Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Wed, May 20, 2009 01:18, Duncan wrote: Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org posted robbat2.20090519t230236.2687450...@orbis-terrarum.net, excerpted below, on Tue, 19 May 2009 16:03:29 -0700: On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 01:00:34AM +0200, Jesús Guerrero wrote: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html I've checked it lots of times, and it's there. It's in the Moderators subforum, and it's near to the top of the list on that subforum so if you can access that subforum you shouldn't have a problem finding it, since linuxquestions is in the title. My dev forums account can't access that subforum, nor the post. The moderators subforum would explain it here. It would have been nice to know that in the beginning, but maybe you (Jesús) didn't realize how restricted that subforum was, or perhaps more likely did but just weren't thinking about it. I was aware that it's a restricted forum, but somehow I think I remember that devs could post there. Obviously, I was either hallucinating or maybe some of them can, and some of them can't. That was all the confusion for which I apologize. :) -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Wed, May 20, 2009 02:18, Mart Raudsepp wrote: On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 01:10 +0200, Jesús Guerrero wrote: On Wed, May 20, 2009 00:37, Dale wrote: That would be the point. Gentoo has its own forum so why have two forums? What would be the point in having two places to go look for answers? Better yet, why would Gentoo support both forums? You mean like all the rest of big distros? :p All the the distros there have some kind of support in LQ, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to have a subforum. All of them have also their own forums. Curious, do they also actively point people in their LQ subforums to their official forums when they get the chance? To the official distro forums? If the answer required that then yes. Just like you point at any other random tutorial or mailing list based solution on the internet. Some people have their distro resources linked on their signature as well. I've had a link to the handbook there since I registered. I've also pointed people to forums.gentoo.org when needed. No problem with that. -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:07 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: [...] I'm a member at LQ tho I haven't been there in a long while. I just don't see why there has to be two forums when the one forum we have is more than enough. If someone can't find the Gentoo forums, I'm not sure they can find the chair and keyboard either. lol As a user I'd say that's ignoring us (the users) blatantly. What's the harm in having it at multiple places? LQ is one of the sites that comes up first in Google Search. I have found solution for many of my queries related to other distros there. Agreed that finding Gentoo Forums is easy, but that doesn't mean that you can expect every user to go there. A reply like mine would usually be countered with: Gentoo users are assumed to be intelligent enough to find this forum. lol I don't see how doing double the work will benefit anyone. Its a lot easier to have one forum than it is to have two forums. I just think the Gentoo folks would be better to concentrate on what we have than to be spreading more work around for the same people. Its not like they don't have enough work already. This is also wrong. As I said before having a presence in multiple areas is just plain helpful and not redundant. Search engines are the first tool that a user would usually use and getting more results is nothing but helpful. And as Jesús put it he is volunteering to do it, so I don't see what is the problem here? If the sub-forum does come up I am sure other people would volunteer as well. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything here. I wish some people would start seeing it from user's perspective as well. And volunteers who want to help like this should be encouraged. Frankly speaking replies like this have discouraged many users I have personally known. And it takes great courage to post to Gentoo ML in fear of such replies. Again and again its virtually stated that: user is dumb unless they do it the way I want them to do it or the way I think it is right. I take back my words if Gentoo is supposed to be a developer only distro. Anyway, again from a user's perspective, Gentoo also has its share of great minds, awesome documentation and some friendly and nice folks. :) Regards Nandeep
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
Jesús Guerrero wrote: On Wed, May 20, 2009 05:33, Dale wrote: Jesús Guerrero wrote: I don't see how doing double the work will benefit anyone. Its a lot easier to have one forum than it is to have two forums. I just think the Gentoo folks would be better to concentrate on what we have than to be spreading more work around for the same people. Its not like they don't have enough work already. What I don't get about your argument is how to you think that banning the rest of the world from our minds and cutting all the relations with the rest of forums in the Earth is going to be any more beneficial for Gentoo that working in collaboration with them. It's like a cat who hides his head and thinks that the rest of the world has disappeared. Which isn't true. There are lots of gentoo related forums around and they will be there and