[gentoo-dev] Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

[Duncan]

Duncan posted on Fri, 11 May 2012 00:59:22 + as excerpted:

> Fabio Erculiani posted on Thu, 10 May 2012 22:48:29 +0200 as excerpted:
> 
>> On a side note, I find it quite odd to be accused of trash talking by
>> Linux Kernel people.
> 
> hwoarang is a kernel person?

FWIW, I see the gregkh post you were referring to, now.  Odd indeed, tho 
he just said rude, not trash talk.

FWIW2, I'd have probably included a "IME" (in my experience) disclaimer 
to that failaudio, tho I don't disagree with that label.  Toning down may 
be worthwhile for all sides, tho.  This isn't lkml and I don't think most 
would want it to be.

-- 
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] Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

[Duncan]

David Leverton posted on Thu, 10 May 2012 19:57:30 +0100 as excerpted:

> Greg KH wrote:
>> No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to.
>> There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to
>> switch to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no
>> one is stopping you.
> 
> Or alternatively, the people who hate Unix could move to some other OS
> that suites them better, rather than trying to destroy what everyone
> else is perfectly happy with.

I see the "hate Unix" angle tho I'd call it a bit strong...

But trying to destroy what everyone else is perfectly happy with??

How is simply writing some software, which after all is FLOSS and which 
nobody is forced to use, "destroying"?  They're taking their own software 
where their vision points it, no more, no less.  I don't really agree 
with where it's going either, but that's part of the very freedom of the 
FLOSS community we're all a part of.  Others can fork the software or 
provide less integrated substitutes, if desired.  Meanwhile, if it's what 
other coders choose to build on, well, they're free to do that too.  It 
doesn't mean I have to use their software!

FWIW, that's one reason I'm no longer using kmail, for instance.  When 
kmail akonadified, I tried it, then switched to claws-mail. It's ALSO one 
reason I'm using gentoo, I get to choose whether I build kde with akonadi 
and semantic-desktop support, or not.  And I choose not.  I see the kdepim 
folks vision, and they're free to pursue it, but their path and my path 
simply diverged, that's all.  Kde runs SO much nicer without the weight 
of semantic-desktop dragging it down.

And if the systemd and udev path fully merge, I'll have a choice at that 
point.  If systemd looks mature and stable enough at that point to be 
used on my system, I'll probably try it.  I might like it. =:^)  Or, like 
akonadified kmail, I may find it a rube goldberg of a system that I'd 
rather stay away from.  Given history, I'm sure there will be alternate 
solutions available, tho it'll no doubt take some serious work and 
adaptation on my part to switch.

-- 
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] Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

[Duncan]

Fabio Erculiani posted on Thu, 10 May 2012 22:48:29 +0200 as excerpted:

> On a side note, I find it quite odd to be accused of trash talking by
> Linux Kernel people.

hwoarang is a kernel person?

If you note, gregkh didn't post that.  I can't agree with udev/systemd 
integration, but it's worth noting that gregkh has for the most part 
stayed out of that debate, and simply stated where he sees udev going, as 
an upstream person who thus speaks with authority on the subject.

It may very well be that a fork is thus required.  I guess we wait and 
see.  But I don't see the kde folks being willingly subsumed into a 
gnomeos black hole, and time and again, floss history has demonstrated 
that when there's an immediate need, forks do occur.  Both gnome and kde 
have their forks in recent history, xorg is a fork, there's the glibc and 
gcc history, etc.  If integration gets too close, a fork /will/ happen.

But that history is available to everyone and the wise will take heed.  
Meanwhile, for the moment at least, upstream udev and systemd have both 
taken pains to state that while they're going to ship in a unified 
tarball, at least for now, udev will remain buildable on its own, 
SPECIFICALLY to support folks not ready to go systemd just yet.  So 
there's still hope.

And 3-5 years is an eternity in an ecosystem such as the FLOSS world, 
evolving at the speed of the net!  Looking back from there, it's quite 
possible this debate will look petty and short-sighted, regardless of how 
things ultimately turn out.

