Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
I am only a user and have been keeping out of this debate but I feel I need to at least express my thoughts. I have been folllowing the Sunrise thread(s) since it started. I have done a couple of ebuilds a long time ago and would love to have been able to contribute to Gentoo but due to time constraints - not enough of it G - I just can't. I have been a longtime Gentoo user and have loved it because A) it had no rpms (I had to write them for Caldera), B). It allowed me to configure a system for me quickly that ran well without bloat C) It was easy to keep updated - no hassling with Yast, yum, apt-get, etc. and D). it was dependable - you could download the x86 and know it would work with very few issues. However, I am going to be building a new system from scratch and this sunrise mess is causing me to revevaluate my choice of distro. My concerns - first for my systems - are that it is allowing essentially anybody to submit almost anything with no QA. It's a BMG that's offical! My concern - for users - is that since it's officially supported they will expect things to work and when they don't - as they will not - Gentoo's reputation will suffer. Gentoo provides a means for people to participate on several levels. They can do as I did and do a few ebuild and submit them to bugzilla - if there's enough demand then they'll eventually get in portage. They can also take a quiz and do ebuilds on a more official level. Or they can work to be a developer. All of these paths ensure that we have proper QA and control. The sunrise people seem bent out of shape that ebuilds sit in bugzilla and don't get in the tree. One comment was that it's discouraging. Well, tough - the user who submitted it can get over it and realize that the application that is so precious to him is not that wonderful to anyone else. I did with mine - I understood that I did them to accomplish something I needed and I put them in bugzilla just in case anyone else had a need but I had no expectation of them going into portage. In fact one of my ebuilds was based on another ebuild someone put in portage for the same reason - the author had a need, wrote an ebuild and then shared it. If a user really wants his ebuild in portage he'll take the quiz and become a more official part of Gentoo - but he will have been tested and checked out. I administer systems (mainly Windows but also AIX and LInux - and Linux is my main home system!) at my job in IT Operations. Some of my systems can shutdown the business if I mess up. That's why I do things like run upgrades on test systems or use VMware to test out before I turn the changes loose. At home I also need my system to run and work. I won't be downloading Sunrise stuff but I UNDERSTAND the consequences - most users will not understand as they figure It's gentoo so it works. Look at the confusion with ~arch vs arch. People go with ~arch and then get upset when it breaks. I know I'm only one user but I'm really disappointed that the Council turned sunrise official. It gives me serious concern a bout Gentoo's reliablity and their reputation. On Sunday July 30 2006 23:06, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:50:31 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Show me at least that concern being concrete and we have a | starting place. -!- [Users #gentoo-sunrise] -!- @genstef devon bonsaikitten_ Zamorate eimono|home dev-zero brebs staskorz @nichoj_work eimono SunriseCIA richiefrich +Peper @CHTEKK SunriseBot TiCPU shillelagh Juippis -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- Brett I. Holcomb -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
My concern is beyond me. As I stated I know enough about what to expect IF I use sunrise. But many do not and with it becoming official people figure it's gentoo and when it breaks Gentoo suffers. Gentoo has a reputation as a good solid, stable distro. As user and big fan of Gentoo I'm concerned - why couldn't sunrise have stayed unoffical like BMG. Why does it have to be official? Gentoo can choose to do what it feels is right and I will do the same. I answered only because someone asked for user's concerns well this is mine and you all can do with the input as you please without any hard feelings on my part. On Sunday July 30 2006 23:42, Seemant Kulleen wrote: OK wait, on your servers, are you actually planning to *use* any of the ebuilds in Sunrise's overlay? If not, how is it a concern? I personally don't use any of them, and my system is running perfectly fine. Let's not forget that nobody is shoving Sunrise down anyone's throat... -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- Brett I. Holcomb -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Let portage symlink latest version of installed docs
Have you submitted a bugzilla as a request or suggestion - that's the best way to get it acted on . On Saturday April 8 2006 11:48, Fabian Neumann wrote: Hi Gentoo devs, The Problem: I'd like to have bookmarks for my most used documentation in my browser. E.g., for the Python documentation this would be file:///usr/share/doc/python-docs-2.4.2/html/index.html. But as the version number is included in the path, I have to update the bookmark every time portage installs a new version of Python. What I'd like portage do to is to create a symlink to the latest version of a package's documentation. Just omitting the version number would of course not work as slotted packages may have multiple versions of docs installed. The first format coming to my mind would be: /usr/share/doc/python-docs-latest - /usr/share/doc/python-docs-2.4.2 If that's impossible because of some Linux standards (I'm really not familiar with POSIX, LSB, File System Hierarchy or stuff like this) we could use a special directory for this, maybe /usr/share/doc/.latest or /usr/share/portage/latest-docs or something similar -- you get the point. We could of course make this optional with a USE flag. In face we have already the symlink flag that does basically the task for the kernel versions. I don't know if it'd be clever to use it or if we should consider introducing symlink-docs for this. I hope this informal proposal initializes a discussion and I would be very happy to see it in some standardized way in future *-doc-ebuilds. Thanks, Fabian. -- Brett I. Holcomb -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] make.profile symlink now points nowhere (was default-x86-1.4)
Question here - I made the link to the 2005.0 profile on (NOT 2005.0/2.4) a system that is 2.6.11 and has been on 2.6 for months. Tonight emerge -uD system -p wants to upgrade me to a 2.4 kernel!!! Well, portage this is a 2.6.x system - not 2.4 - duh! From what I found in the mail list archives and forums noone has really given a solution. Some say what problem, others give reasons for it but the fact remains - why on a 2.6 system that has happily been running 2.6 for months does this new profile want to give me a 2.4 kernel. I did follow one suggest and symlink to default-linux/x86 directory but I'm afraid that will break something so I went back to 2004.0 for the symlink. And I am at portage 2.0.51.19 so that's good. In short - what do we have to do to upgrade to a current profile on 2.6 machines and get 2.6 gentoo-source updates, not 2.4. Thanks. On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, David Sparks wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 08 April 2005 07:57 pm, David Sparks wrote: !!! ARCH is not set... Are you missing the /etc/make.profile symlink? !!! Is the symlink correct? Is your portage tree complete? so use 'default-x86-2004.2', emerge portage, and then switch to the cascading version Thanks for the suggestions, I've tried 2004.0 .1 .2 .3 with similar results as below. I also tried coping a binary package into /usr/portage/packages/... and emerging it with the -K option but that didn't go either. # rm make.profile # ln -s ../usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2004.2 make.profile # emerge portage !!! Your current profile is deprecated and not supported anymore. !!! Please upgrade to the following profile if possible: default-linux/x86/2005.0 To upgrade do the following steps: # emerge -n '=sys-apps/portage-2.0.51' # cd /etc/ # rm make.profile # ln -s ../usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.0 make.profile # Gentoo has switched to 2.6 as the defaults for headers/kernels. If you wish # to use 2.4 headers/kernels, then you should do the following to upgrade: # emerge -n '=sys-apps/portage-2.0.51' # cd /etc/ # rm make.profile # ln -s ../usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.0/2.4 make.profile # More information can be found at the following URLs: # http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml # http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/migration-to-2.6.xml !!! 'str' object has no attribute 'insert' !!! 'rm -Rf /usr/portage/profiles; emerge sync' may fix this. If it does !!! not then please report this to bugs.gentoo.org and, if possible, a dev !!! on #gentoo (irc.freenode.org) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- Brett I. Holcomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Registered Linux User #188143 Remove R777 to email -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