people will use them no matter how bad you think that is, Dale. Some links that desultory kindly handed me are these: http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/gentoo-linux-help/ http://www.gentoo-quebec.org/forum/ https://www.hamiltonshells.ca/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=8 http://www.gentoo.fr/forum/index.php http://www.gentooforum.de/ http://www.gentoo-forum.nl/ But there are lots more. I am already handing my time there, and neither you nor Gentoo as a project can tell my what to do with my time. So I will continue giving support there, even if you or anyone else think that I am harming Gentoo by not concentrating my effort into a single point. I can do it on behalf of Gentoo and have an easier time, or I can do it on behalf of me and have a harder time. But I'll do it nonetheless. As said, this is not open for discussion, this is the reality, at least until the G foundation can control my mind. Period. :) So I really don't understand your argument. I will not be harming Gentoo anymore that I've benn harming it for a long long time now. :D No one has to join or worry about this at all if s/he doesn't care so I have no idea what extra work are you talking about. No one has to worry about me or the gse project either. Regards and a nice day! :) But does Gentoo support those forums? My point is, the people here, devs in particular, have enough to do already. Why add one more thing for them to deal with? Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Wed, May 20, 2009 13:26, Dale wrote: But does Gentoo support those forums? My point is, the people here, devs in particular, have enough to do already. Why add one more thing for them to deal with? Devs don't have to bother or even know about this at all. The support will be limited within the possibilities of these who want to offer it. The amount of support that LQ ask from us is *more* than covered with what I and the other volunteers can offer (it would be covered even with just me) If I founded a project it's just because it's a way to make the rest of the persons aware that the initiative exist, and because I like official things when that's possible. For the rest of people who just don't care about this, this represent no change at all. In other words, this project will only affect those who have any interest in it, the rest of devs and people here can just ignore it as if it never existed. We could argue that the sunrise project is bad because these devs taking care of it should concentrate in portage instead, same for gentoo-alt, to put just two random examples (I swear that I feel no animosity against these projects at all :) ). But that's pointless as I see it. This is open source, and everyone will contribute wherever s/he wants, regardless of where you think they should contribute. By rejecting the gse project gentoo.forums.org will get no extra time or support from me, and LQ will get no less either. In the same lines, the fact that I support people at LQ is not going to change the kind of support nor the quality of the support that I give on our own forums. -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Wed, May 20, 2009 14:44, Jeremy Olexa wrote: Comments welcome, and thanks for reading. (replying to random) Look, there has been a whopping 6 developer comments on this thread - none of them opposed. This means to me that you should continue on with your plan. You are already a moderator of our forums, so get someone with cvs access (probably whomever committed http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gse/ ) to add more content to that page That would be myself. More contents will be added as needed. I will review the pages of other projects so I get a clearer idea of what kind of info usually go into their pages. Any idea is welcome of course. and make it official. I've been following the specifications on the glep 39 for this project. I don't know what else is needed. Any hints? http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html#specification Like you said, you are already doing this anyway, so it isn't going to be more work for anyone. That's what I am trying to make clear. Thanks. Oh, and I would make this a subproject of the forums project too. It wouldn't be anymore work for the forums people and you can be the lead of GSE without involving the higher level project. It just makes sense, IMO, because forums and GSE are so closely related. I guess I should contact the forum project members about that. If they agree I have no problem with gse being a subproject since it makes some sense. I would be taking care of the gse stuff of course, so they don't have to do any extra work or something. Thanks for your answer :) -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Wed, May 20, 2009 18:43, Petteri Räty wrote: Jesús Guerrero wrote: Hello, This is a request for comments on a new project, namely Gentoo Support Everywhere. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gse/ New projects must be announced via gentoo-dev-announce and I haven't see a mail although project pages exist. Also I don't see how this thread belonged to the -dev mailing list in the first place. Seems -project material to me. Because that's what GLEP39 says, and I haven't found any more official doc on it. Quoting it: Any dev may create a new project just by creating a new page (or, more realistically, directory and page) in gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en and sending a Request For Comments (RFC) e-mail to gentoo-dev. So, these are the steps I've followed. As said, I am new to this stuff. -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-doc/afsdoc (Jun 1 2009)
