Re: Debian has failed us
Mathew Binkley wrote: I have been downloading cd images from: http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/weekly-builds/powerpc/ because that's where the Debian website says to get them. None of the images have worked for me because the installer has not been fixed. As I have already said in this thread, those builds do not use the current development version of d-i (because the daily builds of d-i break from time to time, and it would suck if that image were broken for a whole week until its next build). The website explicitly says that, and points you to the daily builds (netinst, etc), if you're having hardware or other problems. Now granted, I didn't know that there hasn't been a new release of debian installer in a few months, but that in itself is pretty damning. How it is damning? d-i has a fairly careful schedule and process for our releases. We also provide daily builds on a constant basis for people who need something newer. What if, four months later, I try to install the OS again, and find a different bug somewhere else that prevents me from installing? Then you'll download a daily build. The debian-installer people are dragging their feet waiting to release a kernel that will work on my architecture. It's a common misconception that the debian-installer team has anything to do with the kernel we use. We don't. It's the standard Debian kernel. If you have a problem, it thus appears to be with the Debian project as a whole. I'm sure that there are various reasons/excuses running through your collective minds why it's not your fault, it's someone else not doing their job, and Mathew Binkley is an asshat. Tough. You want to lead the PowerPC port, then you better show leadership and fix the problem. I'm not sure why you think that the d-i team leads the powerpc port. You seem to have some serious misconceptions about the limited role this team plays in Debian as a whole. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian has failed us
Rick Thomas wrote: The result is that now there's a very subtle release critical bug (#404876) and no time to fix it. Well, the release of etch is currently delayed due to the currently 95 open release critical bugs, of which #404876 is one. I don't see any indication that the bug's not being taken seriously or that etch will release with the bug open. It seems like Sjoerd needs help from testers to figure out what's causing it. I think it's rather disingenuous to imply that lack of testing due to oldworld not being installable led to this bug not being discovered earlier, when nobody yet seems sure what the bug is, or in what version of which software it was introduced. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian has failed us
Charles Plessy wrote: How about releasing a RC1.5, then, with a 2.6.18 as similar as possible as the one forecasted in testing ? Etch d-i installs etch; without forcing such a release to install unstable, it would not be possible to use the 2.6.18 kernel currently in unstable. If we point d-i at unstable, its prone to break all the time, since unstable is, well, unstable. An installer that installs unstable is also not a very valid etch release candidate. There are of course all kinds of ways to hack around this, but all of them are suboptimal. For example, we could produce a hacked CD that includes unstable's kernel. And updated version of everything it depends on. And everything those dependencies depend on. But this would only work for systems installed from CD. We could add a special apt repository only for the kernel and stuff, but then we could have to have a separate gpg key for that repository hacked into the installer as well. Setting this up would take significant developer time, and that would be time that does not in the end benefit the etch release at all. In the end we would have to reverse all these changes and throw away all that work to get an installer that is suitable for release with etch. The best fix is to get the 2.6.18 kernel into testing. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian has failed us
Le Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 10:35:52AM -0500, Joey Hess a écrit : Charles Plessy wrote: How about releasing a RC1.5, then, with a 2.6.18 as similar as possible as the one forecasted in testing ? There are of course all kinds of ways to hack around this, but all of them are suboptimal. For example, we could produce a hacked CD that includes unstable's kernel. And updated version of everything it depends on. And everything those dependencies depend on. But this would only work for systems installed from CD. Setting this up would take significant developer time, and that would be time that does not in the end benefit the etch release at all. Dear Joey, priorities are something very personnal, and I trust the members of the DI team to manage theirs well. I think that what the powerpc port needs is somebody with priorities focused on getting things done on powerpc. With this goal, the duplicated work you described is not necessarly a waste. At least, the criteria for deciding to do it or not become different. I do not know how difficult it would be to ease that kind of temporary digression. A sort of pbuilder checking if local patches to official packages are available, maybe ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wako, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has failed us
