Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Thomas Sachau]

Branko Badrljica schrieb:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>> the mailing list is not bugzilla.  any complaints you have about
>> USE=oldnet have nothing to do with this thread.  it's a bug and should
>> be treated as such.
>> -mike
>>   
> 
> Which is why I have posted here to gripe about having documented such
> changes in future.
> 
> I was told that new openrc is surely fine because it works for some
> group of people, that obviously includes developer.
> 
> It is not enough, and please, don't keep such things in the future in
> more or less closed circles of your pals.
> 
> Even simple "WARNING!!! Big changes, untested, not(yet) documented!"
> would be nice.
> 
> I know what arch~ _should_ mean, but you know what it actually means.
> So, a little bit of  pragmatic flexibility here would certainly decrease
> amount of raining urine and improve Gentoo's likability.

Using TESTING packages actually means the above big warning. But do you really 
want to annoy every
user with such a message everywhere, just because some people expect TESTING 
tree to be similar save
as stable tree?

-- 
Thomas Sachau

Gentoo Linux Developer



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Thomas Sachau]

Mark Loeser schrieb:
> Mike Frysinger  said:
>> On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote:
>>> All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to
>>>  magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in advance*
>>>  . . . is a silly idea. Good lord, can you imagine the shitstorm the X11
>>>  team would have gone through if they'd tried *that* without first writing
>>>  up xserver 1.5 and 1.6 migration guides?!
>> we arent talking migrations that are forced onto everyone.  we're talking 
>> about new code that users have to *opt in* for ("new net") that is only 
>> available in unstable.  expecting everything in testing to be documented up 
>> front is unreasonable.  no one is saying the stuff shouldnt be documented, 
>> just that complete user friendly coverage is not a requirement for unstable. 
>>  
>> your comments here dont really apply to bleeding edge -- they certainly 
>> apply 
>> to stable though.
> 
> I'd say this isn't correct.  Unstable isn't a pure testing playground.
> its meant for packages that should be considered for stable.  As such,
> we should make sure that we get the documentation needed ready, so we
> can make sure that it is correct for people that are testing the upgrade
> path for us.  It then gives us a chance to correct our documentation
> before it goes stable.
> 
> All this comes down to is laziness in documenting changes, and forcing
> stuff upon our users.  Neither of those things is good, and if everyone
> thinks that's the status quo...that really should change.
> 
> 

I disagree with you. Unstable/TESTING tree is for new packages and package 
versions, which where
until then not widely tested. With adding them, you can get more feedback and 
can filter out
versions, which might be good enough to go into stable. THEN you should write 
the needed details for
an upgrade to this version. And people using TESTING are free to tell about 
their upgrade and
helping with improving the information.

But there are and will always be versions, which will never meet the stable 
tree and are only there
for users, who want to test the latest version.

And our manpower is limited. It would be some nice ideal world, if everything 
even in TESTING tree
would be completly documented. But if you require something like that, please 
show us the people,
who have enough time and knowledge to be able to do this part. I have only a 
limited amount of time.
And if i am required to write more docs, it would mean that i can maintain less 
packages/help less
projects/users/potential new devs preparing their quizzes. I bet its the same 
for most of our team.


In the end, i require TESTING users to be able to recover and to be able to 
report bugs via
bugzilla, even if the packages are not fully documented as written previously. 
And in this special
case, openrc had a sane default for the useflag, a useflag description and a 
warning, if the useflag
is disabled. And until now, we only had exactly 1 user, who complained about 
the default version,
but without giving us enough details neither here nor via bugzilla.

So in this part, i fully support Matthias (zzam) and Mike (vapier):

A sane version with good default and basic information was added (thanks 
Matthias for that!) and it
seems to work without problems this way for all users except those, who are 
unable or unwilling to
fill a bug with needed details. And we are not able to help those users.