-- 
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

[Alec Warner]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Fabio Erculiani  wrote:
> I think expressing my own opinion about Lennart-made software is my
> right, after all.
> Firstly, it's almost impossible nowadays to avoid including avahi,
> systemd and pulseaudio into a desktop distro so, there is no real
> choice. This issue became a sensible matter for those users who for
> instance, wanted to have a silly mp3 player working without going
> through the PA nonsense, really missing the old
> ALSA-oh-it-was-always-working days.

Er, the source is open, so choice is always there. What I think your
complaint is the fact that it used to be easy to do those things
(because upstream supported those options and USE flags exposed them
to you) and now upstream is not supporting those options and there is
no easy way to remove the dependencies without doing a bunch of work.

> If you want to bring complexity but you end up not being able to
> handle it, then you're not a really good engineer, IMHO.

I don't think anyone expects complexity to come bug-free. Cathedral
and the Bazaar? Release Early and Release Often? I expect the software
to reach a stable state in a reasonable amount of time given the
complexity involved.

>
> Having said that, I also wonder where's the lovely modularity the
> various *nix platforms had. If this is the actual direction of Linux
> Foundation, Redhat and Canonical, I am worried that Linux would end up
> being an OSX-wannabe.

The problem as I understand it is that you want other people to write
software that meets your needs and it turns out that the world doesn't
always work that way.

You can fork the software you hate (using versions before you hated
it) or you can write your own software (like mdev + busybox) to
replace the hated components. Both of those things are actually
somewhat useful. Complaining about how some random people on the
internet don't write software that you find palatable is just silly.

> Of course, I am not only bringing my personal opinion here, but the
> one of the majority of users I've been talking with.
> I am not against changes, I am actually in favor of them, but only
> when they really make sense and solve problems, which it doesn't seem
> the case lately.
>
> I didn't want to offend anyone, but just having fun (sigh) of IMHO bad
> design decisions.
> --
> Fabio Erculiani
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] dropping support for

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 10 May 2012 15:01:06 Florian Philipp wrote:
> Am 09.05.2012 15:47, schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> > our glibc versions long ago stopped working with linux-2.4 due to NPTL
> > being required.  further, we've long set the min kernel version to 2.6.9
> > in the ebuild itself.  so bumping it to 2.6.16 isn't a stretch.
> > 
> > the driving force here is that glibc upstream is looking to set the min
> > kernel version to 2.6.16.  if there's no real incentive for us to
> > support anything older, then we'll follow suite.
> 
> Can you please keep an old version in the tree? Masked if necessary.
> There are still virtual private server hosts out there using 2.6.9
> (usually old Red Hat or SuSE servers) and with OpenVZ you cannot deploy
> your own kernel.

it takes a while for older versions to expire from the main tree, and when 
they do, they just get shifted to the toolchain overlay.  so it should be easy 
for you to add that overlay and pull older glibcs from there.

for example, there's a glibc-2.9 ebuild still which has been around for 3 
years at this point, so consider this a 3 year notice :P.
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

[Fabio Erculiani]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Markos Chandras  wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
>
> I sincerely hope someone has "hacked" into your account and he is
> writing on your behalf. This sort of trash talk does not belong to a
> public Gentoo mailing list. Make a constructive criticism if you
> really need to rant about software that nobody forces you to use.

No, this was really me. Forgive me for the rant, but the problem here
is real and no, the alternative would be either giving up with the
Linux stack or living with unreliable, overengineered software. I
don't see any other viable alternative.

Just answer my question, what is going to happen the day udev will
require systemd in order to work properly?

On a side note, I find it quite odd to be accused of trash talking by
Linux Kernel people.

