectly implying that i was not doing it right because i had not yet provided the fix. No. I said that wasn't right you say that I or anyother are supposed to fix problems in your or anyother patches before it gets included on d-i itself. I hadn't say that you're suppose to do that in one day or two. I just asked you to do so. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 10:38:04AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Neither of I or Frans said that it need to be done until today or tomorrow. We just asked for the fix. You misunderstand it as I was forcing you to fix it ASAP and it's not true. Well, you sure where putting lot of pressure on me, and indirectly implying that i was not doing it right because i had not yet provided the fix. No. I said that wasn't right you say that I or anyother are supposed to fix problems in your or anyother patches before it gets included on d-i itself. I hadn't say that you're suppose to do that in one day or two. I just asked you to do so. Repeteadly, while i had told you i would do on WE. And then you said if i don't fix it you would commit it with a message implying i was not willing to fix it myself, and finally commited it yesterday. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 10:38:04AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Neither of I or Frans said that it need to be done until today or tomorrow. We just asked for the fix. You misunderstand it as I was forcing you to fix it ASAP and it's not true. Well, you sure where putting lot of pressure on me, and indirectly implying that i was not doing it right because i had not yet provided the fix. No. I said that wasn't right you say that I or anyother are supposed to fix problems in your or anyother patches before it gets included on d-i itself. I hadn't say that you're suppose to do that in one day or two. I just asked you to do so. Repeteadly, while i had told you i would do on WE. And then you said if i don't fix it you would commit it with a message implying i was not willing to fix it myself, and finally commited it yesterday. I did it 'cause you suggested that I or anyother could fix it. So I did. Please next time say: I'll do it and send a fixed patch for you. So I'll wait for you. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 01:42:48PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 10:38:04AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Neither of I or Frans said that it need to be done until today or tomorrow. We just asked for the fix. You misunderstand it as I was forcing you to fix it ASAP and it's not true. Well, you sure where putting lot of pressure on me, and indirectly implying that i was not doing it right because i had not yet provided the fix. No. I said that wasn't right you say that I or anyother are supposed to fix problems in your or anyother patches before it gets included on d-i itself. I hadn't say that you're suppose to do that in one day or two. I just asked you to do so. Repeteadly, while i had told you i would do on WE. And then you said if i don't fix it you would commit it with a message implying i was not willing to fix it myself, and finally commited it yesterday. I did it 'cause you suggested that I or anyother could fix it. So I Well you can hardly deny that the patches where so trivial that you could easily enough have fixed them, or frans for that matter. I did indeed tell so, you could have fixed them. I never did say that i would not fix them though, and you where most insistent. So, i guess we can attribute this to another communication problem, and let's go forward, the fixed package is in the archive, and everyone should be happy. did. Please next time say: I'll do it and send a fixed patch for you. So I'll wait for you. Possibly, but this again shows why Frans should allow the commit rights back. This second-guessing of patches, and the whole issue means a bigger chance of anger going in and miscommunication, and don't blind yourself, i am angered at the current situation, and it serves *NO* purpose, except humiliating me, at least no purpose i was ever told, nor anyone i could guess. So, imagine these two work flows : Case A, as it should be : 1) I find a bug in a package, or notice a bug report. 2) I investigate and commit it to the svn repo. 3) Either the patch is on a package where i am the resident expert, i test it and upload the package if the current freeze status allow it. 4) Or it is not, i leave the fix commited, and after some time i ping frans or one of the uploaders for an upload. 5) If i make an error in 3), or someone else makes an error in 4), or don't notice a problem with my patch in 4), once it is noticed, i fix it, discuss the issue with folks more knowledgeable with me, and we go back to 2). Case B, as it currently is : 1) I find a bug in a package, or notice a bug report. 2) I investigate, test the fix, and commit it to a bug report. 3) Some time passes, i bug frans, who is busy and doesn't have time. 4) More time passes, i bug folk on #debian-boot irc, mmm wait, i am banned from there. 5) Instead of telling me about a problem in the package, the bug report gets ignored. 6) As i see an upload happening who could as well have included my patch, i lose patience, as speaking with folk who tell me to FUCK YOU is not really very motivating, i just make the upload, as is my right to do. 7) Frans notices, feels angered, decides to revert the patch without telling me. 8) I notice, feel angered, post to debian-boot unhappy message against frans. 9) Frans starts looking at my patches, he is little familiar with the area i work on, so he makes clue-less comments which if followed on will break the changes, the dispute with me undoubtly increases his willingness to find reproach in my patches. 