From: Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] and certainly can't expect to have everything run like a charm, especially with very special hardware like the one you described in the mail that started this thread. It's not very special hardware. It's a bunch of IBM JS20 blades configured as a cluster. $1700 a pop, and that was 2 years ago. This kernel is not in testing because of RC issues about it So, you can't put the testing kernel in testing, because someone might test it and hit a bug? I thought that was the entire point of testing!!! Annoying bugs are *GOOD* things to find in testing release, because they get fixed rapidly. The separation between the installer and the ports is a problem. The two need to be tested as a single unit. Otherwise you may as well have stable testing and unstable testing. From: Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] As I have already said in this thread, those builds do not use the current development version of d-i (because the daily builds of d-i break from time to time, and it would suck if that image were broken for a whole week until its next build). Let me get this straight... It's ok that I can't install it using the old kernel for 4 months, but it would suck to use the testing kernel because it might break the image for a *whole week*? As I said earlier, there shouldn't be an arbitrary line between the installer and the packages. People aren't installing Etch the installer or Etch the packages, they're installing Etch the release. Test both parts simultaneously, as a single unit, because that's how your users are going to use them. Mat -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has failed us
On Jan 16, 2007, at 8:46 PM, Mathew Binkley wrote: As I said earlier, there shouldn't be an arbitrary line between the installer and the packages. People aren't installing Etch the installer or Etch the packages, they're installing Etch the release. Test both parts simultaneously, as a single unit, because that's how your users are going to use them. Mat has an important point here. Too often, I've seen: I'm sorry about the bugs you've encountered post-install. It sounds like the install itself went fine. I'm closing this report. Usually, the person making the report doesn't have a clue about the fine points of which package team is responsible for the bug she has encountered. The person best able to make that determination is the person who fields the installation report. But it seems that person can't be bothered to pass the report along, and feels no responsibility to try. Sad. Rick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has failed us
Mat has an important point here. Too often, I've seen: I'm sorry about the bugs you've encountered post-install. It sounds like the install itself went fine. I'm closing this report. Usually, the person making the report doesn't have a clue about the fine points of which package team is responsible for the bug she has encountered. The person best able to make that determination is the person who fields the installation report. But it seems that person can't be bothered to pass the report along, and feels no responsibility to try. I am afraid this is most of the time incorrect. I have even seen closed install reports reopened by Frans, in particular, and reassigned to the relevant package. I suggest you have a look at the various xorg packages bug log, for instance, and track down issues that have been initially reported as install reports. Nothing is perfect when it comes at install reports handling. Such reports are sent for more than 3 years now and the number is very high. Processing them is a very time-consuming task, which D-I team members do as best as they can. The job of reassigning bug reports outside the D-I team maintained area needs a very wide knowledge of Debian in general, an experience that is a very expensive ressource (I know about 3-4 people in the D-I team who would qualify for this). Up to now, no perfect solution has been found to guarantee that an issue reported outside the scope of D-I will be reassigned to the correct package. However, I think we can tell that the most important issues are handled, which is already a pretty good result with the not so unlimited manpower we have. Of course, the team is opened to suggestions...and help, in that work. In contrary to what has been suggested by this thread, the D-I team is one of the most opened teams in Debian (actually most maintenance teams in the project are very openedessentially because we're certainly facing a scaling problem in the whole project). signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian has failed us
Le Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 07:14:22AM +0100, Christian Perrier a écrit : Actually, it's equally frustrating for all of us that we *can't* release a new D-I despite the team plan to release RC2 a few weeks after RC1. We can't do this because the 2.6.18 kernel is not in testing. Hi all, How about releasing a RC1.5, then, with a 2.6.18 as similar as possible as the one forecasted in testing ? This would help to keep the momentum on the solving of some problems. For instance, I tested RC1 and another build for the loud fans problems on iMac G5. I did this as a service to the community: I do not suffer from this problem anymore, and I am not loyal to the powerpc arch (If my iMac breaks, I would consider any arch for replacement). In my last test, the fans were silent in the installer, but not on the newly installed system. There has been a fix since. Or maybe not. I was not pointed to something to test, and I have other projects for my Debian time. The momentum for solving this problem is being lost. What is needed to keep the ports alive is some kind of leadership, simply focused on getting things done and coordinating people who can help if asked, but who prefer doing something else otherwise. As I said in a previous mail (sent on -powerpc only), the problem is that in the current way Debian operates its ports, getting things done is often unavoidably getting somebody to do the things. This is bound to create personal conflicts from time to time. There is for the moment nobody who has : - time, - good relationship with all the key Debian infrastructures and packaging teams, - excellent knowledge of the aforementioned infrastructures and packages, - excellent knowledge of powerpc, - excellent social skills, - access to all hardware, - ... But aren't we looking for an imaginary superhero? If yes, then the question is to see if we can adapt the structure to the people instead of waiting for people to fit the structure. Would it be helpful if the ports had a bit more independance in Debian? At least the situation would be more dynamic if developpers who care for a port could do things directly by themselves, and one can not ask to the porters to be at the same time one members of the kernel, installer, release, buildd, ftp, and security teams... I hope that this message helps a bit to make the things progress. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wako, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has failed us
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 07:14:22AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: Actually, it's equally frustrating for all of us that we *can't* release a new D-I despite the team plan to release RC2 a few weeks after RC1. We can't do this because the 2.6.18 kernel is not in testing. To be precise, 2.6.18 is in testing -- but it's the *wrong* 2.6.18, which doesn't have the final ABI for etch, so any effort put into prepping this kernel for d-i would be wasted and have to be re-done following the next kernel upload to unstable. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has failed us
Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you give us examples of actions from the D-I team who could be used as illustrations of negligence towards the powerpc architecture users? Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It has already been explained that the bug at issue here has not made it into a debian-installer release candidate because there hasn't *been* a d-i release candidate yet using the 2.6.18 kernel. Claiming that the installer team has wronged Debian's users by not releasing such an update, when we are still missing a releasable kernel, are beyond the pale. I have been downloading cd images from: http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/weekly-builds/powerpc/ because that's where the Debian website says to get them. None of the images have worked for me because the installer has not been fixed. I submitted that bug report 4 months ago, and I still cannot download an image from that page that works. Now granted, I didn't know that there hasn't been a new release of debian installer in a few months, but that in itself is pretty damning. What if, four months later, I try to install the OS again, and find a different bug somewhere else that prevents me from installing? Should I (or any other Debian user) expect to wait *MONTHS* to fix basic bugs in testing releases? At that rate, Etch will be frozen, released, dead, buried, and decomposed before I could get it to work on our machines. That's not the kind of OS I'm willing to bet my job on. The debian-installer people are dragging their feet waiting to release a kernel that will work on my architecture. They didn't have to wait until 2.6.18 was released. They could have simply recompiled 2.6.17 with the driver I needed, but in 4 months they didn't. I'm not sure whether that is due to perfectionism, laziness, or whatever. I'm not looking at the cause, only the result, and the result is a broken process that is not responsive to the users. The debian-powerpc are pointing their finger at the debian-installer people, saying it isn't my fault. Well, it isn't their fault, but it's definitely their problem. If you want to lead the PowerPC port, the buck stops on your desk. One of your responsibilities is to produce releases that your users can use. Right now, you are releasing testing images that I can't actually test. I'm sure that there are various reasons/excuses running through your collective minds why it's not your fault, it's someone else not doing their job, and Mathew Binkley is an asshat. Tough. You want to lead the PowerPC port, then you better show leadership and fix the problem. Right about now, I'm expecting several people to chime in we've fixed the problem already on our installers, and you're an idiot, just go here to get it. I, and probably most of humanity with a job and a life, don't have time to dig through the entire website. When we see a link on the front page of the Debian website that says click here to download testing iso's, we expect it to be exactly that. Again, it may not be your fault, but it's your problem. Several other things to say, but I have to go fix a problem with our email server. It's not my fault, but it is my problem, and I'm expected to fix it. Mat -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has failed us
On Jan 15, 2007, at 12:39 AM, Christian Perrier wrote: Quoting Rick Thomas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): It's sad to see d-i on powerpc, a major architectural variant, being eroded and neglected as a result of a few people who can't get past their own personal animosity to Sven. Whatever his merits or demerits -- and I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on that topic -- the powerpc architecture deserves better than it's seen recently. Can you give us examples of actions from the D-I team who could be used as illustrations of negligence towards the powerpc architecture users? Well, OK: The one that particularly got to me was the very long dry spell for OldWorld PowerMacs during which etch would not boot on that hardware. Sarge ran fine, but until the advent of the 2.6.18 series of kernels, etch never got much beyond the bootloader(*). This resulted in genetic drift of applications