>
> - --
> Regards,
> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPrB0WAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCFGYQAJiKzJ6RUYrkCswRBeWFk9Vn
> 6kOybbC9nn8LgQuoSjlNXWQ2jm5qqYEWhwzmFJMaeYJ7vpaVNL9nDTslloiXiw46
> 2dEjBUyXzmx90VIAvAvos3lec2C45vHXUYwjCp8VfwIfL+syPfb0wIXIn+RETAHg
> 2c4vyPRvv145zCPRkdF/b0GV4ai6JozRTrUOn2dobEs2SaqadqY4cw5uj1P47Msd
> Jezdz4MaPUPf16q0CoK6yi4U0jkzEqGtJbinHT4ib9PMhYX8WXjJtLloaBiQk01l
> bKNJWOAMIEpWK6dD2rko5pY4igS9ccbFCLlEDnELQBSHXDGAmarmGRlN6C/qVasY
> 019n3fSUsLt+kMeH2WgfmmXViyBgPeQxMY0E4HVkV+ztwNp3by8gG3jtuQeX+Kij
> WaECR/2/DwUTU+kLLkkEa2FZSrg8xwG3Ty5SpCAVQWcJIn3L1tziD58kt1DtpJjs
> jt0bV1eT2JnxL4v7GopxUI55n4bmqqzRP7SebkK4B7AOlae1fxjukqpNC6s6oTgc
> CBoWiJ7DkRbcTk+ww+MF+xUCmYrqPFlf8aQ8+j16LogaTCeV09QIhAqUKkcQB8Lx
> k6gGD6H5elPsYDm1gP/wBe1WEe6zLXDLd6LFiEYKHjyiznGDs1BAEk0oJMbob5I3
> HbAYiBP8P7D7FBosO7oj
> =INQn
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>



-- 
Fabio Erculiani

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-sound/qsampler

[Natanael Olaiz]

Hi,
El 05/10/2012 03:07 PM, Ben escribió:
> On 10 May 2012 05:42, Natanael Olaiz  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here I attach a version that removes the eclass use.
>> [...]
> Please check the comments on bug #380589.
> A new ebuild needs to:
> - use qt4-r2.eclass and EAPI=4
> - be compatible with Qt 4.8.1
> - use the QA fixes from bug #379663
Thanks, Ben and Davide for the tips!


> If someone is willing to do that, then they can contact me
> (I'm involved with both qt and sound herds) and I will commit
> the new ebuild and remove the mask.
I uploaded to the tracker an ebuild using a specific revision of
subversion, that seems to solve the bugs of the tracker.
I'm not sure about the name : the commit date is 20120413 , but the
about says 0.2.2.33.

Does that works?


Best regards,
Natanael.

>
> Cheers,
> Ben | yngwin
> Gentoo developer, Qt project lead
>
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

[Michał Górny]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 21:14:33 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh  wrote:

> On Thu, 10 May 2012 22:13:33 +0200
> Michał Górny  wrote:
> > > On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:55:02 +0100
> > > Markos Chandras  wrote:
> > > > Make a constructive criticism if you really need to rant about
> > > > software that nobody forces you to use.
> > > 
> > > Not that I agree with anything Fabio has ever said, but I believe
> > > the issue under discussion here is that tight coupling and
> > > vertical integration means we are in effect forced to use rather
> > > a lot of software that we would prefer not to.
> > 
> > No, I don't think you are forced to use anything. As was proven
> > before, there are always alternatives.
> 
> That's a somewhat disingenuous claim when the alternatives are moving
> steadily towards "don't use Linux at all" or "use the full GnomeOS
> stack".

Then go rant upstream about it. Or another upstream. Or do something
useful yourself.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 22:13:33 +0200
Michał Górny  wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:55:02 +0100
> > Markos Chandras  wrote:
> > > Make a constructive criticism if you really need to rant about
> > > software that nobody forces you to use.
> > 
> > Not that I agree with anything Fabio has ever said, but I believe
> > the issue under discussion here is that tight coupling and vertical
> > integration means we are in effect forced to use rather a lot of
> > software that we would prefer not to.
> 
> No, I don't think you are forced to use anything. As was proven
> before, there are always alternatives.

That's a somewhat disingenuous claim when the alternatives are moving
steadily towards "don't use Linux at all" or "use the full GnomeOS
stack".

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

[Michał Górny]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:59:40 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:55:02 +0100
> Markos Chandras  wrote:
> > Make a constructive criticism if you really need to rant about
> > software that nobody forces you to use.
> 
> Not that I agree with anything Fabio has ever said, but I believe the
> issue under discussion here is that tight coupling and vertical
> integration means we are in effect forced to use rather a lot of
> software that we would prefer not to.

No, I don't think you are forced to use anything. As was proven before,
there are always alternatives.


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:55:02 +0100
Markos Chandras  wrote:
> Make a constructive criticism if you really need to rant about
> software that nobody forces you to use.

