Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: On hosting self-produced distfiles
>[bunch of linguistic stuff skipped..] Huh? Is it just me or is there anybody else who thinks that this went way beyound ridiculous? Especially considering that Diego himself is not a native English speaker.. Anyway, after having been all over the world (including 7 years in California) and having been in contact with many people I tend to *not* look at precise word/phrase meaning any more. Remember - oral/written, actually any kind of communication in any language is a *noisy channel*. Lets get back on topic? (OTOH it seems to me the original topic has also been bitten to death already). George
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: On hosting self-produced distfiles
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Luca Barbato wrote: > "Yes, we all know that the history with the Infra team has been against > this idea, but until there is a proper replacement for this handling, > the Gentoo sources archive, we really shouldn't be putting the data in > non-permanent locations, the team should, nowadays, be on the same page > as me on this." > > I read it as: before infra was against, now they should be on the same > page -> thus agree. > > my 2 eurocents I read it the same way - they used to be against it, but now are. The word "history" implied to me that this was something that was discussed in the past, but perhaps not recently. The sense I got out of it is that once upon a time this was discussed and we went one way, and now for whatever reason we're thinking differently. Probably in-between nobody thought about it much at all. That's my 2 US cents (probably worth a ha'penny these days, minus any collector status) as a native speaker of American all my life. I won't insult my friends across the pond by calling it "English." :) In any case, we're not really debating English here. Some of the replies in the thread did come across to me as a bit personal/degrading/etc. Let's just all try to get along, and also let's also try to understand that not everybody here speaks the Queen's English as well as I don't.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: On hosting self-produced distfiles
On 01/21/2011 04:17 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> Actually, yea he did. In your quote of him, he said "has been'. Maybe >> you misread it but that means they had a different view or opinion in >> the past but that has changed. > > no, not really. "has been" is the present perfect continuous tense which > means he is describing something that has continued up to or through $now. > without explicitly stating that infra has changed their minds, my assessment > above stands. > yes, this is a nuance that might be hard for non-native (and probably many > native) english speakers to pick up, but that's why it's even more important > for people to provide more supplementary details so that they arent > misconstrued. I looked it up since I recall and used it to state 1. An action that has just stopped or recently stopped while you interpreted it as 2. An action continuing up to now Apparently both are right, the latter usually needs a temporal reference like "since $time", "for $time". "Yes, we all know that the history with the Infra team has been against this idea, but until there is a proper replacement for this handling, the Gentoo sources archive, we really shouldn't be putting the data in non-permanent locations, the team should, nowadays, be on the same page as me on this." I read it as: before infra was against, now they should be on the same page -> thus agree. my 2 eurocents lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: On hosting self-produced distfiles
On Friday, January 21, 2011 02:53:57 Dale wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Thursday, January 20, 2011 14:47:24 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > >> Also "angry unhelpful tools"? You're putting words in my mail that > >> aren't there. I said infra _used_ to be against that; it was obvious > >> that knowing that I wouldn't just push the issue against their will. > > > > no, you didnt. you said "the Infra team has been against this idea". > > you didnt say anywhere that infra had changed their mind, and this > > statement made it sound like basically "screw infra, this is what QA > > says, and if infra doesnt like it they can figure something out on their > > own". > > Actually, yea he did. In your quote of him, he said "has been'. Maybe > you misread it but that means they had a different view or opinion in > the past but that has changed. no, not really. "has been" is the present perfect continuous tense which means he is describing something that has continued up to or through $now. without explicitly stating that infra has changed their minds, my assessment above stands. yes, this is a nuance that might be hard for non-native (and probably many native) english speakers to pick up, but that's why it's even more important for people to provide more supplementary details so that they arent misconstrued. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: On hosting self-produced distfiles
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday, January 20, 2011 14:47:24 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: << SNIP >> Also "angry unhelpful tools"? You're putting words in my mail that aren't there. I said infra _used_ to be against that; it was obvious that knowing that I wouldn't just push the issue against their will. no, you didnt. you said "the Infra team has been against this idea". you didnt say anywhere that infra had changed their mind, and this statement made it sound like basically "screw infra, this is what QA says, and if infra doesnt like it they can figure something out on their own". <>-mike Actually, yea he did. In your quote of him, he said "has been'. Maybe you misread it but that means they had a different view or opinion in the past but that has changed. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: On hosting self-produced distfiles