software (specifically gstreamer is the one I know about. There are probably others.) because it couldn't be tested. The result is that now there's a very subtle release critical bug (#404876) and no time to fix it. As Mathew just pointed out: Kernels not booting may not be d-i's fault, but it is their problem. The underlying problem was that the infighting in the d-i team distracted the in-fighters from taking bug reports on this topic seriously. If Debian on powerpc hardware is to survive, the infighting problem has to be solved. You can blame other people all you want, but it won't solve the problem. I don't expect the people this is about to understand what I'm talking about here. They are blinded by their own hatred, thus unable to see the larger problem. The powerpc architecture deserves better than it's seen recently. Rick *) Bootloader == BootX in my case. I tried miboot as well, and it booted with a differently configured kernel, but when it came time to reboot into the production kernel, I got the same results -- nothing beyond the bootloader messages. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has failed us
Can you give us examples of actions from the D-I team who could be used as illustrations of negligence towards the powerpc architecture users? Well, OK: The one that particularly got to me was the very long dry spell for OldWorld PowerMacs during which etch would not boot on that hardware. Sarge ran fine, but until the advent of the 2.6.18 series of kernels, etch never got much beyond the bootloader(*). This resulted in genetic drift of applications software (specifically gstreamer is the one I know about. There are probably others.) because it couldn't be tested. The result is that now there's a very subtle release critical bug (#404876) and no time to fix it. As Mathew just pointed out: Kernels not booting may not be d-i's fault, but it is their problem. So, the hardware support comes in first, as it seems. From your POV, some PPC arches/subarches are neglected. Isn't there something the PPC users themselves an take care of, like more testing or even contributions to the kernel team (which, as many point out, is the first entry point for such issues)? The underlying problem was that the infighting in the d-i team distracted the in-fighters from taking bug reports on this topic seriously. If Debian on powerpc hardware is to survive, the infighting problem has to be solved. You can blame other people all you want, but it won't solve the problem. By infights, I'll assume you mean the Sven Luther case as I see no other topic which fits this description. The D-I team works pretty well and many new contributors have joined it since the release of sarge while many others drifted their attention to other topics in Debian, as usual in such big projects. Do you have specific examples of bug reports about D-I components which show that the D-I team deliberately or inadvertently neglected issues bringed by the PPC community? Up to now, this thread started about one specific issue, which later all contributors have agreed is outside the scope and control of the D-I team. There are maybe other issues that fit the D-I team has failed us stanza which started this thread (the thread uses another title but that was clearly an opened accusation against the D-I team). I don't expect the people this is about to understand what I'm talking about here. They are blinded by their own hatred, thus unable to see the larger problem. There has been a communication problem with one powerpc community member, yes. This member has done many valuable contributions to D-I and the whole community, yes. He even put himself aside from the PPC port at some moment. How do you explain that all D-I release still had PPC support despite this? Sometimes good, sometimes bad...just like all ports. It is a very well known fact that *all* ports of D-I are loosely tested during the development, except those accessible to the very few people who give more than half of their Debian time to D-I. The PPC architecture is however used and accessible to much more users than any other but i386 and amd64. Isn't there something that the PPC community could do to circumvent the communication gap between Sven and the D-I team? Isn't this already happening? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian has failed us
Right about now, I'm expecting several people to chime in we've fixed the problem already on our installers, and you're an idiot, just go here to get it. I, and probably most of humanity with a job and a life, don't have time to dig through the entire website. When we see a link on the front page of the Debian website that says click here to download testing iso's, we expect it to be exactly that. Again, it may not be your fault, but it's your problem. ...which actually explains why Debian etch is not released, indeed. Without any intent to point fingers at you, Matthew, some hints were given in this thread about the failure you're experiencing. You're trying the weekly builds of the Debian CDs. These weekly builds are based in the D-I RC1 release which is faulty with regard to the feature you're expecting, as far as I hear that. The team members who are more in technical stuf than me have explained that daily builds of D-I, available from the team development pages (http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer) use the 2.6.18 kernel series and are likely to solve out this problem. For sure, I understand it's harder to get into it as these images are available only on the development pages (this is on purpose: we don't want regular users to believe that this is a full release of Debian) and therefore it's frustrating. We're talking about software under development, here. You can't expect to avoid soem personal investment when choosing