Not that I agree with anything Fabio has ever said, but I believe the
issue under discussion here is that tight coupling and vertical
integration means we are in effect forced to use rather a lot of
software that we would prefer not to.

- -- 
Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk+sHi8ACgkQ96zL6DUtXhGZoQCeN5o15CIzO0xJTCNkOW9EhPoc
rjgAoL5WoPQpcxRhceifxFkfecZg5YqK
=+nyf
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

[Markos Chandras]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On 05/09/2012 07:51 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> I foresee a new udev fork then. If udev is going to end up like
> avahi is, this is *highly* probable.
> 
> With "avahi is ..." I actually mean, one single tarball blob
> depending on the whole world and its solar system and galaxy.
> 
> Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been
> enough, thanks.

I sincerely hope someone has "hacked" into your account and he is
writing on your behalf. This sort of trash talk does not belong to a
public Gentoo mailing list. Make a constructive criticism if you
really need to rant about software that nobody forces you to use.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
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=INQn
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

[David Leverton]

Zac Medico wrote:

Isn't it presumptuous to say that they hate Unix? Maybe their vision of
how they'd like Unix to be is just different from yours?


If "how they'd like Unix to be" goes so blatantly against its 
fundamental design principles then I think it's reasonable to say that 
they hate it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

[Zac Medico]

On 05/10/2012 11:57 AM, David Leverton wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
>> No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to.
>> There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch
>> to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is
>> stopping you.
> 
> Or alternatively, the people who hate Unix could move to some other OS
> that suites them better, rather than trying to destroy what everyone
> else is perfectly happy with.

Isn't it presumptuous to say that they hate Unix? Maybe their vision of
how they'd like Unix to be is just different from yours?
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] dropping support for

[Florian Philipp]

Am 09.05.2012 15:47, schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> our glibc versions long ago stopped working with linux-2.4 due to NPTL being 
> required.  further, we've long set the min kernel version to 2.6.9 in the 
> ebuild itself.  so bumping it to 2.6.16 isn't a stretch.
> 
> the driving force here is that glibc upstream is looking to set the min 
> kernel 
> version to 2.6.16.  if there's no real incentive for us to support anything 
> older, then we'll follow suite.
> -mike

Can you please keep an old version in the tree? Masked if necessary.
There are still virtual private server hosts out there using 2.6.9
(usually old Red Hat or SuSE servers) and with OpenVZ you cannot deploy
your own kernel.

Regards,
Florian Philipp



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

[David Leverton]

Greg KH wrote:

No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to.
There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch
to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is
stopping you.


Or alternatively, the people who hate Unix could move to some other OS 
that suites them better, rather than trying to destroy what everyone 
else is perfectly happy with.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in www-plugins/adobe-flash: metadata.xml adobe-flash-11.2.202.228.ebuild ChangeLog

[Jim Ramsay]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:10:48PM -0400, Jim Ramsay wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 05:06:45PM -0300, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > wouldnt adding a sse2 useflag and putting it in REQUIRED_USE solve the
> > problem ?
> > 
> > afaik portage wont even try to upgrade if people have -sse2
> 
> This is an interesting idea, as it could automatically downgrade users to
> 10.3 without requiring any masking.  I like that.

Hmmm... After some testing, I don't think this is how it works.

It looks to me like if I try to do an upgrade on a system that has
USE=-sse2, it doesn't downgrade automatically.  Nor does it simply skip
the upgrade.  At least with portage 2.1.10.57, I get the following fatal
output:

---
# USE=-sse2 emerge -uDN world -p
...

!!! Problem resolving dependencies for www-plugins/adobe-flash from
@selected ... done!

!!! The ebuild selected to satisfy "www-plugins/adobe-flash" has unmet
requirements.
- www-plugins/adobe-flash-11.2.202.235::local USE="64bit (multilib)
  -32bit -kde -sse2 -vdpau"

The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied:
sse2

(dependency required by "@selected" [set])
(dependency required by "@world" [argument])
---

So in light of this, I think I'm going to keep the fatal pkg_pretend
with /proc/cpuinfo check in the 11.2 ebuild, since that's the only way I
can do the check in a way that meets my 3 requirements:
 -> No annoyance for users who have sse2 instructions present
 -> runs at install time in a non-ignorable (fatal) way
 -> provides useful downgrade instructions to the user

Too bad pkg_pretend doesn't fire during 'emerge -p' -> That would be
even better.