Ryan Hill wrote: Masked this a couple weeks ago but forgot to announce it: - old old old docs for the AFS file system, which get installed with net-fs/openafs USE=doc anyways - not touched since 2005 - unmaintained Was this posted to -dev-announce as I see nothing there? Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI=3 ebuilds
On Wed, 20 May 2009 19:12:56 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfre...@gentoo.org wrote: This error occurs only when there is no up-to-date cache for given ebuild. rsync users would see only the usual masked by: EAPI 3 message. We always have to assume that there might not be an up to date cache. The Gentoo rsync mirrors do not always ship up to date cache, particularly if someone's just changed a widely used eclass. Newer bash is not something that can be done as an EAPI change with current mechanisms. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
Jesús Guerrero wrote: On Wed, May 20, 2009 18:43, Petteri Räty wrote: Jesús Guerrero wrote: Hello, This is a request for comments on a new project, namely Gentoo Support Everywhere. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gse/ New projects must be announced via gentoo-dev-announce and I haven't see a mail although project pages exist. Also I don't see how this thread belonged to the -dev mailing list in the first place. Seems -project material to me. Because that's what GLEP39 says, and I haven't found any more official doc on it. Quoting it: Any dev may create a new project just by creating a new page (or, more realistically, directory and page) in gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en and sending a Request For Comments (RFC) e-mail to gentoo-dev. So, these are the steps I've followed. As said, I am new to this stuff. Yeah I don't think the GLEPs have been active maintained for a while but really need to something to that. I stress to new devs to think to use gentoo-dev-announce for all important matters even if the docs don't explicitly state it. Any way please also make a post to gentoo-dev-announce to rectify the situation. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
Hi, Jesús Guerrero i92gu...@terra.es: I really don't care if this is a top level project or a subproject. So, what do people think about this? It is a good idea to reach out to our users. So yes. V-Li -- Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
Jesús Guerrero wrote: Hello, This is a request for comments on a new project, namely Gentoo Support Everywhere. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gse/ New projects must be announced via gentoo-dev-announce and I haven't see a mail although project pages exist. Also I don't see how this thread belonged to the -dev mailing list in the first place. Seems -project material to me. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI=3 ebuilds
2009-05-17 19:02:02 Piotr Jaroszyński napisał(a): 2009/5/17 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com: 2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote: I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI=3 ebuilds. I know that it's slightly late, but this change is very easy to implement (adjusting RDEPEND of new versions of package managers and updating PMS). No good, for two reasons. First, this is a global scope change Why do you think that it is a global scope change? I have updated the glep, see how it breaks [1]. [1] - http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html#use-newer-bash-features This error occurs only when there is no up-to-date cache for given ebuild. rsync users would see only the usual masked by: EAPI 3 message. Here's the updated version of my proposition: * bash-4.0 features are allowed in EAPI=3 (global scope and local scope). * bash-4.0 features temporarily shouldn't be used in gentoo-x86 repository until 1 month has passed since stabilization of =app-shells/bash-4.0* on all architectures. It will give Gentoo developers sufficient time to update app-shells/bash. (app-shells/bash used on system, which generates cache, also should be updated.) -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] RfC: News item for Baselayout 2 stabilisation
A lot has changed from Baselayout version 1.x to 2.0.0, so all users should take a look at the upgrade guide found at http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/openrc-migration.xml to not break their systems. You will likely see an update of sys-apps/baselayout in the near future: After installing, please follow the upgrade guide and do not reboot your system meanwhile. Would this be better with - to not break - in order not to break ? After installing, please follow the upgrade guide and do not reboot your system meanwhile. How does this sound: After installing, please don't reboot your system before following the guide because there's a risk of not being able to boot properly with the old configuration files. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI=3 ebuilds