to use under development software and certainly can't expect to have everything run like a charm, especially with very special hardware like the one you described in the mail that started this thread. If that can be done with your business goals, this seem to mean that the unstable Debian development versions do not fit your needs. Do you have evidence of other moments in Debian history where such support for complex hardware could have been achieved with bleeding edge architectures like yours? Actually, it's equally frustrating for all of us that we *can't* release a new D-I despite the team plan to release RC2 a few weeks after RC1. We can't do this because the 2.6.18 kernel is not in testing. This kernel is not in testing because of RC issues about it, none of which under any kind of control of the D-I contributors (except maybe the people who both work in the D-I and kernel teams). We all regret this situation and the delay for the release of Etch but, actually, as a longstanding outsider in what people consider as personal issue belonging to Sven Luther and some contributors of the D-I team, including Frans, I see no evidence at all that both issues are related. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian has failed us
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 12:08:37AM -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote: Geert Stappers wrote: snip A more constructive way of solving the greater issue, could have be done by asking in november a question like Bug #391451, about a kernel module, is reported as fixed. What is needed to get in the Debian installer? snip One should lead to another, assuming proper initiative is taken. However, it appears the climate has been poisoned in that regard, Sorry, are you referring here to something other than the seemingly near-constant parade of powerpc users buying Sven's line of crap and subsequently disrupting development on the debian-boot mailing list? That's the only poisoning I see going on here. It has already been explained that the bug at issue here has not made it into a debian-installer release candidate because there hasn't *been* a d-i release candidate yet using the 2.6.18 kernel. Claiming that the installer team has wronged Debian's users by not releasing such an update, when we are still missing a releasable kernel, are beyond the pale. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has failed us
It's sad to see d-i on powerpc, a major architectural variant, being eroded and neglected as a result of a few people who can't get past their own personal animosity to Sven. Whatever his merits or demerits -- and I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on that topic -- the powerpc architecture deserves better than it's seen recently. Rick Can't we all just get along? -- Rodney King -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has failed us
Quoting Rick Thomas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): It's sad to see d-i on powerpc, a major architectural variant, being eroded and neglected as a result of a few people who can't get past their own personal animosity to Sven. Whatever his merits or demerits -- and I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on that topic -- the powerpc architecture deserves better than it's seen recently. Can you give us examples of actions from the D-I team who could be used as illustrations of negligence towards the powerpc architecture users? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian has failed us
Hi, On Saturday 13 January 2007 08:47, Joey Hess wrote: Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Yes, I've seen various mails/rants etc... and haven't wanted to take part of it neither in the past, but it looks like this has gone too far, and it's more and more looking like even perfectly good bug fixes that are needed for most users are being rejected on the sole basis of the person they originate from. Either that or somebody has an agenda of fucking up powerpc support in debian... I'm trying to figure out how you're getting from the posts that have been made to this thread, stating that the aforementioned bug was fixed in a timely manner and has a fix available in the current daily builds, and that the OP just used the wrong image, to the assertian above. Having a hard time making that connection, could you explain your logic? I dont think _this_ thread is the cause for Bens perception, rather those threads which _started_ with these mails (and others): http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2006/04/msg00407.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2006/08/msg00100.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2006/09/msg00139.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2006/11/msg00164.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2006/11/msg00137.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2007/01/msg00012.html *sigh* And to repeat what not only I've said before: various debian people (whether they are part of the installer team or not) care about powerpc, are happy about patches and run it daily on their main machines. And to repeat what also has been said before: the ongoing flamewars probably hurt the powerpc port more than anything else. I switched my focus mostly over to powerpc on debian-edu (instead of debian-installer) cause I'm sick of these flamewars. But I'm also sick to hear that debian (or the debian-installer team) wants the powerpc port to die or that it's dead already (so I sometimes take a stand in this dispute). FUD as its best. regards, Holger pgpBnvYPbbphz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian has failed us