On Thursday, January 20, 2011 14:42:03 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Il giorno gio, 20/01/2011 alle 20.27 +0100, Matti Bickel ha scritto: > > Not sure what you mean: if someone quickpkg's php and needs all the > > source? Well, they already downloaded them. Better keep them around, > > since it's *your* binary, not mine. > > We do distribute part of our packages as binaries already so we have to > be compliant with their licenses to begin with. Better doing it with a > single sweep than trying to come up with abstruse case-by-case points, > no? my understanding is that releng already has a process in place so that when they do a binary release, they tag all the versions so that our mirrors retain the source archives. > > Same thing, as already pointed out in another message. I see the point > > in making it easier for them. That's okay. So what you're saying is > > we're upstream too and upstream's should provide their historical stuff. > > This is but _one_ reason, and just another thing to trickle down. I > don't care if "FSF says it's their problem"; what is it costing us, > really? The cost is minimal (as we need the archive anyway), and the > gain is there for many people. if we needed the archive, then this bullet point wouldnt have been relevant. but if we dont need the archive, then keeping it around for some unknown derivative distro out there doesnt make sense. how do you pick which archives to keep ? all of them ? for how long ? if you cant come up with a clear expiration process, then dont bother. and yes, there is real cost to keeping around archives we dont need. i cant imagine the people providing mirrors for our project for free are going to say "sure, balloon the lists of files we have to mirror all you want". > Arguing against this is just getting to the point of arguing because > somebody is doing what nobody did for a long time: taking decisions. semantically speaking, you make decisions -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: On hosting self-produced distfiles
On Thursday, January 20, 2011 14:47:24 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Il giorno gio, 20/01/2011 alle 14.28 -0500, Mike Frysinger ha scritto: > > then you should have mentioned this in your original e-mail rather > > than > > painting infra as angry unhelpful tools. the changes you propose are > > merely a > > stop gap measure until infra finishes their work. > > You of all people to sound surprised about this really doesn't look > right. The fact that such an archive has been in the work is something > know since I became a dev, six years ago; the bug was open in 2007. just because a bug has been opened for a long time doesnt mean i'm aware of it. ive never heard of this project before. > Also "angry unhelpful tools"? You're putting words in my mail that > aren't there. I said infra _used_ to be against that; it was obvious > that knowing that I wouldn't just push the issue against their will. no, you didnt. you said "the Infra team has been against this idea". you didnt say anywhere that infra had changed their mind, and this statement made it sound like basically "screw infra, this is what QA says, and if infra doesnt like it they can figure something out on their own". > If you were trying to pick a fight for the sake of it, I'd suggest you > find something else to do. ah yes, i'm sure that's what i'm doing. i love picking fights with you because you're awesome and i am not. and/or i have no fscking idea what you're talking about. hmm, one of those. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: On hosting self-produced distfiles
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 21:23:49 +0100 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Now we're re-joining policy and practice. By forcing use of dev.gentoo.org for self-hosted SRC_URI files? > > What legitimate use does mirror://gentoo retain when we do have a > > solution? Ultimate patch attached. > Yes and? We're going to have a distinct mirror://gentoo-projects/ > (just to be on the safe side for overlays mainly) to fetch the > distfiles for the custom packages. By forcing use of mirror://gentoo-projects for self-hosted SRC_URI files? I'm lost now. Do you/infra/$GENTOO_DEITY plan to first force everyone to use dev.g.o and then move to mirror://gentoo-projects soon after? Why don't we just change the meaning of mirror://gentoo and be done with it, without the interim being extended? We could even have the mirror sync scripts interpret mirror://gentoo in a new way. All we then need to do on the QA side is to somehow enforce the way mirror://gentoo is used. :) jer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: On hosting self-produced distfiles
On 01/20/2011 08:42 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > We do distribute part of our packages as binaries already so we have to > be compliant with their licenses to begin with. Better doing it with a > single sweep than trying to come up with abstruse case-by-case points, > no? No. Licenses are not a valid argument to me. I'd accept that if we're Debian and pushing 100% of *our* stuff as binary. What we do 90% of the time is distributing text - ebuilds. > Arguing against this is just getting to the point of arguing because > somebody is doing what nobody did for a long time: taking decisions. Yes, and I'm not going to stop you. Frankly, I don't care enough where my tarballs end up. I just was curious about the reasons, as I see no compelling point in *forcing* this. >> If you're reporting a security issue in a ebuild that's no longer in >> tree (in php's case, chances are it got removed b/c of security :p), the >> bug wouldn't be investigated, right? > > There are cases and cases there; in the case of _custom_ tarballs, I'd > expect us to investigate if the security issues was found on our version > and not in the upstream-provided one for instance. Take php-5.3.2: I don't care if you found a security issue in my tarball or in php's tarball. I'll have a look to determine if the bug's still in the newest version. If it is, I'll rename the bug. If it is not, it doesn't matter to me. > Once again, please tell me: what does it change to you? If anybody > should complain about this request is Infra. What it changes for me? The target argument of my scp command. Which is so small that I don't care (see above for why I still replied). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: On hosting self-produced distfiles
Il giorno gio, 20/01/2011 alle 21.02 +0100, Jeroen Roovers ha scritto:
> It isn't exactly a solution and the interim has lasted for years now.