10) I feel angered and so things escalate as each other gets more angered, lot of time is lost, instead of doing productive work, everyone has a bad feeling, the issue becomes a mess. You see clearly which of the cases is the better one, both technically, as it allows to do more work in the given time, and socially, as it allows the past differences to be smoothed and forgotten over time, and everyone to be happy forever after. Now, you also see that in the current situation this is not the case, that by its very nature, it will mean more time is lost that could have been used for productive work, and un-balance and consequent un-fairness of the situation, create a climate of angry-ness and bad feeling, which will never be smoothed, and which will last forever until one of the party breaks. This is the kind of situation which is the stuff for drama-novels, and a few centuries ago, would have led to duels and stuff. Do we really want this. If you want to help in this matter, speak about this current situation with members of the d-i team, maybe not frans or joeyh directly, but with other members of the team, with Christian, with others. I don't know what Frans told you, nor what he told others, he never came forward and spoke to me honestly about
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 09:37:04PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, if you want to solve this, don't propose to commit my patch, but speak to frans, and beat some decency and maturity into him. How you can be sure if I hadn't done it? I did it already too many times. How can i know ? Frans seems to be a black hole, and the only return i get from him are hardly encouraging, of the FUCK YOU variety. Others may have been speaking to frans, but how should i know ? That's the point. You can't. And then you should't say something like: , | So, if you want to solve this, don't propose to commit my patch, but speak to | frans, and beat some decency and maturity into him. ` I already talked with him about you but I do think that you need to beat some maturity too before all this can be solved. The way you're dealing with others and now with me isn't good. I'm trying hard to make all this mess to work and trying to bring the fan patch in with you but you insist to blame everyone instead to fix the last patch hook. There is only one way to make this mess work, and this is for frans to stop behaving like a dictator, and restore my svn commit access. He is not able to do so by himself apparently, so others need to force him to do that. Well I completelly disagree with you. I would like to stop this useless thread now since your patch was commit and you refused to do a trivial fix to make my and our life easier. I'm not talking about Frans but me. I've been decent with you and others and tryed hard to make things better to you and others too so please, come back to work as I'm doing now. Yeah, you are offering to me more of the same i have been doing since 6 months now. I appreciate your time and help, but this is not going to help in any way. I have proven that i can play by the submit patch route, and frans has proven repeteadly that he can make a mess out of it, ignoring the patches for week, and then suddenly making demands to me that it should be fixed immediately. Well, I'm trying to do what I can but since you're saying to don't help I will stop of doing it now. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: patch with same error and blame me? Sorry Sven but you're using every oportunity to blame everyone. No, i don't blame you. you seem eager for me to fix the problem, but are ignoring that i am not able to work on it until this WE. You're suppose to fix your patches. You could send it fixed since there's no logic change on it. You're aware of it since you cited to me that it's fair trivial to fix and that I or Frans could have done it. Please fix the patch instead of blame me, ok? Sure, but please understand that i am not able to do so until this WE. I already fixed the patch, test the rootskel svn version on WE and return to me and other need fix. Thanks -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 10:49:40AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 09:37:04PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, if you want to solve this, don't propose to commit my patch, but speak to frans, and beat some decency and maturity into him. How you can be sure if I hadn't done it? I did it already too many times. How can i know ? Frans seems to be a black hole, and the only return i get from him are hardly encouraging, of the FUCK YOU variety. Others may have been speaking to frans, but how should i know ? That's the point. You can't. And then you should't say something like: , | So, if you want to solve this, don't propose to commit my patch, but speak to | frans, and beat some decency and maturity into him. ` I already talked with him about you but I do think that you need to beat some maturity too before all this can be solved. Ok, so, what did he say ? you know, i can hardly understand this issue, if from the start there was never a frank and honest information of what they reproach to me. The way you're dealing with others and now with me isn't good. I'm trying hard to make all this mess to work and trying to bring the fan patch in with you but you insist to blame everyone instead to fix the last patch hook. There is only one way to make this mess work, and this is for frans to stop behaving like a dictator, and restore my svn commit access. He is not able to do so by himself apparently, so others need to force him to do that. Well I completelly disagree with you. I would like to stop this Ah, yes, you disagree ? well, i have offered him chances enough for conciliation, i guess there may be close to ten instances or so by now, over the months, they where always rejected. So, if you know about this, have some information about what is going on, and frans has other things to offer than