On 13 Jan 2007, at 08:49, Holger Levsen wrote: [...] I dont think _this_ thread is the cause for Bens perception, rather those threads which _started_ with these mails (and others): http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2006/04/msg00407.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2006/08/msg00100.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2006/09/msg00139.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2006/11/msg00164.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2006/11/msg00137.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2007/01/msg00012.html *sigh* And to repeat what not only I've said before: various debian people (whether they are part of the installer team or not) care about powerpc, are happy about patches and run it daily on their main machines. And to repeat what also has been said before: the ongoing flamewars probably hurt the powerpc port more than anything else. I switched my focus mostly over to powerpc on debian-edu (instead of debian-installer) cause I'm sick of these flamewars. But I'm also sick to hear that debian (or the debian-installer team) wants the powerpc port to die or that it's dead already (so I sometimes take a stand in this dispute). FUD as its best. ^^^ AFAIK Sven Luther has not contributed to this thread and seems to be banned from posting on debian lists. Thus it strikes me that to bring him into this (and to imply that he brainwashed readers of the list) is not going to help extinguish the flamewars you (and most others) are so sick of. -- Arnaud Delobelle -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has failed us
On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 01:06:08PM +, Arnaud Delobelle wrote: AFAIK Sven Luther has not contributed to this thread and seems to be banned from posting on debian lists. Thus it strikes me that to bring Sven hasn't been banned, he decided of his own accord to take a break for two months: http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2007/01/msg00012.html -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian has failed us
On 13 Jan 2007, at 14:47, Mark Brown wrote: [...] Sven hasn't been banned, he decided of his own accord to take a break for two months: [...] OK so can't everyone decide of their own accord to give him a break for these two months? -- Arnaud Delobelle -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has failed us
Op 11-01-2007 om 13:24 schreef Mathew Binkley: Frans Pop wrote: Since the bug report hasn't changed since my initial bug report, you may try that. Those blades are now running RHEL 5. Debian lost its opportunity. Mathew Binkley filed bugreport #391451 on friday october 6th 2006. On monday october 9th, it was cloned into #391861. Both bugs where closed saturday october 21st 2006. So there were changes since the initial bug report. Details are available at http://bugs.debian.org/391861 Note: if you are really interested in solving this issue, I suggest we discontinue this useless thread and stop bothering a lot of people who can't help you anyway I am not interested in solving this issue. As I said previously, we're not considering Debian any more. It's a dead issue. What I am interested in, as a long-time Debian user, is solving the greater issue of real-world Debian problems not being solved because some developers have raging egos and can't get along. A more constructive way of solving the greater issue, could have be done by asking in november a question like Bug #391451, about a kernel module, is reported as fixed. What is needed to get in the Debian installer? Thus I am including the people who have a chance to change that. Debian may never die as a distribution, but it's heading down the road towards losing it's relevance because of issues like this, and that's sad. This E-mail is a reply-to-all, so we get all the karma points we deserve. Mat Cheers Geert Stappers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has failed us
Geert Stappers wrote: snip A more constructive way of solving the greater issue, could have be done by asking in november a question like Bug #391451, about a kernel module, is reported as fixed. What is needed to get in the Debian installer? snip One should lead to another, assuming proper initiative is taken. However, it appears the climate has been poisoned in that regard, which has caused pain for many innocent Debian users. A shame. -- Regards, Old Fart -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has failed us
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Yes, I've seen various mails/rants etc... and haven't wanted to take part of it neither in the past, but it looks like this has gone too far, and it's more and more looking like even perfectly good bug fixes that are needed for most users are being rejected on the sole basis of the person they originate from. Either that or somebody has an agenda of fucking up powerpc support in debian... I'm trying to figure out how you're getting from the posts that have been made to this thread, stating that the aforementioned bug was fixed in a timely manner and has a fix available in the current daily builds, and that the OP just used the wrong image, to the assertian above. Having a hard time making that connection, could you explain your logic? -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian has failed us
What I am interested in, as a long-time Debian user, is solving the greater issue of real-world Debian problems not being solved because some developers have raging egos and can't get along. You're right about that issue. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian has failed us
Christian Perrier wrote: What I am interested in, as a long-time Debian user, is solving the greater issue of real-world Debian problems not being solved because some developers have raging egos and can't get along. You're right about that issue. Except that there's been zero evidence in this thread of that actually happening. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian has failed us