2009-05-20 19:29:12 Piotr Jaroszyński napisał(a): 2009/5/20 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfre...@gentoo.org: 2009-05-17 19:02:02 Piotr Jaroszyński napisał(a): 2009/5/17 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com: 2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote: I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI=3 ebuilds. I know that it's slightly late, but this change is very easy to implement (adjusting RDEPEND of new versions of package managers and updating PMS). No good, for two reasons. First, this is a global scope change Why do you think that it is a global scope change? I have updated the glep, see how it breaks [1]. [1] - http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html#use-newer-bash-features This error occurs only when there is no up-to-date cache for given ebuild. rsync users would see only the usual masked by: EAPI 3 message. Relying on cache being valid is doomed to fail. Among other things, what about overlays? People managing overlays can temporarily disallow using bash-4.0 features in their overlays or they can drop support for bash-3, but it is outside of scope of my proposition. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] RfC: News item for Baselayout 2 stabilisation
Jeremy Olexa wrote: I hope it goes without saying that bug 213988 (http://bugs.gentoo.org/213988) should be resolved before either stabilization or news posting. The doc is somewhat out of date now. I assume you mean the baselayout-2/openrc migration guide? Not as far as we know. And what we, the GDP, *know* is entirely dependent on the bug reports and *guide updates* that you, the rest of the community, submit. :) (Yes, we know that our other documents do not have anything about baselayout-2/openrc in them. That's why we have the tracker bug. If you've got something to report, send it in!) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI=3 ebuilds
2009/5/20 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfre...@gentoo.org: 2009-05-17 19:02:02 Piotr Jaroszyński napisał(a): 2009/5/17 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com: 2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote: I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI=3 ebuilds. I know that it's slightly late, but this change is very easy to implement (adjusting RDEPEND of new versions of package managers and updating PMS). No good, for two reasons. First, this is a global scope change Why do you think that it is a global scope change? I have updated the glep, see how it breaks [1]. [1] - http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html#use-newer-bash-features This error occurs only when there is no up-to-date cache for given ebuild. rsync users would see only the usual masked by: EAPI 3 message. Relying on cache being valid is doomed to fail. Among other things, what about overlays? -- Best Regards, Piotr Jaroszyński
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
Dale wrote: The Gentoo subforum on LQ would help to collect the posts in one place. That would be the point. Gentoo has its own forum so why have two forums? What would be the point in having two places to go look for answers? Better yet, why would Gentoo support both forums? I'm a member at LQ tho I haven't been there in a long while. I just don't see why there has to be two forums when the one forum we have is more than enough. If someone can't find the Gentoo forums, I'm not sure they can find the chair and keyboard either. lol How about we ask for a subforum to be created with a BIG STICKY telling it is better to ask support questions at forums.gentoo.org Could it be possible that users don't know about f.g.o? ( find it highly unlikely actually) Alistair
Re: [gentoo-dev] RfC: News item for Baselayout 2 stabilisation
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Josh Saddler nightmo...@gentoo.org wrote: Jeremy Olexa wrote: I hope it goes without saying that bug 213988 (http://bugs.gentoo.org/213988) should be resolved before either stabilization or news posting. The doc is somewhat out of date now. I assume you mean the baselayout-2/openrc migration guide? Not as far as we know. And what we, the GDP, *know* is entirely dependent on the bug reports and *guide updates* that you, the rest of the community, submit. :) (Yes, we know that our other documents do not have anything about baselayout-2/openrc in them. That's why we have the tracker bug. If you've got something to report, send it in!) Uhh, I submitted one bug but it was promptly ignored because the GDP doesn't work on docs for unstable ebuilds - which is why I raised this point ;) After that one bug, I lost motivation to file bugs because it landed on /dev/null. -Jeremy
Re: [gentoo-dev] RfC: News item for Baselayout 2 stabilisation
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Jeremy Olexa darks...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Josh Saddler nightmo...@gentoo.org wrote: Jeremy Olexa wrote: I hope it goes without saying that bug 213988 (http://bugs.gentoo.org/213988) should be resolved before either stabilization or news posting. The doc is somewhat out of date now. I assume you mean the baselayout-2/openrc migration guide? Not as far as we know. And what we, the GDP, *know* is entirely dependent on the bug reports and *guide updates* that you, the rest of the community, submit. :) (Yes, we know that our other documents do not have anything about baselayout-2/openrc in them. That's why we have the tracker bug. If you've got something to report, send it in!) Uhh, I submitted one bug but it was promptly ignored because the GDP doesn't work on docs for unstable ebuilds - which is why I raised this point ;) After that one bug, I lost motivation to file bugs because it landed on /dev/null. Sorry, ignore me here. Josh updated the guide for my bug but it just wasn't resolved yet.