No, for years now we had policies going one way ("don't use dev.g.o")
because they were written at one point by one person, and practices for
most of us going the other (using dev.gentoo.org), as the original
reason not to use it is no longer relevant.
Now we're re-joining policy and practice.
> What legitimate use does mirror://gentoo retain when we do have a
> solution? Ultimate patch attached.
Yes and? We're going to have a distinct mirror://gentoo-projects/ (just
to be on the safe side for overlays mainly) to fetch the distfiles for
the custom packages.
> The way I see it, losing important files because you didn't
> store copies privately or publicly is not a problem our distfiles
> mirrors should solve.
For Gentoo-produced distfiles, it is nothing new that we have to have
long term access available. We've been meaning to for years as you said.
I'm positive that the issue went to the council once already.
Let's be clear here: Infra is the same page as this; this _is_ going
through. This was being worked on for months and months, and people
start complain now because... they are being asked for all of us to
follow a single policy rather than case-by-case whether to delete
distfiles or not?
There isn't _more_ work to be done with the exception of using a script
that signs the files rather than simply scp'ing them over, so it's not a
matter of "you're asking us to do more work in the future" as much as
"you're asking us to follow a procedure". Well, duh!
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: On hosting self-produced distfiles
Il giorno gio, 20/01/2011 alle 14.28 -0500, Mike Frysinger ha scritto: > > then you should have mentioned this in your original e-mail rather > than > painting infra as angry unhelpful tools. the changes you propose are > merely a > stop gap measure until infra finishes their work. You of all people to sound surprised about this really doesn't look right. The fact that such an archive has been in the work is something know since I became a dev, six years ago; the bug was open in 2007. Also "angry unhelpful tools"? You're putting words in my mail that aren't there. I said infra _used_ to be against that; it was obvious that knowing that I wouldn't just push the issue against their will. If you were trying to pick a fight for the sake of it, I'd suggest you find something else to do. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: On hosting self-produced distfiles
Il giorno gio, 20/01/2011 alle 20.27 +0100, Matti Bickel ha scritto: > Not sure what you mean: if someone quickpkg's php and needs all the > source? Well, they already downloaded them. Better keep them around, > since it's *your* binary, not mine. We do distribute part of our packages as binaries already so we have to be compliant with their licenses to begin with. Better doing it with a single sweep than trying to come up with abstruse case-by-case points, no? > Same thing, as already pointed out in another message. I see the point > in making it easier for them. That's okay. So what you're saying is > we're upstream too and upstream's should provide their historical stuff. This is but _one_ reason, and just another thing to trickle down. I don't care if "FSF says it's their problem"; what is it costing us, really? The cost is minimal (as we need the archive anyway), and the gain is there for many people. Arguing against this is just getting to the point of arguing because somebody is doing what nobody did for a long time: taking decisions. > If you're reporting a security issue in a ebuild that's no longer in > tree (in php's case, chances are it got removed b/c of security :p), the > bug wouldn't be investigated, right? There are cases and cases there; in the case of _custom_ tarballs, I'd expect us to investigate if the security issues was found on our version and not in the upstream-provided one for instance. Once again, please tell me: what does it change to you? If anybody should complain about this request is Infra. And Infra in the person of Robin is okay with this policy as it was planned anyway. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