FUCK YOU, i sure think everyone would benefit from knowing about it. useless thread now since your patch was commit and you refused to do a trivial fix to make my and our life easier. Yeah. and the issue is not fixed, and i should be silent about it, and in a month, we will be facing the same mess. I'm not talking about Frans but me. I've been decent with you and others and tryed hard to make things better to you and others too so please, come back to work as I'm doing now. Yeah, you are offering to me more of the same i have been doing since 6 months now. I appreciate your time and help, but this is not going to help in any way. I have proven that i can play by the submit patch route, and frans has proven repeteadly that he can make a mess out of it, ignoring the patches for week, and then suddenly making demands to me that it should be fixed immediately. Well, I'm trying to do what I can but since you're saying to don't help I will stop of doing it now. i really don't understand this issue, i have always been open and spoken my mind, and tryed to solve the issue. every conciliation attempt with frans ended by him totally closing himself, and everyone having spoken to him says i should be silent and wait (forever?), but nobody is giving any kind of hint or information about what is going on. And the months pass and nothing changes. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 10:53:02AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: patch with same error and blame me? Sorry Sven but you're using every oportunity to blame everyone. No, i don't blame you. you seem eager for me to fix the problem, but are ignoring that i am not able to work on it until this WE. You're suppose to fix your patches. You could send it fixed since I am supposed to be told about the brokeness, and i am supposed to be given enough time to fix them as they should. You can't expect it to be ok for frans to not even comment on them for a whole month, and don't leave me two days in order to get home and test them, right ? there's no logic change on it. You're aware of it since you cited to me that it's fair trivial to fix and that I or Frans could have done it. Please fix the patch instead of blame me, ok? Sure, but please understand that i am not able to do so until this WE. I already fixed the patch, test the rootskel svn version on WE and return to me and other need fix. Thanks Maybe. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 10:53:02AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: patch with same error and blame me? Sorry Sven but you're using every oportunity to blame everyone. No, i don't blame you. you seem eager for me to fix the problem, but are ignoring that i am not able to work on it until this WE. You're suppose to fix your patches. You could send it fixed since I am supposed to be told about the brokeness, and i am supposed to be given enough time to fix them as they should. You can't expect it to be ok for frans to not even comment on them for a whole month, and don't leave me two days in order to get home and test them, right ? Neither of I or Frans said that it need to be done until today or tomorrow. We just asked for the fix. You misunderstand it as I was forcing you to fix it ASAP and it's not true. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 11:55:24AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 10:53:02AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: patch with same error and blame me? Sorry Sven but you're using every oportunity to blame everyone. No, i don't blame you. you seem eager for me to fix the problem, but are ignoring that i am not able to work on it until this WE. You're suppose to fix your patches. You could send it fixed since I am supposed to be told about the brokeness, and i am supposed to be given enough time to fix them as they should. You can't expect it to be ok for frans to not even comment on them for a whole month, and don't leave me two days in order to get home and test them, right ? Neither of I or Frans said that it need to be done until today or tomorrow. We just asked for the fix. You misunderstand it as I was forcing you to fix it ASAP and it's not true. Well, you sure where putting lot of pressure on me, and indirectly implying that i was not doing it right because i had not yet provided the fix. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, I wonder if all listed modules really need to be modprobed individually: modprobe will after all load modules that other modules depend on automatically. Well, this is not how things are, after investigation and discussion with Benjamin Herrenschmidt, the powerpc/powermac linux kernel maintainer. The current way of doing this is the best compromise for within the 2.6.18 and etch timeframe. What's the plan for lenny? Is it going to change on 2.6.19 or so? I would expect that i2c-powermac and windfarm_core can safely be dropped. And you would expect wrong. When are you going to stop to try to second guess the work and investigation i do, and try by all mean to show me as incapable ? Hold on Sven... I need to agree here with Frans. We always should try to reduce the amount of code and looks like there's a lot of dependent module being loaded by hand in your patch. If it has a reason, it's ok but you need to tell us about it. It's impossible to you, Frans or everyone to know about everything on every arch so as a D-I RM Frans did a question and I think you can just reply to it as I usually do and many others does too. There's no try to show you as incapable person. They cannot be dropped, especially i2c-powermac cannot be dropped, since it will not be pulled in by the other modules. There are numerous comments about this fact on both debian-kernel and debian-powerpc, as well as numerous irc conversations on debian-kernel, where you are also present. Isn't it a bug that could