Any other suggestions on how I can make this work better?

-- 
Jim Ramsay

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in www-plugins/adobe-flash: metadata.xml adobe-flash-11.2.202.228.ebuild ChangeLog

[Jim Ramsay]

On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 11:23:48AM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
> Jim?

Sorry, I am behind on my gentoo-dev reading, thanks Matt for bringing
this thread to my attention.  Here are the two main concerns I've
gathered from the rest of the thread:

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:04:08PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> Arg, no.  Please just print the warning if the host doesn't do SSE2.
> There's no reason to have a USE flag here (and _really_ no reason to
> make it fatal), especially for an instruction set that every system
> has supported for over a decade.

It's true that probably "most" people have sse2.  And this change won't
affect all those people that have sse2.  It only affects people that
don't have sse2.

The run-time failure case (flash just doesn't work) is tricky to
diagnose, so I want the user to be aware of this at install time.  Thus
I feel the check should (1) be fatal and (2) provide instructions that
10.3 can still be used.

The reason there's a USE flag is so that binary packagers can forcibly
skip the 'die' if they know they're building for an sse2 SYSTEM.  This
is only needed if you're running on a machine without sse2, packaging for
a machine with sse2.

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 05:06:45PM -0300, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> wouldnt adding a sse2 useflag and putting it in REQUIRED_USE solve the
> problem ?
> 
> afaik portage wont even try to upgrade if people have -sse2

This is an interesting idea, as it could automatically downgrade users to
10.3 without requiring any masking.  I like that.

However, the problem I have with this approach is that it doesn't
address people who do have sse2 instructions available but have not set
the USE flag.  I noticed that our amd64 profile does set USE=sse2
automatically.  That's good.  But x86 users would still have to set this
manually.  And people without the flag will be forcibly downgraded to
10.3 for no good reason.  And as Ryan accurately points out, most people
*do* have sse2 instructions available.

I prefer checking /proc/cpuinfo because that way I'm *sure* that the
user's system has the required instruction set.

The only way I think that this decision can really be made would be to
have some sort of usage statistics on how many x86 setups there are
where the CPU has sse2 available but the user has not set USE=sse2.  Any
idea how we can know how many this is?

Hmmm... I suppose the other thing I could do is put the /proc/cpuinfo
check into the 10.3 ebuild, and warn users if they're installing 10.3
and *should* be setting USE=sse2 to get 11.2 instead Maybe that's the
best solution!

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll try to get at this change soon.

-- 
Jim Ramsay

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

[Olivier Crête]

Hi,

On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 06:34 +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> I think expressing my own opinion about Lennart-made software is my
> right, after all.

I would express my opinion about Fabio made software, but I've never
heard of any.

> Firstly, it's almost impossible nowadays to avoid including avahi,
> systemd and pulseaudio into a desktop distro so, there is no real
> choice. This issue became a sensible matter for those users who for
> instance, wanted to have a silly mp3 player working without going
> through the PA nonsense, really missing the old
> ALSA-oh-it-was-always-working days.

Maybe the reason every sensible distribution uses Avahi, Pulseaudio, etc
is because they are better than other solutions out there? 
Do you think is a fast conspiracy to make your life suck? I believe
engineers in every distribution are looking at what's available and
picking what they think is the best solution, and it turns out Lennart
is pretty damn good at making useful software.

Was alsa always working? I remember spending hours trying to figure out
the right control in alsamixer and fighting with alsa's arcane
configuration languages (it has 3 different ones). And how do you deal
with modern technologies like Bluetooth audio without Pulseaudio
exactly?

> Of course, I am not only bringing my personal opinion here, but the
> one of the majority of users I've been talking with.

I think you only hear from users who like to complain, others are just
happy that everything works for them thanks to Pulseaudio, systemd, etc.
If you think that Lennart does not solve problems, maybe it's because
you don't even understand what the problems were? For example, I
encourage you to read about how the dynamic latency in PA allows for
lower power usage or how modern audio hardware is designed to use a
userspace sound server, etc.