On Thursday 11 January 2007 18:40, Mathew Binkley wrote: Our current cluster is divided between 840 Intel/AMD x86 processors, and 672 IBM PowerPC 970FX processors. To date, we have required different operating systems on each architecture because of poor OS support for the PowerPC's. Etch supports PowerPC's running in 64-bit mode, so I was eager to try it on our cluster several months ago. I uncovered a small bug in the installer (the AMD 74xx driver was not compiled in the debian-installer kernel) which prevented me from installing Debian, and reported it to False: it was not compiled into the standard Debian kernel. The installer does not use custom kernels. This was explained to you at the time. the PowerPC list in September 2006. I was promised that the driver would be included shortly. Please check your facts before sending such mails: # dpkg -c ide-modules-2.6.18-3-powerpc64-di_1.26_powerpc.udeb | grep 74xx -rw-r--r-- root/root 31848 2006-12-10 18:43 ./lib/modules/2.6.18-3-powerpc64/kernel/drivers/ide/pci/amd74xx.ko The daily build Etch images have been using this udeb for a bit more than a month. The delay in getting the module included in the installer has been completely on the side of the regular kernel package, and not the installer. Other images (RC1, weekly builds) do not yet have the module because we (the installer team) are still waiting for the kernel team to upload a new 2.6.18 kernel before we can work on our own next release. I'll ignore the rest of your rant as it is obviously based on false assumptions. Cheers, FJP P.S. Some apologies would be appreciated. pgp3W79owwxg0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian has failed us
Allow me to correct myself on some minor points. On Thursday 11 January 2007 19:18, Frans Pop wrote: The daily build Etch images have been using this udeb for a bit more than a month. It was even a bit longer: installer images have included the module since about Nov 20. The delay in getting the module included in the installer has been completely on the side of the regular kernel package, and not the installer. This is not totally accurate. The module was included first in the upload of the regular kernel on Okt 21, so there was a delay of about a month on the D-I side. However, the installer could only switch to a 2.6.18 kernel for daily builds after the release of D-I RC1, and uncertainty about the question if we could or could not use the 2.6.18 kernel for that release was one of the factors that took a while (though not overly long). The choice not to enable the module in the 2.6.17 kernel (which would have allowed us to support the hardware in RC1) but only in 2.6.18, was one made by the PowerPC kernel maintainer. pgp8VY15npYAs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian has failed us
Frans Pop wrote: Please check your facts before sending such mails: I did, by downloading the latest Debian Etch testing iso (which was regenerated on January 8, three days ago) and it failed at exactly the same place, with exactly the same error. I did not send my previous email (nor this one) to start a flamewar. I simply want a Debian Etch cd that works on my architecture. Three months later, I still do not have that. That reflects poorly on Debian. Mat -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has failed us
On Thursday 11 January 2007 19:29, Mathew Binkley wrote: I did, by downloading the latest Debian Etch testing iso (which was regenerated on January 8, three days ago) and it failed at exactly the same place, with exactly the same error. And we are supposed to guess that by telepathic means or something? Please file a new installation report [1] including (gzipped!) the following files you get when you run the Save debug logs option from the installer's main menu (after the partitioning failure): hardware-summary status syslog Cheers, FJP Note: if you are really interested in solving this issue, I suggest we discontinue this useless thread and stop bothering a lot of people who can't help you anyway, and instead concentrate on that installation report from now on. [1] http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/manual/en.i386/ch05s03.html#submit-bug pgpYprS3XhpKa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian has failed us
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 07:18:24PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: [...] False: it was not compiled into the standard Debian kernel. The installer does not use custom kernels. This was explained to you at the time. [...] Please check your facts before sending such mails: [...] I'll ignore the rest of your rant as it is obviously based on false assumptions. [...] This is an incredibly arrogant and hostile response to a long-time, technically competent Debian user who posted a calm and informative message. P.S. Some apologies would be appreciated. On the contrary, he attacked nobody personally, and his tone was not inflammatory. Your response made an unfortunate situation worse. It's you who should apologize. -- Eric Cooper e c c @ c m u . e d u -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has failed us