-- 
Thomas Sachau

Gentoo Linux Developer



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Thomas Sachau]

Joshua Saddler schrieb:
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:54:31 +0200
> Thomas Sachau  wrote:
>> I disagree in this place. ~arch is called testing because it actually is
>> about TESTING new versions and packages. You should expect problems and you
>> should be able to recover from them and you should be able to use bugzilla.
>> Else i suggest you move to a stable arch instead.
>>
>> Your arguments could make sense, if it would be about the stable tree, but
>> forcing the testing tree to be a second stable tree, just with newer package
>> versions isnt our goal nor does it help anyone.
> 
> I'm going to pick on your email for this: you're not alone in your feelings, 
> but yours is the most convenient email to reply to. :)
> 
> "You should expect problems and you should be able to recover from them."
> 
> You're right! You're so right that I'm going to go and completely expunge the 
> OpenRC Migration guide from CVS, because users don't need documentation on 
> how to make the change! They should already know that there "will be 
> problems," so we don't need to tell them which *specific* problems those will 
> be. Right? Right.
> 
> And since they should already "be able to recover from them," there's no need 
> to list step-by-step instructions on making the change or dealing with 
> complications, since they're supposed to already know that. I don't know how, 
> but surely not by reading some silly guide! Guides are for n00bs! ~arch is 
> for elite hax0rs who already know everything about OpenRC's internals. And if 
> they don't know what they're doing, then they shouldn't be running ~arch 
> packages, so let's presume to tell them what we think *their* needs are. 
> We're right.
> 
> And we certainly don't want them testing something if there's a GUIDE for it, 
> I mean, sheesh! That's like asking them to help out. No, no, we want our 
> users to come crawling to US, through the festering, fetid sekrit corridors 
> of our labyrinthine bugzilla, to join us in our even more sekrit rituals 
> around the "Status whiteboard."
> 
> * * *
> 
> All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to 
> magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in advance* . . 
> . is a silly idea. Good lord, can you imagine the shitstorm the X11 team 
> would have gone through if they'd tried *that* without first writing up 
> xserver 1.5 and 1.6 migration guides?!

Did i tell you, that you or anyone else it not allowed to write documentation? 
Did i say anything
about "documentation is not needed at all"? I just said that people, who want 
to TEST the latest
versions should be prepared to get until then unknown problems.

If you know those problems before they are known, feel free to write docs and 
tell people (+upstream
and maintainers) about them.

In addition, for moving something to stable, some news item, upgrade guide or 
other sort of docs
might be needed. I never wrote something against this part. But if you really 
want to require
information about unknown bugs before they happen and want to work with TESTING 
tree as it would be
STABLE tree, then you really mixed something up.

Btw: When did the X11 team write the upgrade guides for xorg-server-1.5/1.6? 
Some time relative to
introduction of those versions into TESTING tree are enough.

In an ideal world with every dev knowing everything and having unfinite time, 
we could maybe require
TESTING tree to be fully documented. Until then, i prefer having a package in 
TESTING instead of not
being able to use it at all since noone wants to add it.

-- 
Thomas Sachau

Gentoo Linux Developer



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Samuli Suominen  wrote:
> New dev-libs/glib, x11-libs/gtk+ and possible some other core libraries
> should be in tree (package.masked perhaps) so users and developers can
> help testing them. The current way they are moved from overlay into
> ~arch is forcing them to be tested, where as having them in tree now,
> would allow people who *want* to test them to do so.
>

I'm not aware of any bugs related to new glib/gtk+ breaking packages
in recent times. Probably because Mart (leio) does a really good job
of combing through the ChangeLogs and making sure that there aren't
any regressions.

For instance, with gtk+-2.18, there are major changes which break
rendering in apps[1], so it won't be brazenly added to tree (likely
will get a p.mask like you say). However, glib-2.22 has no such
changes, and will be the first thing to get added to tree as ~arch
part of GNOME 2.28.