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Wed, May 20, 2009 21:18, Josh Saddler wrote: However, for the purposes of an actual project, I believe it's considered essential that we own the infrastructure that project is hosted on. All of our other projects (to my knowledge) are hosted on our own infrastructure. If we cannot properly administer a Gentoo resource, i.e. if we have to go through unaffiliated intermediaries, then it should not be an official Gentoo project. I don't believe having a spot in /proj/ designates a project as official; I think the actual working area needs to be Gentoo-owned. That being said, you and others are free to do the whole LQ and other forums help; more power to you. But as I said, I don't think it should be an official TLP (or subproject) as we do not have proper supervision of external resources. Good point. However it all depends on the lenses you look it through. gse is meant to be more like devrel or userrel. We are not going to be moderating those forums, and we don't have any authority there at all. This foundation is needed as a way to link the Gentoo community with another support communities where people will eventually seek support about Gentoo. How else could we establish an official relationship with other external projects? Of course the thing has to get external at some point. The other option is to encapsulate and live isolated from the rest of the reality. What we offer is that and support, and the only infrastructure is the project itself and their members. It's very abstract, I know, but such is the nature of the project. You don't have to go thru intermediaries either. The project is me and the rest of volunteers, and it exists independently of LQ or any other concrete place. LQ is just a particular case where we can be useful. -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
Alistair Bush wrote: Dale wrote: The Gentoo subforum on LQ would help to collect the posts in one place. That would be the point. Gentoo has its own forum so why have two forums? What would be the point in having two places to go look for answers? Better yet, why would Gentoo support both forums? I'm a member at LQ tho I haven't been there in a long while. I just don't see why there has to be two forums when the one forum we have is more than enough. If someone can't find the Gentoo forums, I'm not sure they can find the chair and keyboard either. lol How about we ask for a subforum to be created with a BIG STICKY telling it is better to ask support questions at forums.gentoo.org Could it be possible that users don't know about f.g.o? ( find it highly unlikely actually) Alistair I'm not 100% against this. I do like your idea a lot tho. I have two things that concern me but may not make sense to anyone else. 1: Anyone remember the GUI installer? I didn't think there was enough people back then to support that monster either. I liked the idea but thought Gentoo would be better served by letting the devs concentrate on better things and most likely more important things. I feel about the same way about this. In the past week or so, I have seen discussions about packages not having maintainers and other things that needs attention but lack time or man power. While Gentoo has come a VERY long way in even the past few months, I would hate to see it get bogged down with another project. If it gets more projects than it can handle, the death of Gentoo talk will start again. I been here long enough to see that a few times. 2: I sort of like having basically one place to go for help. The place I go is Gentoo. That includes the Gentoo mailing list and the Gentoo forums. If LQ has a forum, who is next, justlinux, then someone else etc etc etc? Am I and a lot of other people going to have to search half a dozen websites to find a fix? What if the answer to my question is on a website I am not familiar with or know about? There would be a lot of duplication of threads across several sites and fixes would be harder to find. I am a member at justlinux, LQ and several other sites and I on occasion help people on other sites but I don't go looking for Gentoo fixes there. I'm not a dev by any means and what I say may not count for anything and could be ignored if needed. I have been using Gentoo since the old 1.4 days, even that was old when I got the CD, so I would hate to see Gentoo stall or stagnate again. Number two really concerns me a lot. The devs can decide if they should support the idea as far as man power. I don't see a way around having to search different sites to find fixes tho. That said, I know Jeremy at LQ from talks in the past. I know the site and it is a great site. I am not questioning that at all. As for people knowing about Gentoo and the forums, go to google and type in Gentoo. First hit, Gentoo home page. Even includes links to the docs and other pages that are handy. Thoughts? Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Alistair Bush wrote: Dale wrote: The Gentoo subforum on LQ would help to collect the posts in one place. That would be the point. Gentoo has its own forum so why have two forums? What would be the point in having two places to go look for answers? Better yet, why would Gentoo support both forums? I'm a member at LQ tho I haven't been there in a long while. I just don't see why there has to be two forums when the one forum we have is more than enough. If someone can't find the Gentoo forums, I'm not sure they can find the chair and keyboard either. lol How about we ask for a subforum to be created with a BIG STICKY telling it is better to ask support questions at forums.gentoo.org Could it be possible that users don't know about f.g.o? ( find it highly unlikely actually) Alistair I'm not 100% against this. I do like your idea a lot tho. I have two things that concern me but may not make sense to anyone else. 1: Anyone remember the GUI installer? I didn't think there was enough people back then to support that monster either. I liked the idea but thought Gentoo would be better served by letting the devs concentrate on better things and most likely more important things. I feel about the same way about this. In the past week or so, I have seen discussions about packages not having maintainers and other things that needs attention but lack time or man power. While Gentoo has come a VERY long way in even the past few months, I would hate to see it get bogged down with another project. If it gets more projects than it can handle, the death of Gentoo talk will start again. I been here long enough to see that a few times. The point that you are missing is that Jesús is already doing the same stuff now as he will in the future. He just needs a project page to make his job even easier and 'official' for LQ management. 2: I sort of like having basically one place to go for help. The place I go is Gentoo. That includes the Gentoo mailing list and the Gentoo forums. If LQ has a forum, who is next, justlinux, then someone else etc etc etc? Am I and a lot of other people going to have to search half a dozen websites to find a fix? What if the answer to my question is on a website I am not familiar with or know about? There would be a lot of duplication of threads across several sites and fixes would be harder to find. I am a member at justlinux, LQ and several other sites and I on occasion help people on other sites but I don't go looking for Gentoo fixes there. Agreed, but people will do it anyway. We can't shut down http://www.gentoo-quebec.org/forum/ for example. I'm not a dev by any means and what I say may not count for anything and could be ignored if needed. I have been using Gentoo since the old 1.4 days, even that was old when I got the CD, so I would hate to see Gentoo stall or stagnate again. Number two really concerns me a lot. The devs can decide if they should support the idea as far as man power. I don't see a way around having to search different sites to find fixes tho. I highly, highly doubt that the GSE project will cause any stagnation of Gentoo Linux. Jesús is not an ebuild developer, so if anything his efforts here will *help* Gentoo and could bring in more community members. The more community members we have, the more ebuild developers we might get, etc etc. That said, I know Jeremy at LQ from talks in the past. I know the site and it is a great site. I am not questioning that at all. As for people knowing about Gentoo and the forums, go to google and type in Gentoo. First hit, Gentoo home page. Even includes links to the docs and other pages that are handy. Thoughts? I really don't understand your negativity showing in this thread. I'm not trying to attack you or anything, so don't get the wrong impression. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2009.05.20 12:26, Dale wrote: [snip] But does Gentoo support those forums? My point is, the people here, devs in particular, have enough to do already. Why add one more thing for them to deal with? Dale :-) :-) Dale, I think the answer is yes, Gentoo supports these forums. We appear to have a project and some gentoo devs posting, on LQ anyway. To me, that counts as support. There is no extra work for Gentoo - we do not admin these forums, just answer a few posts ... and only if we want to. The PR is valuable. - -- Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySeagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods treecleaners trustees -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoUbM0ACgkQTE4/y7nJvavWmgCg72Zxw91tDlBOqdp7xMIeJALJ 78AAoLEuY7ZBQ52Q8TWdeS/QME0oj/Ec =OPlK -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Wed, May 20, 2009 22:26, Jeremy Olexa wrote: On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Alistair Bush wrote: Dale wrote: The Gentoo subforum on LQ would help to collect the posts in one place. That would be the point.  Gentoo has its own forum so why have two forums?  What would be the point in having two places to go look for answers?  Better yet, why would Gentoo support both forums? I'm a member at LQ tho I haven't been there in a long while.  I just don't see why there has to be two forums when the one forum we have is more than enough.  If someone can't find the Gentoo forums, I'm not sure they can find the chair and keyboard either.  lol How about we ask for a subforum to be created with a BIG STICKY telling it is better to ask support questions at forums.gentoo.org Could it be possible that users don't know about f.g.o?  ( find it highly unlikely actually) Alistair I'm not 100% against this.  I do like your idea a lot tho.  I have two things that concern me but may not make sense to anyone else. 1:  Anyone remember the GUI installer?  I didn't think there was enough people back then to support that monster either.  I liked the idea but thought Gentoo would be better served by letting the devs concentrate on better things and most likely more important things.  I feel about the same way about this.  In the past week or so, I have seen discussions about packages not having maintainers and other things that needs attention but lack time or man power.  