Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
Roy Bamford wrote: Dropping support for x86 suppose, its a question of when. There is clearly only a few users, besides myself using systems that old, since there were very few forums posts about the original 2006.1 x86 media not workign on P1 and AMD k6 based systems. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is using a pentium mmx as a router, so you better think twice about it :P -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
Peter Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:57:54 +0200: > It was only a suggestion, not a decision. Of course, there are only a > little number of this early systems. > i686 would be really nice, i386 would be nice, too ;-) Anybody doing Gentoo on even a Pentium original is going to be compiling for awhile unless they do GRP only, and that's inadvised as GRP isn't security updated until the next release, six months later! A couple years ago when I first started with Gentoo and was on the main user list, I believe I saw a thread where a couple folks claimed to have done it on 486 mainly to be able to say they'd done so, taking weeks of course to do it, even compiling 24/7, but a 386? IMO there are better ways to spend your years... Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point. Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks of compiling. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could try it on 386 if they wanted, but I don't believe it's worth supporting below 686 at this point. That's personally. I'm sure there are folks that would argue we should at least support 586, but I simply don't believe it's worth it. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 11:13, Duncan wrote: > Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point. > Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks > of compiling. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could > try it on 386 if they wanted, but I don't believe it's worth supporting > below 686 at this point. That's personally. I'm sure there are folks > that would argue we should at least support 586, but I simply don't > believe it's worth it. There are plently of people using VIA C3 class chips which are i586 in their home servers because they are cheap, but more importantly very quiet as they don't require CPU fans. -- Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo/Linux Developer (baselayout, networking) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
Am Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:13:41 + (UTC) schrieb "Duncan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Anybody doing Gentoo on even a Pentium original is going to be > compiling for awhile unless they do GRP only, and that's inadvised as > GRP isn't security updated until the next release, six months later! Don't forget that you can easily create binary packages on a different machine and then share them across a network. At least that's what I'm doing here with my i486 machines :) -- Jens Pranaitis Oberhausen, Germany JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Hash: FBEB CC96 1781 197C 539E 2DFA 3E2D 80E0 F4F7 45F4 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
Kari Hazzard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 09 Oct 2006 07:40:53 -0400: > On Thursday 05 October 2006 10:48 am, Chris Gianelloni wrote: >> What about *our* choice to not waste time building things we don't want? > > So what about those of us who DO want that? Forcing us into an installer > is more constricting and gives us less freedom--That's not the Gentoo way. What many often forget is that the Gentoo devs are all volunteers. Forcing a volunteer to do /anything/ is... problematic. If they don't want to do it, they simply quit volunteering. By the same token, if it's volunteers that are doing it, they are obviously interested in what they are doing. Gentoo's reasonably open (some would say /too/ open) to developers starting their own projects, contributing to Gentoo whatever it is they are interested in, and also quite open to folks becoming developers if they put their mind and effort into it. If enough users want something the volunteer devs aren't doing, one way or another, /someone/ will pick it up and run with it. That's what the FLOSS community is all about, really, the ability/empowerment to take code and form it into what /you/ want, if you don't like the way the existing project is managing things. If enough users want it, it /will/ happen, because either some of them will become devs and volunteer the time to /make/ it happen, or they'll become devs and fork Gentoo if necessary to make it happen, or in the event none of them are skilled enough to do it personally, they'll invest as necessary to ensure someone else does it. A single user might not be able to do it without the skills if he likewise lacks funds, but a group of users working together certainly could. After all, if this wasn't possible, none of what presently exists in the community /would/ presently exist. It'd all still be a dream in a few guys' heads. Additionally, as already mentioned by others, Gentoo even empowers you to do it yourself by providing the same tools that Gentoo itself uses, catalyst and the like, so you don't even have to start from scratch to do it. Use the minimal and catalyst and roll your own. While Gentoo can't be all things to all people -- that can't be what choice in this context means, as it's impossible -- it /can/ and /does/ provide the tools, as a metadistribution, that allow you to roll your own variation on the theme, if you find that more convenient than using the choices Gentoo /does/ provide. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:13:41AM +, Duncan wrote: > Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point. > Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks > of compiling. Bollocks. I run a print/samba/backup box at work which is a pentium II 400. Compiling glibc takes 3 hours here and while it may not be the fastest box around it is enough to fulfill its duty. It also beats my desktop (a pentium 3 866) every time i do upgrade operations involving recompiling (bigger parts of) the system, simply because it has way less packages installed (e.g. no X, mozilla-*, openoffice, etc). So basically i should probably switch over my desktop if it was about compile times - but honestly i don't care about them a lot anyway. Also, there is no binary distribution i find as attractive as Gentoo and know how to manage that well. > Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could > try it on 386 if they wanted, but I don't believe it's worth supporting > below 686 at this point. That's personally. I'm sure there are folks > that would argue we should at least support 586, but I simply don't > believe it's worth it. Which kind of support are you speaking of? As for installation media, i really don't care. I fully agree http://forums.gentoo.org IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org pgpgFK3iXNWm9.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:19:46 +0100: > There are plently of people using VIA C3 class chips which are i586 in > their home servers because they are cheap, but more importantly very quiet > as they don't require CPU fans. Good points both you and Jens. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
Wernfried Haas wrote: On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:13:41AM +, Duncan wrote: Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point. Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks of compiling. Bollocks. I run a print/samba/backup box at work which is a pentium II 400. Compiling glibc takes 3 hours here and while it may not be the Uhh, P2 is i686, which falls squarely into the realm of "supported" and "reasonable" :) -- Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project Today's lesson in political correctness: "Go asphyxiate on a phallus" -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
Simon Stelling wrote: Roy Bamford wrote: Dropping support for x86 suppose, its a question of when. There is clearly only a few users, besides myself using systems that old, since there were very few forums posts about the original 2006.1 x86 media not workign on P1 and AMD k6 based systems. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is using a pentium mmx as a router, so you better think twice about it :P But when was the last time you reinstalled it? :) -- Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project Today's lesson in political correctness: "Go asphyxiate on a phallus" -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 07:13:39AM -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote: > Uhh, P2 is i686, which falls squarely into the realm of "supported" and > "reasonable" :) Oh my goodness, i forgot to upgrade my cflags/chost/foo then when i put the disk from the old pentium into this one then. Think of all those optimizations! ;-) cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org pgpTtgCoz30M4.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo World Domination. a 10 step guide
Natanael Copa wrote: > > What you didn't need to be a gentoo dev to be a package maintainer? Lets > say anyone could be marked as maintainer in an ebuild. When there is a > bug, the package maintainer fixes the bug and submits an updated > ebuild/patch whatever. This person has no commit access. > That makes a lot of sense, to me at least. > Then a "committer", a gentoo-dev (someone with little more experience), > just take a quick look at it and commit it. > Which would be similar to a proxy-dev, I guess, but if you're drawing people into helping maintain ebuilds that could only be a good thing. It'd be easier to run as well. (Maybe some scripts to check eg rm -fR / stuff.) > This way fewer dev with commit access is needed, and more people from > community are able to offload the dev's. > > This would also make the threshold lower for people to become a > maintainer. > FWIW I think it's a good idea. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Last rites for $package ...
>> Or you haven't talked to me or Beandog at all; since he has been >> working on this a while (now with upgraded tools!). > > what i'd like to see is a system, to which one would give a package name, > which then handles the removal (almost) automatically. > > that way devs would have an easier time actually removing some cruft and > you guys would be freed from typing the same stuff over and over. > this system could be responsible for sending the out last rites mails, > masking the packages in package.mask etc... enrico would get his database > for free, both listing those that are pending removal as well as a > history of removals including the reason plus a pointer to the > corresponding bug... > This sounds like an excellent idea. Do the `upgraded tools' already automate this process? After all, that's what computers are good at- automating workflow. > don't know if that is what you are aiming at, but currently the process of > removing a package is a true chore and i admire your dedication to it. (a > big THANKS btw) > ++ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Last rites for $package ...