1. Client-Side windows (csw) /will/ break apps; there has been
extensive testing upstream, but breakage is inevitable.

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Samuli Suominen]

Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> [completely offtopic from this thread, please fork thread if/when replying]
> 
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers  wrote:
>> Since the advent of outside overlays and layman,
>> we've seen many more bugs that only got discovered when the tree was
>> synced with some developer overlay, or when a Great Unveiling was done
>> after limited, private, small scale testing (as with many GNOME and KDE
>> releases, not to point the finger).
> 
> If GNOME is involved, I would like you to point some fingers and tell
> us exactly where you think we went wrong; exactly which "Great
> Unveiling" are you talking about? If you don't tell us what we did
> wrong, you surely can't expect us to fix the problem :)

New dev-libs/glib, x11-libs/gtk+ and possible some other core libraries
should be in tree (package.masked perhaps) so users and developers can
help testing them. The current way they are moved from overlay into
~arch is forcing them to be tested, where as having them in tree now,
would allow people who *want* to test them to do so.

(I'm not pointing fingers, or blaming. That's just my humble view.)

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Tomáš Chvátal]

Dne středa 14 Říjen 2009 13:19:42 Nirbheek Chauhan napsal(a):
> [completely offtopic from this thread, please fork thread if/when replying]
> 
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers  wrote:
> > Since the advent of outside overlays and layman,
> > we've seen many more bugs that only got discovered when the tree was
> > synced with some developer overlay, or when a Great Unveiling was done
> > after limited, private, small scale testing (as with many GNOME and KDE
> > releases, not to point the finger).
> 
> If GNOME is involved, I would like you to point some fingers and tell
> us exactly where you think we went wrong; exactly which "Great
> Unveiling" are you talking about? If you don't tell us what we did
> wrong, you surely can't expect us to fix the problem :)
> 
> All GNOME releases are incremental, so in 99% of the cases, the
> migration path is straightforward. If as an hppa arch dev, if you were
> inconvenienced, we would like to correct the problem since it would've
> definitely affected other archs too (and we know how understaffed you
> guys are :)
> 
Actualy i would like to hear what we in KDE did too, we publish into the tree 
as 0 days bump mostly since 4.2 and 4.1 was in the tree right away when we had 
working configuration.

But aparently thats not enough...


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

[completely offtopic from this thread, please fork thread if/when replying]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Jeroen Roovers  wrote:
> Since the advent of outside overlays and layman,
> we've seen many more bugs that only got discovered when the tree was
> synced with some developer overlay, or when a Great Unveiling was done
> after limited, private, small scale testing (as with many GNOME and KDE
> releases, not to point the finger).

If GNOME is involved, I would like you to point some fingers and tell
us exactly where you think we went wrong; exactly which "Great
Unveiling" are you talking about? If you don't tell us what we did
wrong, you surely can't expect us to fix the problem :)

All GNOME releases are incremental, so in 99% of the cases, the
migration path is straightforward. If as an hppa arch dev, if you were
inconvenienced, we would like to correct the problem since it would've
definitely affected other archs too (and we know how understaffed you
guys are :)

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Maciej Mrozowski]

On Wednesday 14 of October 2009 08:12:03 Eray Aslan wrote:

[...]

Please STOP already, all of you.

There is only one important fact nobody seems to comprehend - new openrc was 
added to TESTING repository. That being said, if one uses packages from such 
repository (portage subtree, whatever), one *should* be ready to *grab* *the* 
*pieces* or *downgrade* when needed.
Come on - it's not rocket science.
OpenRC has been unmasked and put in testing subtree to gather feedback (sic!) 
- and users choosing testing repository are expected to use Gentoo bugzilla as 
it's the preferred way to provide such feedback - NOT gentoo-dev mailing list.

Again, please stop all of you.
Thanks in advance

-- 
regards
MM


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 14 October 2009 02:12:03 Eray Aslan wrote:
> On 14.10.2009 03:17, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote:
> >> All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to
> >>  magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in
> >> advance* . . . is a silly idea. Good lord, can you imagine the shitstorm
> >> the X11 team would have gone through if they'd tried *that* without
> >> first writing up xserver 1.5 and 1.6 migration guides?!
> >
> > we arent talking migrations that are forced onto everyone.  we're talking
> > about new code that users have to *opt in* for ("new net") that is only
> > available in unstable.  expecting everything in testing to be documented
> > up front is unreasonable.
> 
> While true in general, I cannot agree with you in this case.  This is
> not some random app we are talking about.  It is a change in init
> scripts that might render our servers inaccessible if things go wrong.
> Please bear in mind that we have servers operating in datacenters in
> other countries and network loss is the worst kind of bug you can
> inflict upon us.

people concerned with stability (i.e. headless dataservers) have no reason to 
be running unstable.  server instability here is self-inflicted.

