Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
On 6/14/07, Abhay Kedia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 Jun 2007 1:54:51 am Vlastimil Babka wrote:
But maybe Skype is not so pressing to upgrade, just doesn't provide
distfiles anymore. Then maybe we don't have to obey, but still it's
really questionable if it should be marked stable at all.
Then don't mark it stable but dropping it from the tree altogether? That is
taking it a bit too far imho.
And yeah I'm a Java dev but at least Java is now open (I admit that the
stable VM's in tree are not, yet) and I don't see that coming for Skype.
Also Java (and your examples of closed source stuff) are not infamous
for the bad stuff mentioned above.
Has any one done the same kind of analysis on all the closed source
applications we have in tree? If we take an alternate view on the wikipedia
link then it can be said that it is just an attempt for spreading FUD while
trying to pimp Open Source alternatives?
Don't get me wrong...I love open source and that is one of the reasons why I
have been using GNU/Linux for many years but acting paranoid and dropping
popular packages from tree is not something, I as a common user, would like
to see. This is the only reason I am poking my nose in the workings of devs.
Indeed, if you were to drop all non-opensource _games_ from the tree
you'd loose most, if not all of your popular mainstream games, and
we'd have become another debian ;), and one of the big 'gotchas' i've
loathed about debian for many years is their zomg!..its not 'free'!..
extradite it to the abyss! , and thus for many years MP3 support and
many other applications were just the same as red hat, ... either
broken, limited functionality due to 'freeness' , or downright missing
altogether. ( anyone remember the pre-sun-java-in-debian days? )
I love free software as much as the next guy, but sometimes you want
to use something non-free, regardless of status, and regardless of how
much it sucks ;)
*ducks*
Gentoo is about choices, one of those choices is the choice to install
closed-source software, or software with well documented evils, the
best thing we can do is warn users what they're getting themselves
into and let them make an informed decision IMO.
--
Kent
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x|
print enNOSPicAMreil [EMAIL PROTECTED][(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}'
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Are you guys for real?
On 6/14/07, Jayson Vaughn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
etc I'll be back. Love the distro, but Jesus the politics and the bitching
gets out.
From one non-dev to another:
You'll be back.
Once somebody has learnt the truth, most find they can only deny it
for so long. :)
I agree a lot of the discussions turn into bitchfests, and it seems
many of our developers are going out of their way as of late to stir
the pot, but its well known that a small minority of whiners gives the
majority a bad name( not to go into politics, but take a look at
muslims christians in modern media, its always the extremists who
are out there making the rest of them look bad by carrying their name
)
Also, I guess if you went into the chambers of your local government
it would often escillate into flamewars, at least thats what I've
gathered from the media..( .. unless thats only a small minority of
politicians making the rest look bad.)
But as a whole, at least in my opinion, you wont find a so well
structured community comprised with such a high percentage of people
who know what they're talking about. ( I find $OTHEROS rooms
frustrating as they're all full of the noobs asking questions with
nobody who knows the answer.. its like a damn MSDN blog reply
list'liek..zomg!..vista is so cool' )
--
Kent
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x|
print enNOSPicAMreil [EMAIL PROTECTED][(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}'
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Are you guys for real?
Dnia 14-06-2007, czw o godzinie 19:13 +1200, Kent Fredric napisał(a): Once somebody has learnt the truth, most find they can only deny it for so long. :) I agree a lot of the discussions turn into bitchfests, You are feeding such discussions. and it seems many of our developers are going out of their way as of late to stir the pot, but its well known that a small minority of whiners gives the majority a bad name( not to go into politics, but take a look at muslims christians in modern media, its always the extremists who are out there making the rest of them look bad by carrying their name ) Developers do their job anyway. Just take a look at packages.gentoo.org and visit bugzilla. Then end this stupid thread. Thanks -- ,-. | Dawid Węgliński | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cla @ irc.freenode.net | | GPG: 295E72D9 | `-' signature.asc Description: To jest część listu podpisana cyfrowo
Re: [gentoo-dev] Are you guys for real?
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Hélder Máximo Botter Riba wrote: I'm using gentoo for 4 years, I love emerge, I enjoy to be part of gentoobr( Gentoo Brazilian community ), I'm always helping at gentoobr and gentoo-chat. I really enjoy gentoo. Who stole the double 'e' from the gentoobr? /me opens another bottle Cheers, -jkt
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Are you guys for real?
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 23:53:51 Markus Ullmann wrote: Some numbers to back Vlastimil up Yep there's still development going on, devs commit ebuilds and stuff. http://cia.vc/stats/project/gentoo Also, as said many times, number of devs participating in flamewars here is pretty low compared to number of all devs... considering http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/roll-call/userinfo.xml and http://archives.gentoo.org/stats/gentoo-dev-per-month.xml I really agree that most people are quiet ;) Greetz -jokey nice stats - but how about commits per month to the big pool of gentoo repositories? (mostly important the portage tree, of course ^^) Christian. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Are you guys for real?
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 23:46:01 Hélder Máximo Botter Ribas wrote: Nowadays, this list looks more like a fight ring than a dev list. I'm using gentoo for 4 years, I love emerge, I enjoy to be part of gentoobr( Gentoo Brazilian community ), I'm always helping at gentoobr and gentoo-chat. I really enjoy gentoo. it feels really good to read ppl still enjoy things we all love in the end anyway - although, a public list is what the public community contributing to it is submitting. and if only the biatches between us have something to say this way, then it still doesn't mean that *all* of us act like that. regards, Christian Parpart. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keeping closed source pkgs (Was: Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree)
070614 Steve Long wrote: why is ion3 gone again? That was good software, with total source availability. Licensing. Look in the archive for the gruesome details. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban Community Studies TRANSIT`-O--O---' University of Toronto -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Are you guys for real?