be solve on kernel itself? So, either you chose to get involved, and try to stay informed about the different powerpc developments, or you don't, but then it is only fair to ask you to trust my knowledge and competence, as well as the interaction with the upstream linux/powerpc community such as Benjamin Herrenschmidt. Your current attitude is quite insulting to them and me, please modify it. Please modify your action too. As you know I worry about ppc status and try to be updated about it. I'm still lacking the need hardware to work on it but it should change in near future and I'll get more involviment on it as I did before when I had an iBook. Besides, we all do mistake and you aren't different. We should try to review our code and patches to ensure a high quality on d-i and it should be done when the patches are pending to be commited as Frans is doing now. Please calm down and just reply for the questions and then I'm sure Frans will commit the patch also because it's really need for a proper ppc support from d-i side. Finally, why was S50directfb-linux-powerpc added in the Makefile? This seems unrelated to this patch. It was not. Or should not have been. If it was, it is uniquely a result of a bad manipulation caused by me not having the svn commit right, and you are as thus solely to blame for it. But seriously, find attached my svn diff, there is no trace of a S50directfb-linux-powerpc in my diff, if it was there, it most probably did come from an older commit. I did in fact do an apt-get source of rootskel, and then applied the svn diff output, so i have no idea where this S50directfb-linux-powerpc file came from. I guess it came from earlier experiments done while me and attilio and a few others tried to investigate the g-i breakage. Yes, it was include in your patch and might be useful if you can send a revised patch fixing the modprobe syntax and removing this hook from it. Colin suggested that when we apply this patch in the installer, a similar patch should added in initramfs-tools to make sure that the modules are loaded too on the installed system. Has that already been coordinated? A similar patch for therm_pm72 is already in the installer, and i have regularly been pushing maks to apply the whole stuff, but without success upto now. Let me ask it here again. Doesn't the right place to fix it be the kernel? Is too difficult to fix it there? Friendly ;-) Otavio Salvador -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 02:29:25PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, I wonder if all listed modules really need to be modprobed individually: modprobe will after all load modules that other modules depend on automatically. Well, this is not how things are, after investigation and discussion with Benjamin Herrenschmidt, the powerpc/powermac linux kernel maintainer. The current way of doing this is the best compromise for within the 2.6.18 and etch timeframe. What's the plan for lenny? Is it going to change on 2.6.19 or so? lenny is etch +1. If lenny take the same time as etch, 18 months, we could have 2.6.24 for lenny. I hope that this would be fixed by then. I would expect that i2c-powermac and windfarm_core can safely be dropped. And you would expect wrong. When are you going to stop to try to second guess the work and investigation i do, and try by all mean to show me as incapable ? Hold on Sven... I need to agree here with Frans. We always should try to reduce the amount of code and looks like there's a lot of dependent module being loaded by hand in your patch. If it has a reason, it's ok but you need to tell us about it. Ok, fine, i guess benh will wlecome your patches. If upstream tells me we need to work on this, but right now it is not possible otherwise, i tend to believe him. It is also upstream work, and i don't really have time for it, and in any case, we don't have the time for etch to get those patches migrated upstream, which is needed accordying to the debian/kernel team policy, and it will be available at the earliest in 2.6.20 if we submit it today. It's impossible to you, Frans or everyone to know about everything on every arch so as a D-I RM Frans did a question and I think you can just reply to it as I usually do and many others does too. There's no try to show you as incapable person. This would be the case if : 1) he had commented on the bug during the month it had been open. 2) he had considered including the pacth last week when he did the 1.42 upload. 3) he had asked me about the breakage and we had uploaded a fixed package instead of reverting it. This being not the case, and he keeping me in a unfair and humiliating position since over 6 months, i am very justified to critic him on this. And yes, in case you didn't notice, i am angry about the way i have been handled, and now, so many months after the fact, i am rightly angered. They cannot be dropped, especially i2c-powermac cannot be dropped, since it will not be pulled in by the other modules. There are numerous comments about this fact on both debian-kernel and debian-powerpc, as well as numerous irc conversations on debian-kernel, where you are also present. Isn't it a bug that could be solve on kernel itself? Sure, but see above. So, either you chose to get involved, and try to stay informed about the different powerpc developments, or you don't, but then it is only fair to ask you to trust my knowledge and competence, as well as the interaction with the upstream linux/powerpc community such as Benjamin Herrenschmidt. Your current attitude is quite insulting to them and me, please modify it. Please modify your action too. Maybe, but it has been since late april, so ... As you know I worry about ppc status and try to be updated about it. I'm still lacking the need hardware to work on it but it should change in near future and I'll get more involviment on it as I did before when I had