> There is no documantation upstream.  At least we have some docs in g.o
> (kudos to whomever wrote it) but it is old (there is no mention of
> oldnet USE flag for example).  And IUSE="... +oldnet ..." is too fragile
> a solution.

there is to a degree -- read conf.d/network.  it might seem thin, but i think 
it's because "new" net is "supposed" to be thin.

> All I am saying is that this is a so important change that we should
> have gotten it right from the beginning.  Openrc should not have been
> unmasked without proper documentation.

always getting things right from the beginning is impossible.  problems are 
found and rectified and we move on.
-mike


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Eray Aslan]

On 14.10.2009 03:17, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote:
>> All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to
>>  magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in advance*
>>  . . . is a silly idea. Good lord, can you imagine the shitstorm the X11
>>  team would have gone through if they'd tried *that* without first writing
>>  up xserver 1.5 and 1.6 migration guides?!
> 
> we arent talking migrations that are forced onto everyone.  we're talking 
> about new code that users have to *opt in* for ("new net") that is only 
> available in unstable.  expecting everything in testing to be documented up 
> front is unreasonable.

While true in general, I cannot agree with you in this case.  This is
not some random app we are talking about.  It is a change in init
scripts that might render our servers inaccessible if things go wrong.
Please bear in mind that we have servers operating in datacenters in
other countries and network loss is the worst kind of bug you can
inflict upon us.

There is no documantation upstream.  At least we have some docs in g.o
(kudos to whomever wrote it) but it is old (there is no mention of
oldnet USE flag for example).  And IUSE="... +oldnet ..." is too fragile
a solution.

All I am saying is that this is a so important change that we should
have gotten it right from the beginning.  Openrc should not have been
unmasked without proper documentation.

-- 
Eray

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Graham Murray]

Branko Badrljica  writes:

> 2. About using bugzilla- how the heck was I supposed to use it without
> net access ?

If openrc did not start your networking, what was preventing you
starting it yourself? Even if the upgrade also corrupted both
sys-apps/net-tools and sys-apps/iproute2[1], you could have booted from
a rescue/install CD/DVD/USB stick[2].

[1] Which I very much doubt.

[2] Which I have had to do a couple of times when the system would not
boot following an update or change I have made.

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 13 October 2009 21:26:40 sch...@subverted.org wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 08:40:48PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > USE=oldnet is documented, end of story.  you're complaining about a
> > *bug*, not lack of documentation.  stop mixing the two as you're only
> > muddling this thread.
> 
> I don't think you are going to find anyone here stating that the USE
> flag itself is not documented.  The heart of the matter is that, not
> only do we testers find the sweeping API changes poorly documented
> (preventing properly testing them and starting this thread), but there
> are many regressions, several of which are non-starters.
>
> Seemingly simple things like configuring static routes, setting MTUs,
> and bringing up interfaces after configuring them have fallen by the
> wayside for no apparent reason, and with zero documentation.  Even PPP
> interface support has been dropped with little explanation other than
> "get that old script from mrness and hope it works".
> 
> As far as I can tell, the new openrc network API has (and has only been
> tested with) one extremely simple paradigm in mind: DHCP or statically
> configured hosts on a flat, autoconfigured ethernet VLAN with only one
> off-subnet route.  That is a huge step backward.

everything *you're* talking about is USE=-oldnet.  no one is debating that the 
new code is regression free or overflowing with documentation.  that's why 
it's disabled by default (imagine that) and issues warnings during emerge.  
the mailing list is not the place to report regressions, but fortunately 
people have reported such issues in bugzilla already.