While Gentoo has come a VERY long way in even the past few months, I would hate to see it get bogged down with another project.  If it gets more projects than it can handle, the death of Gentoo talk will start again.  I been here long enough to see that a few times. The point that you are missing is that Jesús is already doing the same stuff now as he will in the future. He just needs a project page to make his job even easier and 'official' for LQ management. As you say, I've said it lots of times, this will be the last time I repeat and explain it to Dale: *I* am the one doing that, and *I* am already doing that, and *will* continue to do that. The ebuilds that lack attention will continue to lack attention until someone volunteers to fix them. And *I am not* going to do so, it doesn't matter if this project succeeds or not. So I can't really understand that argument. Whatever *I* do will have zero effect on the other areas you mention. Nor in a positive nor a negative way. Whether this project becomes official or I continue supporting people alone by myself my contribution to stagnated ebuilds will be exactly the same: ZERO. Except for some occasional bug report to bugzilla, just like any other user, and never as a developer because first: I am no portage developer, second: I have no interest in the matter. Can anyone force me to change my interests? no. What Dale is missing is that people will only contribute where they are interested, and if that's not possible, then they won't contribute at all. 2:  I sort of like having basically one place to go for help.  The place I go is Gentoo.  That includes the Gentoo mailing list and the Gentoo forums.  If LQ has a forum, who is next, justlinux, then someone else etc etc etc?  Am I and a lot of other people going to have to search half a dozen websites to find a fix?  What if the answer to my question is on a website I am not familiar with or know about?  There would be a lot of duplication of threads across several sites and fixes would be harder to find.  I am a member at justlinux, LQ and several other sites and I on occasion help people on other sites but I don't go looking for Gentoo fixes there. Agreed, but people will do it anyway. We can't shut down http://www.gentoo-quebec.org/forum/ for example. I already explained in my other posts that this is not about segregating the support. It is about handling something that's real, it doesn't matter if you like it or not: *it's real*, people do post there. The world is as it is. That's another thing that I won't repeat again because this is going round in circles. This will have exactly zero negative effect on the Gentoo forum, eventually users on those forum(s) will use forums.gentoo.org directed to here by me. Comments are always welcome, but we are saying the same thing again and again ad infinitum so I'll leave it at that unless new arguments appear in scene. Regards :) -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
Jesús Guerrero wrote: Hello, This is a request for comments on a new project, namely Gentoo Support Everywhere. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gse/ The web page doesn't really explain all the background needed to understand why would anyone want to start such a project. However this forum thread might be more clarifying: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html The initial aim is to provide some support to these lost souls that wander around the LQ forums, and to create a Gentoo subforum at LQ like many other distros do. However, eventually the support might be extended to other places if there's a need and enough human power to do so. Comments welcome, and thanks for reading. After reading everything so far, basically as far as I can see this project exists solely to provide a capacity for an official presence on LinuxQuestions (and perhaps other sites later). Of the current membership it appears to be taking up no time. However, is an entire standalone project for this necessary? Could this not just be coordinated as a task of userrel (or perhaps forum moderators, as suggested earlier)? What purpose does having a standalone project have over doing this within an existing project? Specifically in relation to the LQ sub-forum, will the members of the project be moderating that sub-forum? Or is their task purely to help there and moderation is left to the LQ moderators? How will you ensure that an official presence is maintained in the long run? While it's all well and good to say that the current members are spending their time there anyway, but what happens in 3+ years time when they move on. As I see it Gentoo is left with a (semi-)official sub-forum that it created but no longer supports - How will this reflect on Gentoo as a whole? Will you be intending to recruit some sort of official helpers (who are probably already active on these forums)? Would they become members of the project (and thus Gentoo Staffers/Developers)? What privileges would these project members have within the Gentoo Development sphere? AllenJB