an iBook. Besides, we all do mistake and you aren't different. Sure, i am different, i am the only one who is outcast and humiliated like i am. We should try to review our code and patches to ensure a high quality on d-i and it should be done when the patches are pending to be commited as Frans is doing now. Please calm down and just reply for He is only commiting and comenting on them because i did the upload on sunday, and because i raised a fuss over the revert upload from him. If he had come to me, and commented about the bug in question, this would be something else, but given the way this happened, added to the humiliating handling i am getting from frans and a few others, ... the questions and then I'm sure Frans will commit the patch also because it's really need for a proper ppc support from d-i side. Indeed, but the patch was commited a whole month ago, and frans did an upload of rootskel a week ago, and didn't even bother considering the patch in question, even though i told him repeteadly that doing d-i test installation on the XServe without it is really health damaging. I always end up with a headache and if i work at night, i wake the kids. That is how loud it is. Finally, why was S50directfb-linux-powerpc added in the Makefile? This seems unrelated to this patch. It was not. Or should not have been. If it was, it is uniquely a result of a bad
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, this is not how things are, after investigation and discussion with Benjamin Herrenschmidt, the powerpc/powermac linux kernel maintainer. The current way of doing this is the best compromise for within the 2.6.18 and etch timeframe. What's the plan for lenny? Is it going to change on 2.6.19 or so? lenny is etch +1. If lenny take the same time as etch, 18 months, we could have 2.6.24 for lenny. I hope that this would be fixed by then. Ok :-D I would expect that i2c-powermac and windfarm_core can safely be dropped. And you would expect wrong. When are you going to stop to try to second guess the work and investigation i do, and try by all mean to show me as incapable ? Hold on Sven... I need to agree here with Frans. We always should try to reduce the amount of code and looks like there's a lot of dependent module being loaded by hand in your patch. If it has a reason, it's ok but you need to tell us about it. Ok, fine, i guess benh will wlecome your patches. If upstream tells me we need to work on this, but right now it is not possible otherwise, i tend to believe him. It is also upstream work, and i don't really have time for it, and in any case, we don't have the time for etch to get those patches migrated upstream, which is needed accordying to the debian/kernel team policy, and it will be available at the earliest in 2.6.20 if we submit it today. Even if the patch is simple? (I mean for inclusion on Debian patch queue). It's impossible to you, Frans or everyone to know about everything on every arch so as a D-I RM Frans did a question and I think you can just reply to it as I usually do and many others does too. There's no try to show you as incapable person. This would be the case if : 1) he had commented on the bug during the month it had been open. 2) he had considered including the pacth last week when he did the 1.42 upload. 3) he had asked me about the breakage and we had uploaded a fixed package instead of reverting it. I more or less agree with you here. I agree that would have another ways to handle things but also I don't think if he doesn't do what I or you think is the right thing todo he's completely wrong. He has the right to think different from us and follow his thoughts about it. This being not the case, and he keeping me in a unfair and humiliating position since over 6 months, i am very justified to critic him on this. And yes, in case you didn't notice, i am angry about the way i have been handled, and now, so many months after the fact, i am rightly angered. Please ... you're humiliating yourself. It's not he who's humiliating you. Just do a great patch, prove that you're a good and trustable porter and he won't have options but allow you back. As you know I worry about ppc status and try to be updated about it. I'm still lacking the need hardware to work on it but it should change in near future and I'll get more involviment on it as I did before when I had an iBook. Besides, we all do mistake and you aren't different. Sure, i am different, i am the only one who is outcast and humiliated like i am. Read above... We should try to review our code and patches to ensure a high quality on d-i and it should be done when the patches are pending to be commited as Frans is doing now. Please calm down and just reply for He is only commiting and comenting on them because i did the upload on sunday, and because i raised a fuss over the revert upload from him. If he had come to me, and commented about the bug in question, this would be something else, but given the way this happened, added to the humiliating handling i am getting from frans and a few others, ... Let's have a deal. When you don't receive a comment on a bug, please ping me. There're a lot of reason to it happen not only disagreements with you. There're a bunch of bugs to handle on d-i and sometimes those bugs are forgotten. Just bring my attention to them and I can try to coordenate it. Indeed, but the patch was commited a whole month ago, and frans did an upload of rootskel a week ago, and didn't even bother considering the patch in question, even though i told him repeteadly that doing d-i test installation on the XServe without it is really health damaging. I always end up with a headache and if i work at night, i wake the kids. That is how loud it is. Read above... Finally, why was S50directfb-linux-powerpc added in the Makefile? This seems unrelated to this patch. It was not. Or should not have been. If it was, it is uniquely a result of a bad manipulation caused by me not having the svn commit right, and you are as thus solely to blame for it. But seriously, find attached my svn diff, there is no trace of a S50directfb-linux-powerpc in my diff, if it was there, it most probably did come from an older commit. I did in fact do an apt-get