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 11:23:49AM +0200, Jan Kundrat wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Hélder Máximo Botter Riba wrote: I'm using gentoo for 4 years, I love emerge, I enjoy to be part of gentoobr( Gentoo Brazilian community ), I'm always helping at gentoobr and gentoo-chat. I really enjoy gentoo. Who stole the double 'e' from the gentoobr? Oh noes, Gentoo _is_ over then. ;-) /me opens another bottle Just make sure it's beer-signed. cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org forum-mods (at) gentoo.org #gentoo-forums (freenode) pgpuQ6Fp8Xjko.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
Abhay Kedia wrote: Don't get me wrong...I love open source and that is one of the reasons why I have been using GNU/Linux for many years but acting paranoid and dropping popular packages from tree is not something, I as a common user, would like to see. This is the only reason I am poking my nose in the workings of devs. If is broken we need to fix it, if is unfixable we HAVE to drop/p.mask it. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
On Thursday 14 Jun 2007 8:18:27 pm Luca Barbato wrote: If is broken we need to fix it, if is unfixable we HAVE to drop/p.mask it. ...but then that remains true for open source programs as well. XMMS is a wonderful example of the same. I saw alsaplayer going out and then in again for the same reason. Why pin point on the closed source thing? Also, is Skype really becoming unfixable? I see only 3 open bugs in my search on bugzilla, none of which are security related. -- Regards, Abhay signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
Abhay Kedia wrote: On Thursday 14 Jun 2007 8:18:27 pm Luca Barbato wrote: If is broken we need to fix it, if is unfixable we HAVE to drop/p.mask it. ...but then that remains true for open source programs as well. XMMS is a wonderful example of the same. I saw alsaplayer going out and then in again for the same reason. Why pin point on the closed source thing? Also, is Skype really becoming unfixable? I see only 3 open bugs in my search on bugzilla, none of which are security related. Please ensure you read the entire thread to get a grasp on the issues at hand before replying. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] EAPI-1 (or 1, perhaps) Proposal: AND Dependencies
I occasionally run across a package version dependency issue that cannot be elegantly solved by the current dependency syntax. Every time I've come across this, it's boiled down to a range. For example, package some-cat/foo has the following versions in the tree some-cat/foo-4.0.0-r2 some-cat/foo-4.1 some-cat/foo-4.1.1 some-cat/foo-4.1.2-r2 some-cat/foo-4.2.1-r5 some-cat/foo-4.3 some-cat/foo-4.4 Now, package other-cat/bar has a runtime dependency on some-cat/foo but it only works with the 4.1 and 4.2 slot. The other-cat/bar ebuild was originally composed before the some-cat/foo-4.3 package came out, so the ebuild developer coded the runtime dependency as =some-cat/foo-4.1 But, when some-cat/foo-4.3 came along, it got messy. The only possible solution today that I know of is ( || =some-cat/foo-4.1* =some-cat/foo-4.2* ) and this potentially grows over time as new versions stabilize. What I'd really like to be able to code is a range with an AND operator, something like this ( =some-cat/foo-4.0 some-cat/foo-4.3 ) So, my question is, does this make sense? Is something like this planned for some EAPI0? Would it be appropriate for me (a non-dev) to file a bug and link it to SpanKy's EAPI-1 tracker bug? Thanks in advance. - John -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
On Friday 15 Jun 2007 3:15:28 am Doug Goldstein wrote: Please ensure you read the entire thread to get a grasp on the issues at hand before replying. I am involved in this thread since its very beginning but looks like I am not being able to understand the problems. Would you please be kind enough to enumerate the issues discussed in this thread that warrant complete removal of Skype (rather than masking it) from the tree? -- Regards, Abhay signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI-1 (or 1, perhaps) Proposal: AND Dependencies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John R. Graham wrote: I occasionally run across a package version dependency issue that cannot be elegantly solved by the current dependency syntax. Every time I've come across this, it's boiled down to a range. For example, package some-cat/foo has the following versions in the tree some-cat/foo-4.0.0-r2 some-cat/foo-4.1 some-cat/foo-4.1.1 some-cat/foo-4.1.2-r2 some-cat/foo-4.2.1-r5 some-cat/foo-4.3 some-cat/foo-4.4 Now, package other-cat/bar has a runtime dependency on some-cat/foo but it only works with the 4.1 and 4.2 slot. The other-cat/bar ebuild was originally composed before the some-cat/foo-4.3 package came out, so the ebuild developer coded the runtime dependency as =some-cat/foo-4.1 But, when some-cat/foo-4.3 came along, it got messy. The only possible solution today that I know of is ( || =some-cat/foo-4.1* =some-cat/foo-4.2* ) and this potentially grows over time as new versions stabilize. If 4.1 and 4.2 are really SLOTs as you say, then this || syntax makes good sense. Of course would be better with real slot deps :) So your example is not so ideal. But nevermind. What I'd really like to be able to code is a range with an AND operator, something like this ( =some-cat/foo-4.0 some-cat/foo-4.3 ) Syntax shouldn't repeat package name twice. It wouldn't make much sense to use it with =some-cat/foo-4.0 some-cat/bar-4.3 would it? So, my question is, does this make sense? Is something like this planned for some EAPI0? Would it be appropriate for me (a non-dev) to file a bug and link it to SpanKy's EAPI-1 tracker bug? There's been bug 4315 for ages, so maybe just reassign it to PMS? - -- Vlastimil Babka (Caster) Gentoo/Java -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGchsotbrAj05h3oQRAjg8AJ46/ofZuK6EI+LnQcTivJDzOjgj4gCfWNRe a56SGjmxI16imQxdkfRRoQI= =bu3E -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