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dale schrieb: As for people knowing about Gentoo and the forums, go to google and type in Gentoo. First hit, Gentoo home page. Even includes links to the docs and other pages that are handy. Allow me a short remark: Enter gentoo forum - and you won't find one important thing: The official Gentoo forums... Allowing Google to index the Gentoo Forums (again) looks like a quite handy way of making people not wanting to ask their questions elsewhere. Regards, Necoro -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoUb0MACgkQ4UOg/zhYFuABCQCghUVyuin7eP8Znql7DqBZ1s0u E+oAnRgvMn8eX7Md/XMjUI5tIL7av2+N =kGjL -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Wed, May 20, 2009 22:58, AllenJB wrote: Jesús Guerrero wrote: Hello, This is a request for comments on a new project, namely Gentoo Support Everywhere. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gse/ The web page doesn't really explain all the background needed to understand why would anyone want to start such a project. However this forum thread might be more clarifying: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html The initial aim is to provide some support to these lost souls that wander around the LQ forums, and to create a Gentoo subforum at LQ like many other distros do. However, eventually the support might be extended to other places if there's a need and enough human power to do so. Comments welcome, and thanks for reading. After reading everything so far, basically as far as I can see this project exists solely to provide a capacity for an official presence on LinuxQuestions (and perhaps other sites later). Of the current membership it appears to be taking up no time. However, is an entire standalone project for this necessary? Could this not just be coordinated as a task of userrel (or perhaps forum moderators, as suggested earlier)? What purpose does having a standalone project have over doing this within an existing project? I did this just because it was suggested in the forum thread, and it seemed like the way to go. Other ideas might be better for this so I am ready to hear them of course. Specifically in relation to the LQ sub-forum, will the members of the project be moderating that sub-forum? Or is their task purely to help there and moderation is left to the LQ moderators? We will not be part of the LQ team and we will not be moderating anything there. Easy put, all they want is us to say hey, we are here and we like that there's a gentoo forum at LQ, some kind of official pronunciation, and a project seemed official enough for me (in fact, more than they ask for). How will you ensure that an official presence is maintained in the long run? While it's all well and good to say that the current members are spending their time there anyway, but what happens in 3+ years time when they move on. As I see it Gentoo is left with a (semi-)official sub-forum that it created but no longer supports - How will this reflect on Gentoo as a whole? That's another task for a project, isn't it?, to guarantee its own continuity when members leave. If not, the project dies and the LQ support would die as well. That can happen in any project, but if there's a project it's less likely that the idea will die starved forgotten in some dead thread into a forum or something like that. It's my view anyway. Will you be intending to recruit some sort of official helpers (who are probably already active on these forums)? Would they become members of the project (and thus Gentoo Staffers/Developers)? What privileges would these project members have within the Gentoo Development sphere? LQ do not require any big support on our side. Whoever want to help is welcome to help, but really the amount of gentoo traffic there is not that big, and we can just redirect them to our forum when needed. There's no need for a big staff or something like that, as I already said, even one person would be ok and that's all they ask for. It's not like having a second forum there, just some basic attention for those that dive lost in the net for some reason. -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Wed, May 20, 2009 19:12, Petteri Räty wrote: Jesús Guerrero wrote: On Wed, May 20, 2009 18:43, Petteri Räty wrote: Jesús Guerrero wrote: Hello, This is a request for comments on a new project, namely Gentoo Support Everywhere. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gse/ New projects must be announced via gentoo-dev-announce and I haven't see a mail although project pages exist. Also I don't see how this thread belonged to the -dev mailing list in the first place. Seems -project material to me. Because that's what GLEP39 says, and I haven't found any more official doc on it. Quoting it: Any dev may create a new project just by creating a new page (or, more realistically, directory and page) in gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en and sending a Request For Comments (RFC) e-mail to gentoo-dev. So, these are the steps I've followed. As said, I am new to this stuff. Yeah I don't think the GLEPs have been active maintained for a while but really need to something to that. I stress to new devs to think to use gentoo-dev-announce for all important matters even if the docs don't explicitly state it. Any way please also make a post to gentoo-dev-announce to rectify the situation. Thanks Petteri, I shall do it. -- Jesús Guerrero
[gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: app-doc/afsdoc (Jun 1 2009)
On Wed, 20 May 2009 19:44:27 +0300 Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote: Ryan Hill wrote: Masked this a couple weeks ago but forgot to announce it: - old old old docs for the AFS file system, which get installed with net-fs/openafs USE=doc anyways - not touched since 2005 - unmaintained Was this posted to -dev-announce as I see nothing there? No, I suck. Done now. -- gcc-porting, by design, by neglect treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