Steve Long wrote: Or you haven't talked to me or Beandog at all; since he has been working on this a while (now with upgraded tools!). what i'd like to see is a system, to which one would give a package name, which then handles the removal (almost) automatically. that way devs would have an easier time actually removing some cruft and you guys would be freed from typing the same stuff over and over. this system could be responsible for sending the out last rites mails, masking the packages in package.mask etc... enrico would get his database for free, both listing those that are pending removal as well as a history of removals including the reason plus a pointer to the corresponding bug... This sounds like an excellent idea. Do the `upgraded tools' already automate this process? The 'upgraded tools' was in regards to the GPNL project; since Beandog was using portageq to import metadata into the database; this turned out to be a bad idea (slow as all hell). The upgraded portion was Marien writing some funky pkgcore voodoo to do the metadata import in about three minutes. Phreak and I have some scripts that automate portions of the removal process (including adding stuff into the treecleaner overlay!) but I know I'm not using em (not what I would call production ready yet). I don't like automated E-mails all that much, tbh. Right now my script just generates the text for the e-mail and I read it over and add comments and then paste it into my client ;) Some people stated that they liked more comments than just "masked for bug #XX' so I try to provide those; a tool just won't cover it in that aera. Also there is no history of removals other than the ebuilds go into the treecleaner project overlay; which I guess provides a revision history for removals by default (cool!). -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
The point is that if you build Gentoo to be developer-friendly rather than user-friendly, Gentoo will be replaced by something else. User-centric design is why Gentoo is/was different from everything else. Take away choices that people want and you take the Gentoo philosophy out of Gentoo itself. Kari Hazzard On Monday 09 October 2006 5:45 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > That's only true if you assume Gentoo developers are in this for the > users and not for themselves and their own personal satisfaction. > > Thanks, > Donnie -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Monday 09 October 2006 6:30 pm, Alec Warner wrote: > I concur with Donnie here; Gentoo exists not because of Users, but > because of (a subset of active) Developers. It isn't a statement that > is meant to trash users (because you are quite helpful in many > instances). But the naive thought that Gentoo revolves around users > iswell, naive. Gentoo was here before there were thousands of > users, in the unlikely event that you all switch distros, Gentoo will > probably still be here. It will not, however, have anywhere near as many developers, nor will it have more than a fraction of the resources now available to it. Users are the reason people sponsor Gentoo, users are the reason people know Gentoo exists, whether you realise it or not. > To make another argument; if I go buy a RHEL3 box set and then complain > because the liveCD doesn't have some key programs (lets say > cryptsetup-luks statically compiled so I can boot off of a USB key and > encrypt my / partition), is the onus on them to release a new CD just > for me? Hell I'm a paying customer! But they don't care. Well, that's simply bad customer service. Don't constrict your support organ because someone else's support organ operates poorly. That doesn't help anyone, not users, not devs. In any event, when was the decision made to kill the Universal LiveCD for x86 and replace it with the installer? I'd like to read the discussion. Kari Hazzard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 23:30 -0400, Kari Hazzard wrote: > User-centric design is why Gentoo is/was different from everything else. Take > away choices that people want and you take the Gentoo philosophy out of > Gentoo itself. If the design was in any way user-centric, then that was a side-effect of the design being developer-centric. The choices are all about enabling development and developers. The Gentoo philosophy is about empowerment -- we provide a platform for you to do what you want with it. That's our only promise, all the rest is just gravy. Rel. Eng. and others do what they do because, at its root, that's what they *want* to do -- that's how they exercise their own empowerment. Feel free to join in the fray and exercise your own :) Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On 10/10/06, Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If the design was in any way user-centric, then that was a side-effect of the design being developer-centric. The choices are all about enabling development and developers. The Gentoo philosophy is about empowerment -- we provide a platform for you to do what you want with it. That's our only promise, all the rest is just gravy. Rel. Eng. and others do what they do because, at its root, that's what they *want* to do -- that's how they exercise their own empowerment. Feel free to join in the fray and exercise your own :) Or, to put it another way ... ... One aspect of the Gentoo Way(tm) is this: if you don't like how part of Gentoo works, the thing to do is to volunteer to become a developer, and work from the inside to change it. Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