Frans Pop wrote: And we are supposed to guess that by telepathic means or something? No. However, if the bug wasn't fixed when I asked in September and October, it won't magically vanish in the intervening time. Please file a new installation report [1] including (gzipped!) Since the bug report hasn't changed since my initial bug report, you may try that. Those blades are now running RHEL 5. Debian lost its opportunity. Note: if you are really interested in solving this issue, I suggest we discontinue this useless thread and stop bothering a lot of people who can't help you anyway I am not interested in solving this issue. As I said previously, we're not considering Debian any more. It's a dead issue. What I am interested in, as a long-time Debian user, is solving the greater issue of real-world Debian problems not being solved because some developers have raging egos and can't get along. Thus I am including the people who have a chance to change that. Debian may never die as a distribution, but it's heading down the road towards losing it's relevance because of issues like this, and that's sad. Mat -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian has failed us
Mathew Binkley wrote: I did, by downloading the latest Debian Etch testing iso (which was regenerated on January 8, three days ago) By that date I can intuit that you downloaded a full size CD image, all of which still have the rc1 installer on them. If you had wanted to get a newer version of the installer that contained a fix for your problem, you should have downloaded one of the daily built netinst images. This is fairly clearly explained on our web site: http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ If you'd like something newer to help us test a future release of the installer, or because of hardware problems or other issues, try one of these daily built images which contain the latest available version of installer components. * netinst CD image (100-150 MB) [powerpc](http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/arch-latest/powerpc/iso-cd/debian-testing-powerpc-businesscard.iso) As far as I can see, the problem you reported is fixed in that image and will be fully deployed with etch. I did not send my previous email (nor this one) to start a flamewar. IMHO you don't understand email conversation or motivating people very well. Good luck with your new distribution. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian has failed us
Eric Cooper wrote: On the contrary, he attacked nobody personally, and his tone was not inflammatory. Sorry, but you have failed us is both a personal attack, and infalmatory. Much of the rest of Eric's mails were as well. I don't have a problem with Frans's responses. Your response made an unfortunate situation worse. Yes, often the only way to win is not to play at all. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian has failed us
Joey Hess wrote: Much of the rest of Eric's mails were as well. Er, of course I was confusing Eric Cooper with Mathew Binkley. Apologies. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian has failed us
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 11:40 -0600, Mathew Binkley wrote: Greetings. I am the senior system administrator at Vanderbilt University's supercomputing center. We operate a 1500 processor cluster for researchers at Vanderbilt. Our current cluster is divided between 840 Intel/AMD x86 processors, and 672 IBM PowerPC 970FX processors. To date, we have required different operating systems on each architecture because of poor OS support for the PowerPC's. SuSE has been our only option so far. How so ? I'm routinely running debian/ppc on all sort of PowerPC machines here, including js20's, 21's POWER5's etc... You might need a bit of hacking to get the initial install though, and I agree that should be improved in debian (though do they have access to hardware for that ?) Also, there are other options, like Fedora/RHEL, YDL, ... Etch supports PowerPC's running in 64-bit mode Running in full 64 bits mode isn't necessarily the best idea on PowerPC performance wise. It's generally recommended to run a 32 bits distro with only the minimum set of 64 bits libraries so that applications that have to be 64 bits can run. It's very different from AMD64 where 64 bits brings all sorts of improvement starting with much more registers. On PowerPC, we have many registers in the first place, thus 64 bits mode is almost purely overhead unless you application has good use of 64 bits pointers or arithmetic. so I was eager to try it on our cluster several months ago. I uncovered a small bug in the installer (the AMD 74xx driver was not compiled in the debian-installer kernel) which prevented me from installing Debian, and reported it to the PowerPC list in September 2006. I was promised that the driver would be included shortly. Ah yes, I remember that. Unfortunately, some sort of personal issues between developers in the PowerPC group and the debian-installer group has prevented this minor fix from occuring. I do not understand what that problem *is*, only that personal problems are getting in the way of real-world results. Yes, I've seen various mails/rants etc... and haven't wanted to take part of it neither in the past, but it looks like this has gone too far, and it's more and more looking like even perfectly good bug fixes that are needed for most users are being rejected on the sole basis of the person they originate from. Either that or somebody has an agenda of fucking up powerpc support in debian... I had hoped to be able to install Debian on our cluster during our refresh this spring in order to have a consistent OS across all architectures. Since I have not been able to get this minor bug resolved in three months, we will be installing Centos 5 instead. Can't you get a custom build of the installer ? I mean, I agree the situation sucks, but it's not like you can't find somebody willing to provide you with a custom build if you ask around ... I have personally been using Debian since slink, and I would like to believe that Debian can sort these issues out before it becomes a permanent handicap to the organization. Finally, I would like to extend thanks to Sven Luthor for tracking down the bug and trying to get me some assistance. Luther, not Luthor, he's not that evil yet :-) Ben. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