-- 
Olivier Crête
tes...@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

[Zac Medico]

On 05/10/2012 04:44 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Greg KH schrieb:
>> No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to.
>> There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch
>> to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is
>> stopping you.  But for you to disparage someone who has given immense
>> bodies of work to the community, and you, for free, is horrible behavior
>> and needs to stop right now.
> 
> Insulting other people is indeed not nice. A borderline statement would
> be the "card-carrying member of the Poettering gang" which was coined by
> a well-known kernel developer who shall remain unnamed here.
> But using harsh words to describe other people's software? C'mon.

Specific criticism's can be be constructive, but calling PulseAudio a
name like FailAudio certainly isn't. I'd enjoy reading this thread a lot
more if it contained more discussion about solutions, and less of what
seems like whining due to self-pity.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-sound/qsampler

[Ben]

On 10 May 2012 05:42, Natanael Olaiz  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here I attach a version that removes the eclass use.
> I then replaced a "eqmake4" for "qmake". I don't know if there is a
> better solution, but at least removes the deprecated eclass and
> hopefully the mask (the live ebuild is newer).

Please check the comments on bug #380589.
A new ebuild needs to:
- use qt4-r2.eclass and EAPI=4
- be compatible with Qt 4.8.1
- use the QA fixes from bug #379663

If someone is willing to do that, then they can contact me
(I'm involved with both qt and sound herds) and I will commit
the new ebuild and remove the mask.

Cheers,
Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer, Qt project lead

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-sound/qsampler

[Davide Pesavento]

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Natanael Olaiz  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here I attach a version that removes the eclass use.
> I then replaced a "eqmake4" for "qmake". I don't know if there is a
> better solution, but at least removes the deprecated eclass and
> hopefully the mask (the live ebuild is newer).
>

Hi Natanael,

the usage of deprecated qt4.eclass is the least problematic issue with
qsampler. There are more serious issues with the package, especially
the fact that it has been broken for 2 years (bug 380589) and no one
cared. Anyway, see comments #8 and later in that bug, let's continue
the discussion there.

(BTW, invoking qmake directly is not acceptable, you must use eqmake4)

Cheers,
Davide

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Greg KH schrieb:
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough, 
>> thanks.
> The use of these terms is both rude and totally uncalled for.  You
> should be ashamed of yourself.
>
> Seriously, that's unacceptable behavior from anyone.

You mean as unacceptable as calling C++ proponents "full of
bullshit"[1], developers of another operating system "masturbating
monkeys"[2] and security researchers as "people wanking around with
their opinions"[3]?

> No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to.
> There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch
> to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is
> stopping you.  But for you to disparage someone who has given immense
> bodies of work to the community, and you, for free, is horrible behavior
> and needs to stop right now.

Insulting other people is indeed not nice. A borderline statement would
be the "card-carrying member of the Poettering gang" which was coined by
a well-known kernel developer who shall remain unnamed here.
But using harsh words to describe other people's software? C'mon.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn


[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57643/focus=57918
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/15/296
[3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/1/217

Re: [gentoo-dev] License groups in ebuilds

[Kent Fredric]

On 10 May 2012 21:39, Ulrich Mueller  wrote:
>. Are there any other licenses
> besides *GPL and FDL that would require such a file?

I'd welcome groups so we can have a "Perl_5" group. The lions share of
modules published on CPAN are licensed "Under the same license as Perl
5 Itself", which implies "|| ( GPL-2 Artistic-1 )"

And that boilerplate stanza is thus in many of the Perl Modules ebuilds.


-- 
Kent

perl -e  "print substr( \"edrgmaM  SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3,
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );"

http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz

[gentoo-dev] License groups in ebuilds

[Ulrich Mueller]

Long standing problem: Some of our most used license tags like "GPL-2"
are ambiguous, denoting either GPL-2 only or GPL-2 or later.

One solution would be license groups in ebuilds, which could be added
to EAPI 5 [1]. Disadvantage would be that they cannot be used in
previous EAPIs.

Alternatively, we could create separate license files like GPL-2+, as
suggested in [2], especially since the "plus" versions now have their
own entry in the SPDX license list [3]. Are there any other licenses
besides *GPL and FDL that would require such a file?

What do you think?

Ulrich

[1] 
[2] 

[3]