Duncan wrote: Anybody doing Gentoo on even a Pentium original is going to be compiling for awhile unless they do GRP only, and that's inadvised as GRP isn't security updated until the next release, six months later! A couple years ago when I first started with Gentoo and was on the main user list, I believe I saw a thread where a couple folks claimed to have done it on 486 mainly to be able to say they'd done so, taking weeks of course to do it, even compiling 24/7, but a 386? IMO there are better ways to spend your years... Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point. Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks of compiling. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could try it on 386 if they wanted, but I don't believe it's worth supporting below 686 at this point. That's personally. I'm sure there are folks that would argue we should at least support 586, but I simply don't believe it's worth it. A couple of years ago (when we were still using gcc-2.95 I used to run gentoo on my server machine which was a pentium-60 (with fdiv bug). While it took a while to compile the bigger packages it was certainly workable. I did it because I didn't have a better machine, not to be able to say I did it. Paul -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
Kari Hazzard wrote: [Mon Oct 09 2006, 10:30:40PM CDT] > User-centric design is why Gentoo is/was different from everything > else. Take away choices that people want and you take the Gentoo > philosophy out of Gentoo itself. Heh. You might want to read drobbins' "Making the distribution" articles (see http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/list.xml) sometime. Many of the original design decisions were intended to facilitate a very small number of developers in assembling and maintaining a sizeable meta-distribution. I think many of those decisions were quite inspired, but "user-centric" is a bit much, I think. All that said, we're not really trying to make things vastly harder on people. Many of the complaining e-mails I've read in this thread have complained without any specifics. If instead they were to say "I'm wondering how I'll do 'blah' w/ the new CD, could somebody let me know the best way to do this", I suspect that everybody would be happier. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpc4H0PoXf44.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo World Domination. a 10 step guide
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:09:06 +0200 Natanael Copa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What you didn't need to be a gentoo dev to be a package maintainer? > Lets say anyone could be marked as maintainer in an ebuild. When > there is a bug, the package maintainer fixes the bug and submits an > updated ebuild/patch whatever. This person has no commit access. > > Then a "committer", a gentoo-dev (someone with little more > experience), just take a quick look at it and commit it. This already happens on some packages (in particular where the upstream author is happy to maintain the Gentoo ebuild). One very important thing is for the Gentoo "proxy" dev to be listed in metadata.xml (as well as the non-Gentoo maintainer). The Gentoo dev takes formal responsibility for any commits. The trick is to find a Gentoo dev who is prepared to proxy for you; that involves a trust relationship between the dev and the maintainer. The amount of work the dev has to do depends on how well the maintainer follows the Gentoo ebuild rules. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
Not going to happen. I'm many things, but a software developer is not one of them. I generally prefer to work on things like design and user psychology than actually being involved in the coding of it. You don't want me producing code for the project, trust me on that one. >> -- Kari Hazzard On Tuesday 10 October 2006 10:28 am, Seemant Kulleen wrote: > If the design was in any way user-centric, then that was a side-effect > of the design being developer-centric. The choices are all about > enabling development and developers. The Gentoo philosophy is about > empowerment -- we provide a platform for you to do what you want with > it. That's our only promise, all the rest is just gravy. Rel. Eng. and > others do what they do because, at its root, that's what they *want* to > do -- that's how they exercise their own empowerment. Feel free to join > in the fray and exercise your own :) > > Thanks, > > -- > Seemant Kulleen > Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 03:45, Kari Hazzard wrote: > On Monday 09 October 2006 6:30 pm, Alec Warner wrote: > > I concur with Donnie here; Gentoo exists not because of Users, but > > because of (a subset of active) Developers. It isn't a statement that > > is meant to trash users (because you are quite helpful in many > > instances). But the naive thought that Gentoo revolves around users > > iswell, naive. Gentoo was here before there were thousands of > > users, in the unlikely event that you all switch distros, Gentoo will > > probably still be here. > > It will not, however, have anywhere near as many developers, nor will it > have more than a fraction of the resources now available to it. Users are > the reason people sponsor Gentoo, users are the reason people know Gentoo > exists, whether you realise it or not. You miss the point entirely. Unpaid software authors do it because they want to use the software themselves. Those authors that publish their source generally do so because they see it as an overall waste of time for the proverbial wheel to be reinvented by others. I'd say they also do it because they are happy in the thought that 9 times out of 10 they'll find some other author has published source to achieve a new goal of their own saving them from having to reinvent the wheel themselves. So how does this fit in with sponsors and volumnuous resources? Well, it doesn't. But then, it was never meant to. So called "end users" that don't give back to the project (giving resources is a way of giving back, by the way) make of more than 99% of those that utilize the resources provided by sponsors. Sponsoring is essentially payed advertising that wasn't done with dollars (or yen, etc) and has a generally high risk return. If referring to the "sponsor a dev" program, it's still a similar give-take scenario. It either falls into the above scenario (that is, a lesser funded dev needs highly supported hardware to continue his regular work, gets it and blogs about it) or it falls into the category of poorly supported hardware - or both categories. In the case of the latter category, the dev is likely just looking for the learning experience when taking the hardware and building up support for it. It's all about win-win situations. I don't know what the original post was about. I only read this one because "I concur with Donnie here" caught my eye. But whatever was being asked for in the original post (I'm assuming that this sub-thread started with somebody asking for something?), would the dev get anything back for satisfying the request other than a less stressful time perusing their inbox? > > To make another argument; if I go buy a RHEL3 box set and then complain > > because the liveCD doesn't have some key programs (lets say > > cryptsetup-luks statically compiled so I can boot off of a USB key and > > encrypt my / partition), is the onus on them to release a new CD just > > for me? Hell I'm a paying customer! But they don't care. > > Well, that's simply bad customer service. > > Don't constrict your support organ because someone else's support organ > operates poorly. That doesn't help anyone, not users, not devs. The initial premise for Alec's argument above is just wrong as when you go out and buy a RHEL3 box set you're not actually buying the software contained within. What you're buying is a set of installation CDs and an X month/year support contract. When you purchase Gentoo CDs, you're buying a set of installation CDs only. When you're downloading Gentoo, you're not purchasing anything. I'll try to answer your response to his invalid point, though. Whichever product you buy, the licenses for the software contained therein almost never place any requirements on the licenser, rather only on the licensee. This is true even when it comes to Microsoft, Apple, etc. If you actually go and read most of the commercial licenses, it boils down to "This software is provided AS IS - except that you can't make copies, resell, use on more than one computer or by more than one person, etc." > In any event, when was the decision made to kill the Universal LiveCD for > x86 and replace it with the installer? I'd like to read the discussion. I have a feeling the discussion took place about 18 months ago on -core, but I'm not sure as to the answer to this. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 03:45, Kari Hazzard wrote: After writing the last response, another thought came to mind that I figured I should post - and should probably be set out in a "user's guide to posting on dev mailing lists". I had the thought that users likely feel that it's okay to repeatedly post arguments for their point of view because they often see developers doing it. There is a very obvious parallel between users and developers in these threads in that both are lazy and thus want things done their own way in order to make their lives easier. The important difference is that (usually :/) at least some of the developers of each point of view are willing to implement the whole lot themselves. What they are arguing about is how much effort they see will be needed in the long term. Even in the case where a developer with a conflicting point of view is not willing to do the work now, the developer will argue for the point of view as they can see themselves having to redo it later on anyway. In the open source world, the driving theme is that there is often something good enough to not require reinventing the wheel but, in the end, "if you want a job done right, you've got to do it yourself." -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: RFC: Last rites for $package ...