Branko is complaining about bugs in USE=oldnet about which there are no bugs 
in bugzilla.  vague complaints in a mailing list isnt going to get anything 
resolved, but it seems he doesnt care anymore.  so we'll have to wait until 
someone else hits the issue and actually reports a bug for us to investigate.
-mike


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[schism]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 08:40:48PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> USE=oldnet is documented, end of story.  you're complaining about a *bug*, 
> not 
> lack of documentation.  stop mixing the two as you're only muddling this 
> thread.

I don't think you are going to find anyone here stating that the USE
flag itself is not documented.  The heart of the matter is that, not
only do we testers find the sweeping API changes poorly documented
(preventing properly testing them and starting this thread), but there
are many regressions, several of which are non-starters.

Seemingly simple things like configuring static routes, setting MTUs,
and bringing up interfaces after configuring them have fallen by the
wayside for no apparent reason, and with zero documentation.  Even PPP
interface support has been dropped with little explanation other than
"get that old script from mrness and hope it works".

As far as I can tell, the new openrc network API has (and has only been
tested with) one extremely simple paradigm in mind: DHCP or statically
configured hosts on a flat, autoconfigured ethernet VLAN with only one
off-subnet route.  That is a huge step backward.

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:33:35 -0400
Mark Loeser  wrote:

> I'd say this isn't correct.  Unstable isn't a pure testing playground.
> its meant for packages that should be considered for stable.

I happen to disagree. Since the advent of outside overlays and layman,
we've seen many more bugs that only got discovered when the tree was
synced with some developer overlay, or when a Great Unveiling was done
after limited, private, small scale testing (as with many GNOME and KDE
releases, not to point the finger).

Keeping things out of the tree because they are "not ready for general
consumption", or indeed masking versions "for testing", are good ways
to ensure you get no widespread testing at all and find bugs at a late
stage, worst case being during or after stabilisation. When the
stable/testing mechanism works well, then all non-upstream bugs will be
discovered before stabilisation, and some can even be fixed while
stabilisation continues.

Maintainers should know what versions never to request stabilisation
for, otherwise users who expect things to more or less just
work get exposed to buggy upstream releases.

On the other hand, careful users should know to cherry-pick specific
versions to unmask through package.unmask and package.keywords instead
of using ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="arch ~arch" as a blanket measure to get the
latest versions, otherwise they will regularly see data loss,
misconfiguration, and programs that do not work at all, because:

  Testing means that you are prepared to find and deal with bugs that
  have not been fixed yet because they have not been found yet.

I've been working on Gentoo for nearly 4 years now to hold up that vital
distinction between testing (~hppa) and stable (hppa), and what you
propose here has proven unworkable in that practice and as a general
attitude is quite unusual.


Regards,
 jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Branko Badrljica]

Mike Frysinger wrote:

On Tuesday 13 October 2009 22:48:01 Branko Badrljica wrote:
  

Mike Frysinger wrote:


On Tuesday 13 October 2009 22:36:44 Branko Badrljica wrote:
  

Mike Frysinger wrote:


the mailing list is not bugzilla.  any complaints you have about
USE=oldnet have nothing to do with this thread.  it's a bug and should
be treated as such.
  

Which is why I have posted here to gripe about having documented such
changes in future.


USE=oldnet is documented, end of story.  you're complaining about a
*bug*, not lack of documentation.  stop mixing the two as you're only
muddling this thread.
  

Not really, but my fingers hurt.
So, let's leave it at that, you were Right(tm) and I am misguided.
I'm truly sorry for all the noise in you signal that i caused and wish
you all the best.



now that you've realized the error of your ways, i still dont see any bug 
reports in bugzilla about USE=oldnet.  that leads me to conclude that testers 
have found no problems with it, only problems with USE=-oldnet.