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 05:19:44PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: Even if the patch is simple? (I mean for inclusion on Debian patch queue). Well, i have not looked into it. If the patch is scheduled for upstreamn inclusion at a later point, and thus of upstream quality, then we can include it. It's impossible to you, Frans or everyone to know about everything on every arch so as a D-I RM Frans did a question and I think you can just reply to it as I usually do and many others does too. There's no try to show you as incapable person. This would be the case if : 1) he had commented on the bug during the month it had been open. 2) he had considered including the pacth last week when he did the 1.42 upload. 3) he had asked me about the breakage and we had uploaded a fixed package instead of reverting it. I more or less agree with you here. I agree that would have another ways to handle things but also I don't think if he doesn't do what I or you think is the right thing todo he's completely wrong. He has the right to think different from us and follow his thoughts about it. He has the right to think anything he want, as long as he doesn't hurt others by doing so. By virtue of the power over d-i he wields, and since he is apparently not able to separate a personal dispute from his d-i responsabilities, his thoughts in this issue are hurting both me and our users. This being not the case, and he keeping me in a unfair and humiliating position since over 6 months, i am very justified to critic him on this. And yes, in case you didn't notice, i am angry about the way i have been handled, and now, so many months after the fact, i am rightly angered. Please ... you're humiliating yourself. It's not he who's humiliating you. Right. Especially as the main complaint against me seems to be that i am not respectful enough of him, exact ? Just do a great patch, prove that you're a good and trustable porter and he won't have options but allow you back. This would be the case if we where facing someone reasonable and honest. But go look at the wiki patches where i list all my contributions since june or so, and even so, it if not enough, and my contributions are : the biggest load of self-satisfied and self-centered crap [he has] ever seen. http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/FransPopAndOthersVs.SvenLutherIssue/SvenLuther#head-69bb71fe3ef5766e46624ff746cd888a4591a6c6 Let's have a deal. When you don't receive a comment on a bug, please ping me. There're a lot of reason to it happen not only disagreements with you. There're a bunch of bugs to handle on d-i and sometimes those bugs are forgotten. Just bring my attention to them and I can try to coordenate it. Yeah, fine, and when will i no more be an outcast, and will get back all the right normally attributed to everyone who is contributing to d-i ? I don't know from where it comes, it is not in my local svn checkout, so ... So please send another reviewed patch that I can apply :-D I will, but i have no access to the box to test it until this WE. The patch is so trivial you can just as well fix it yourself. I attached the modified version of the patch with frans suggestion. The original proposal was coming either from code copied from elsewhere on d-i or from a suggestion from someone on #debian-boot, i don't remember exactly the details, it is over a month ago now. Again this would not have happened if frans was more reasonable, and let people work while he is vacationing all over the world. Friendly, Sven Luther Index: debian/changelog === --- debian/changelog(revision 42042) +++ debian/changelog(working copy) @@ -1,3 +1,12 @@ +rootskel (1.42) UNRELEASED; urgency=low + + [ Sven Luther ] + * Added S05fancontrol-linux-powerpc, in order to actually load the +fancontrol modules, in order to not have G5 apple box go into aircraft +noise level a few minutes after the start of the installation. + + -- Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:13:59 +0200 + rootskel (1.41) unstable; urgency=low * Rebuild against klibc 1.4.29-1 to make cpio in rootskel-bootfloppy work Index: src/lib/debian-installer-startup.d/S05fancontrol-linux-powerpc === --- src/lib/debian-installer-startup.d/S05fancontrol-linux-powerpc (revision 0) +++ src/lib/debian-installer-startup.d/S05fancontrol-linux-powerpc (revision 0) @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +# Load fan control modules, to stop the fans to go into aircraft-db levels +modprobe i2c-powermac || true +modprobe therm_pm72 || true +modprobe windfarm_core || true +modprobe windfarm_cpufreq_clamp || true +modprobe windfarm_lm75_sensor || true +modprobe windfarm_max6690_sensor || true +modprobe windfarm_pid || true +modprobe windfarm_pm81 || true +modprobe windfarm_pm91 || true +modprobe windfarm_smu_sat