Alec Warner wrote: > Steve Long wrote: >> This sounds like an excellent idea. Do the `upgraded tools' already >> automate this process? > > The 'upgraded tools' was in regards to the GPNL project; since Beandog > was using portageq to import metadata into the database; this turned out > to be a bad idea (slow as all hell). The upgraded portion was Marien > writing some funky pkgcore voodoo to do the metadata import in about > three minutes. > pkgcore does seem to have a lot going for it. > Phreak and I have some scripts that automate portions of the removal > process (including adding stuff into the treecleaner overlay!) but I > know I'm not using em (not what I would call production ready yet). > > I don't like automated E-mails all that much, tbh. Right now my script > just generates the text for the e-mail and I read it over and add > comments and then paste it into my client ;) Some people stated that > they liked more comments than just "masked for bug #XX' so I try to > provide those; a tool just won't cover it in that aera. > Agreed, but isn't your time quite valuable? I understand that people /like/ more comments, but where is the actual *need* for that? Part of the process (from what I've read) is decision making based on how long it's been since a pkg was last updated in the tree, and how long it's had outstanding bugs. (As well as upstream issues etc.) If you had that info in an email as part of an automated process (which your crew would still have to actually approve, and you can still add a couple of lines about the maintainer or whatever) then the reasons would be clear. And let's face it, anyone who's bothered is still going to get the same level of warning. If they want to follow it up, then you can get into a discussion. > Also there is no history of removals other than the ebuilds go into the > treecleaner project overlay; which I guess provides a revision history > for removals by default (cool!). > Yes indeedy. Computers make things _easier_! My £2 worth ;) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 19:50 -0400, Caleb Cushing wrote: > from the ones that are on the mirrors. so what is the hangup? I doubt > it's storage space and bandwidth. Uhh... it *is* storage space. In fact, the space usage on our donated mirrors is one of the primary motivators to have us decrease our space requirements, especially as things seem to be increasing in size all on their own every release. Not only that, but there's also the time required to build things and test them. The Universal CD has always been the one thing that was the hardest to get tested. With the amount and quality of testing that we're receiving, we simply have to cut certain things. No amount of complaining will change this. The only thing that will change it is for us to get more *quality* testers. We had 35+ "Release Testers" for 2006.1, of which, about 7 were providing quality feedback. I don't know if the rest even tested anything. What it all boils down to is would you rather have a wide range of shoddy release materials that may or may not work between different releases, but "supports" all of the insane combinations of things you would want to do, or would you rather have a few high quality release materials that are well-tested? Release Engineering has decided that higher quality media is better than lots of diverse low-quality media, and nobody is going to convince us otherwise. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 10:13 +, Duncan wrote: > Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point. That's pretty much our target. > Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks > of compiling. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could > try it on 386 if they wanted, but I don't believe it's worth supporting > below 686 at this point. That's personally. I'm sure there are folks > that would argue we should at least support 586, but I simply don't > believe it's worth it. There's a difference between "support" and "ability". You will retain the ability to install on < i686 machines. We just don't want to support it. This means we aren't going to be pushing out lots of new media for them. I have a set of legacy media that I plan on pushing out. It is all built with the 2006.1 snapshot. The media is an installcd, a stage set (stage1/2/3) for "x86" compiled against the no-nptl profile, a stage set for "i586" compiled against the 2006.1 profile, and a stage set for "i586" compiled against the no-nptl profile. I don't plan on upgrading these until we switch over to the new multiple-inheritance profiles, at which point, I'll likely build a set of stages again for legacy hardware. The stages won't be supported, but they'll be available. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 12:52 +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote: > Bollocks. I run a print/samba/backup box at work which is a pentium II > 400. Compiling glibc takes 3 hours here and while it may not be the > Which kind of support are you speaking of? As for installation media, > i really don't care. I fully agree release media is built built for i686 only i have no problem with that > either. If you really want to put Gentoo on a i586 there are a other > ways to do it, too, but i don't think we should stop supporting i586 > in general. Nobody has said that. So long as glibc/gcc/etc still work on i586, we'll still provide the ability to use it on those machines. That doesn't mean we'll "support" it. It's like GCC 2.x, which is still in the tree. It's there. It's usable. It's totally unsupported. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 23:30 -0400, Kari Hazzard wrote: > The point is that if you build Gentoo to be developer-friendly rather than > user-friendly, Gentoo will be replaced by something else. > > User-centric design is why Gentoo is/was different from everything else. Take > away choices that people want and you take the Gentoo philosophy out of > Gentoo itself. However, all developers are users first. If you have an itch to scratch that the current development team isn't meeting, then get involved. There are lots of ways to do that. Regards, Paul -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 23:30 -0400, Kari Hazzard wrote: > The point is that if you build Gentoo to be developer-friendly rather than > user-friendly, Gentoo will be replaced by something else. ...and? You seem to think that Gentoo being "developer-friendly" would be a change in the current way we do things. > User-centric design is why Gentoo is/was different from everything else. Take > away choices that people want and you take the Gentoo philosophy out of > Gentoo itself. I can tell you that in the three years that I've been a developer, not once have I done "user-centric" design. I have always done what I think is the best way to do something. I am not alone, I know. It's pretty simple. We design a system that *we* want to use. If others benefit from it, then great. Apparently, this works pretty well since we have thousands upon thousands of users. > On Monday 09 October 2006 5:45 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > That's only true if you assume Gentoo developers are in this for the > > users and not for themselves and their own personal satisfaction. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 12:28:10PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > Which kind of support are you speaking of? As for installation media, > > i really don't care. I fully agree > release media is built built for i686 only i have no problem with that > > either. If you really want to put Gentoo on a i586 there are a other > > ways to do it, too, but i don't think we should stop supporting i586 > > in general. > > Nobody has said that. So long as glibc/gcc/etc still work on i586, > we'll still provide the ability to use it on those machines. That > doesn't mean we'll "support" it. It's like GCC 2.x, which is still in > the tree. It's there. It's usable. It's totally unsupported. That's exactly what i can perfectly live with (i do even have a real i586 box that's not a pentium 2 ;-) ), thanks for clearing it up. cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org pgpzFHtMe4JH7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] treecleaner masking
malc wrote: > media-video - Can I take this one? I've got a jahshaka-2.0 ebuild here > ready to rock. please submit it and let us have fun too =) lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:13:41AM +, Duncan wrote: > Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point. > Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks > of compiling. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could > try it on 386 if they wanted, but I don't believe it's worth supporting > below 686 at this point. That's personally. I'm sure there are folks > that would argue we should at least support 586, but I simply don't > believe it's worth it. There are CPUs like VIA C3 which don't have support for cmov and i think gcc asumes that cmov is present if march is i686. Don't know if this changed now. I wouldn't like if i couldn't install Gentoo on my 800Mhz C3 machines anymore because something like -march=i686 is being used. Maybe it's a radical point of view but i think generic i386 or maybe i486 binaries are enough for a boot CD and stages. Almost everyone will rebuild the stuff anyway. And i don't think there's a huge speed loss until the binaries are rebuilt. Christian -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:40:01AM -0400, Kari Hazzard wrote: > Not going to happen. I'm many things, but a software developer is not one of > them. I generally prefer to work on things like design and user psychology > than actually being involved in the coding of it. > > You don't want me producing code for the project, trust me on that one. >> > Perhaps get involved in userrel then? Plenty of ways to get involved without necessarily producing code directly -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] ocfs-tools masked for removal
People should be using ocfs2 now. ocfs-tools no longer compiles (bug #135473) and hasn't had an upstream release for more than 2 years. I've masked it for removal in 30 days. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