-mike
  

And you won't see it from my hurting fingers.
How can I trust my eyes and reason when I have you.
Keep the God's Work - someone has to do it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 13 October 2009 22:48:01 Branko Badrljica wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 October 2009 22:36:44 Branko Badrljica wrote:
> >> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> the mailing list is not bugzilla.  any complaints you have about
> >>> USE=oldnet have nothing to do with this thread.  it's a bug and should
> >>> be treated as such.
> >>
> >> Which is why I have posted here to gripe about having documented such
> >> changes in future.
> >
> > USE=oldnet is documented, end of story.  you're complaining about a
> > *bug*, not lack of documentation.  stop mixing the two as you're only
> > muddling this thread.
> 
> Not really, but my fingers hurt.
> So, let's leave it at that, you were Right(tm) and I am misguided.
> I'm truly sorry for all the noise in you signal that i caused and wish
> you all the best.

now that you've realized the error of your ways, i still dont see any bug 
reports in bugzilla about USE=oldnet.  that leads me to conclude that testers 
have found no problems with it, only problems with USE=-oldnet.
-mike


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 13 October 2009 20:33:35 Mark Loeser wrote:
> Mike Frysinger  said:
> > On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote:
> > > All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to
> > >  magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in
> > > advance* . . . is a silly idea. Good lord, can you imagine the
> > > shitstorm the X11 team would have gone through if they'd tried *that*
> > > without first writing up xserver 1.5 and 1.6 migration guides?!
> >
> > we arent talking migrations that are forced onto everyone.  we're talking
> > about new code that users have to *opt in* for ("new net") that is only
> > available in unstable.  expecting everything in testing to be documented
> > up front is unreasonable.  no one is saying the stuff shouldnt be
> > documented, just that complete user friendly coverage is not a
> > requirement for unstable. your comments here dont really apply to
> > bleeding edge -- they certainly apply to stable though.
>
> I'd say this isn't correct.  Unstable isn't a pure testing playground.
> its meant for packages that should be considered for stable.  As such,
> we should make sure that we get the documentation needed ready, so we
> can make sure that it is correct for people that are testing the upgrade
> path for us.  It then gives us a chance to correct our documentation
> before it goes stable.

i disagree with this strict interpretation of stable vs unstable.  while it's 
a noble ideal, it isnt realistic.  we have plenty of versions that go into 
unstable with no plans of them going stable as they're good for vetting new 
issues on the way to a newer stable version.  i'd prefer to have a bunch of 
smaller changes with minor issues in each than a large code dump which is hard 
to coordinate problems with actual changes.

> All this comes down to is laziness in documenting changes, and forcing
> stuff upon our users.  Neither of those things is good, and if everyone
> thinks that's the status quo...that really should change.

then everyone in Gentoo is lazy because we always have things that lack 100% 
coverage.  we also arent forcing anything onto users.  the documentation hole 
here applies only to new code that is disabled by default.
-mike


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Branko Badrljica]

Mike Frysinger wrote:

On Tuesday 13 October 2009 22:36:44 Branko Badrljica wrote:
  

Mike Frysinger wrote:


the mailing list is not bugzilla.  any complaints you have about
USE=oldnet have nothing to do with this thread.  it's a bug and should be
treated as such.
  

Which is why I have posted here to gripe about having documented such
changes in future.



USE=oldnet is documented, end of story.  you're complaining about a *bug*, not 
lack of documentation.  stop mixing the two as you're only muddling this 
thread.

-mike
  


Not really, but my fingers hurt.
So, let's leave it at that, you were Right(tm) and I am misguided.
I'm truly sorry for all the noise in you signal that i caused and wish 
you all the best.

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 13 October 2009 22:36:44 Branko Badrljica wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the mailing list is not bugzilla.  any complaints you have about
> > USE=oldnet have nothing to do with this thread.  it's a bug and should be
> > treated as such.
> 
> Which is why I have posted here to gripe about having documented such
> changes in future.

USE=oldnet is documented, end of story.  you're complaining about a *bug*, not 
lack of documentation.  stop mixing the two as you're only muddling this 
thread.
-mike


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Branko Badrljica]

Mike Frysinger wrote:


the mailing list is not bugzilla.  any complaints you have about USE=oldnet 
have nothing to do with this thread.  it's a bug and should be treated as 
such.

-mike
  


Which is why I have posted here to gripe about having documented such 
changes in future.