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let's have a deal. When you don't receive a comment on a bug, please ping me. There're a lot of reason to it happen not only disagreements with you. There're a bunch of bugs to handle on d-i and sometimes those bugs are forgotten. Just bring my attention to them and I can try to coordenate it. Yeah, fine, and when will i no more be an outcast, and will get back all the right normally attributed to everyone who is contributing to d-i ? I wouldn't remove your credit. Of course. I'm not interested on credit but work done. I don't know from where it comes, it is not in my local svn checkout, so ... So please send another reviewed patch that I can apply :-D I will, but i have no access to the box to test it until this WE. The patch is so trivial you can just as well fix it yourself. I attached the modified version of the patch with frans suggestion. The original proposal was coming either from code copied from elsewhere on d-i or from a suggestion from someone on #debian-boot, i don't remember exactly the details, it is over a month ago now. Again this would not have happened if frans was more reasonable, and let people work while he is vacationing all over the world. AFAIK he wasn't on vacation but working. Besides it's not our business. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Index: src/lib/debian-installer-startup.d/Makefile === --- src/lib/debian-installer-startup.d/Makefile (revision 42042) +++ src/lib/debian-installer-startup.d/Makefile (working copy) @@ -32,7 +32,9 @@ ifeq ($(DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU),powerpc) files += \ - S45keyboard-linux-powerpc + S05fancontrol-linux-powerpc \ + S45keyboard-linux-powerpc \ + S50directfb-linux-powerpc endif ifneq (,$(filter mips mipsel,$(DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU))) Same error as before. Please, review the patch and remove the directfb change since it's unrelated to this patch. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 06:21:57PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let's have a deal. When you don't receive a comment on a bug, please ping me. There're a lot of reason to it happen not only disagreements with you. There're a bunch of bugs to handle on d-i and sometimes those bugs are forgotten. Just bring my attention to them and I can try to coordenate it. Yeah, fine, and when will i no more be an outcast, and will get back all the right normally attributed to everyone who is contributing to d-i ? I wouldn't remove your credit. Of course. I'm not interested on credit but work done. I don't know from where it comes, it is not in my local svn checkout, so ... So please send another reviewed patch that I can apply :-D I will, but i have no access to the box to test it until this WE. The patch is so trivial you can just as well fix it yourself. I attached the modified version of the patch with frans suggestion. The original proposal was coming either from code copied from elsewhere on d-i or from a suggestion from someone on #debian-boot, i don't remember exactly the details, it is over a month ago now. Again this would not have happened if frans was more reasonable, and let people work while he is vacationing all over the world. AFAIK he wasn't on vacation but working. Besides it's not our business. Itis my business, because while he is unavailable for d-i work, my own work gets paralyzed. There is not a single reason why i cannot get the svn commit access back, at least not something they would not be ashamed to mention in public. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 06:22:56PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Index: src/lib/debian-installer-startup.d/Makefile === --- src/lib/debian-installer-startup.d/Makefile (revision 42042) +++ src/lib/debian-installer-startup.d/Makefile (working copy) @@ -32,7 +32,8 @@ ifeq ($(DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU),powerpc) files += \ - S45keyboard-linux-powerpc + S05fancontrol-linux-powerpc \ + S45keyboard-linux-powerpc endif ifneq (,$(filter mips mipsel,$(DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU))) Same error as before. Please, review the patch and remove the directfb change since it's unrelated to this patch. Indeed, it was just a quick change. But i am sure that this could be fixed easily enough by anyone of good faith. Colin has done more drastic changes to my patches, and frans also tried to modify others of my changes. Again, there is no valid reason for not having modified this silently, this is just a cheap excuse for justifying the continuous unfair marginalizing of my work and as thus our powerpc users. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I will, but i have no access to the box to test it until this WE. The patch is so trivial you can just as well fix it yourself. I attached the modified version of the patch with frans suggestion. The original proposal was coming either from code copied from elsewhere on d-i or from a suggestion from someone on #debian-boot, i don't remember exactly the details, it is over a month ago now. Again this would not have happened if frans was more reasonable, and let people work while he is vacationing all over the world. AFAIK he wasn't on vacation but working. Besides it's not our business. Itis my business, because while he is unavailable for d-i work, my own work gets paralyzed. There is not a single reason why i cannot get the svn commit access back, at least not something they would not be ashamed to mention in public. As I already said to you at IRC. Please accept it for now and come back to work. Later, when you start to bring every time this back we can see if Frans can rethink his position. Let's work Sven. ;-) -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 06:22:56PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Index: src/lib/debian-installer-startup.d/Makefile === --- src/lib/debian-installer-startup.d/Makefile(revision 42042) +++ src/lib/debian-installer-startup.d/Makefile(working copy) @@ -32,7 +32,8 @@ ifeq ($(DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU),powerpc) files += \ - S45keyboard-linux-powerpc + S05fancontrol-linux-powerpc \ + S45keyboard-linux-powerpc endif ifneq (,$(filter mips mipsel,$(DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU))) Same error as before. Please, review the patch and remove the directfb change since it's unrelated to this patch. Indeed, it was just a quick change. But i am sure that this could be fixed easily enough by anyone of good faith. Colin has done more drastic changes to my patches, and frans also tried to modify others of my changes. Again, there is no valid reason for not having modified this silently, this is just a cheap excuse for justifying the continuous unfair marginalizing of my work and as thus our powerpc users. Well, this isn't right. Frans cited the problem. I cited the problem and then you send the patch with same error and blame me? Sorry Sven but you're using every oportunity to blame everyone. Please fix the patch instead of blame me, ok? -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, if you want to solve this, don't propose to commit my patch, but speak to frans, and beat some decency and maturity into him. How you can be sure if I hadn't done it? I did it already too many times. The way you're dealing with others and now with me isn't good. I'm trying hard to make all this mess to work and trying to bring the fan patch in with you but you insist to blame everyone instead to fix the last patch hook. I'm not talking about Frans but me. I've been decent with you and others and tryed hard to make things better to you and others too so please, come back to work as I'm doing now. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The provided patch is broken: standard error is redirected to a file named 1 instead of file handle 1. Suggest to use the following syntax instead: modprobe -q module || true I did it myself after apply Sven patch, he had used modprobe only. Finally, why was S50directfb-linux-powerpc added in the Makefile? This seems unrelated to this patch. Removed from the patch. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 09:37:04PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, if you want to solve this, don't propose to commit my patch, but speak to frans, and beat some decency and maturity into him. How you can be sure if I hadn't done it? I did it already too many times. How can i know ? Frans seems to be a black hole, and the only return i get from him are hardly encouraging, of the FUCK YOU variety. Others may have been speaking to frans, but how should i know ? The way you're dealing with others and now with me isn't good. I'm trying hard to make all this mess to work and trying to bring the fan patch in with you but you insist to blame everyone instead to fix the last patch hook. There is only one way to make this mess work, and this is for frans to stop behaving like a dictator, and restore my svn commit access. He is not able to do so by himself apparently, so others need to force him to do that. I'm not talking about Frans but me. I've been decent with you and others and tryed hard to make things better to you and others too so please, come back to work as I'm doing now. Yeah, you are offering to me more of the same i have been doing since 6 months now. I appreciate your time and help, but this is not going to help in any way. I have proven that i can play by the submit patch route, and frans has proven repeteadly that he can make a mess out of it, ignoring the patches for week, and then suddenly making demands to me that it should be fixed immediately. I am right now not able to work on the patch until this WE, because i am not home, because i have a heavy RL work charge, for a wide variety of reasons. Furthermore, the XServe will go into production early next week, so there is a limited time window for me to fix things. All this would not have happened if i was able to commit stuff, and if frans was more honest in his dealing with me and my patches. My demand is the same it has been since months now, there is *NO REASONABLE REASON* for which the svn commit access has been taken away from me, as thus it should immediately be restored. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#394971: [powerpc64] load the fan control modules
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 09:13:42PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 06:22:56PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Index: src/lib/debian-installer-startup.d/Makefile === --- src/lib/debian-installer-startup.d/Makefile (revision 42042) +++ src/lib/debian-installer-startup.d/Makefile (working copy) @@ -32,7 +32,8 @@ ifeq ($(DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU),powerpc) files += \ -S45keyboard-linux-powerpc +S05fancontrol-linux-powerpc \ +S45keyboard-linux-powerpc endif ifneq (,$(filter mips mipsel,$(DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU))) Same error as before. Please, review the patch and remove the directfb change since it's unrelated to this patch. Indeed, it was just a quick change. But i am sure that this could be fixed easily enough by anyone of good faith. Colin has done more drastic changes to my patches, and frans also tried to modify others of my changes. Again, there is no valid reason for not having modified this silently, this is just a cheap excuse for justifying the continuous unfair marginalizing of my work and as thus our powerpc users. Well, this isn't right. I have no time to work on this and test it until this WE. I told you so. What do you expect from me ? That i jump, drop my work here, travel 3 hours by train to go home, fix the patch and test it and recommit it ? Furthermore, as you see above, this bit of patch is fixed. Frans cited the problem. I cited the problem and then you send the If frans had informed me of the problem instead of reverting the upload, then you would have had a point. Given that he didn't do that, sorry, but this are only bad excuses. patch with same error and blame me? Sorry Sven but you're using every oportunity to blame everyone. No, i don't blame you. you seem eager for me to fix the problem, but are ignoring that i am not able to work on it until this WE. Please fix the patch instead of blame me, ok? Sure, but please understand that i am not able to do so until this WE. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