I was told that new openrc is surely fine because it works for some 
group of people, that obviously includes developer.


It is not enough, and please, don't keep such things in the future in 
more or less closed circles of your pals.


Even simple "WARNING!!! Big changes, untested, not(yet) documented!" 
would be nice.


I know what arch~ _should_ mean, but you know what it actually means.
So, a little bit of  pragmatic flexibility here would certainly decrease 
amount of raining urine and improve Gentoo's likability.


In any event, I don't intend to further this debate.

Take it as a rant of some user that certainly can be wrong.

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Mark Loeser]

Mike Frysinger  said:
> On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote:
> > All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to
> >  magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in advance*
> >  . . . is a silly idea. Good lord, can you imagine the shitstorm the X11
> >  team would have gone through if they'd tried *that* without first writing
> >  up xserver 1.5 and 1.6 migration guides?!
> 
> we arent talking migrations that are forced onto everyone.  we're talking 
> about new code that users have to *opt in* for ("new net") that is only 
> available in unstable.  expecting everything in testing to be documented up 
> front is unreasonable.  no one is saying the stuff shouldnt be documented, 
> just that complete user friendly coverage is not a requirement for unstable.  
> your comments here dont really apply to bleeding edge -- they certainly apply 
> to stable though.

I'd say this isn't correct.  Unstable isn't a pure testing playground.
its meant for packages that should be considered for stable.  As such,
we should make sure that we get the documentation needed ready, so we
can make sure that it is correct for people that are testing the upgrade
path for us.  It then gives us a chance to correct our documentation
before it goes stable.

All this comes down to is laziness in documenting changes, and forcing
stuff upon our users.  Neither of those things is good, and if everyone
thinks that's the status quo...that really should change.


-- 
Mark Loeser
email -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web   -   http://www.halcy0n.com


pgpX2U6V4nQow.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 09 October 2009 13:57:07 Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> As some of you have waited long for this to happen, sys-apps/openrc-0.5.1
>  is there.

btw, i didnt thank you for handling this.  so thanks.  uNF.
-mike


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Matthias Schwarzott]

On Mittwoch, 14. Oktober 2009, sch...@subverted.org wrote:
>
> Oh, you mean the docs that only cover the "old" configuration mechanism
> and are only installed with USE=oldnet?  How silly to think that changes
> that are likely to take testers' machines offline should be documented,
> if nothing else with, say, 'ewarn "USE=-oldnet changes the network
> configuration syntax, check it before rebooting"'.  I wasn't bitten
> (because I am more cautious than that), but I WAS annoyed that a package
> was sent out to be tested with zero instructions on the drastic changes
> it made.

So this is my last mail to this topic.

At least /etc/conf.d/network does contain documentation. Or is a requirement 
of documentation that it is not inside config files?

First: Default enabled use-flags may be enabled for a reason. One should think 
before overriding it.
Another thing: There was no message that one should switch to new scripts NOW.
Old scripts will still be supported some time. I also keep using the old ones 
for now.
As openrc-0.5.1 did work in the tests for me and some other people and no 
breakage was expected I did commit it.
If you got a bug you should report it on bugzilla.

And no, package.mask does not help, as then the bug would show later when 
unmasking.

The openrc ebuild does print a warning if old net.* init-scripts are enabled 
in some runlevels. See this code:


if ! use oldnet; then
local f= links=$(find "${ROOT}"/etc/runlevels/ -name "net.*")
if [[ "${links}" != "" ]] ; then
ewarn "You have disabled installation of old-style network 
scripts"
ewarn "but they are still enabled in some runlevels:"
for f in $links; do
ewarn "\t$f"
done
ewarn "You should migrate the settings"
ewarn "from /etc/conf.d/net to /etc/conf.d/network"
ewarn "and clean runlevels from /etc/init.d/net.* and"
ewarn "instead add /etc/init.d/network"
fi
fi

So if you disabled "oldnet" you definitely got the message above.
Yes, there is no big fat warning that stuff may break, but you still can roll 
back to the config you had before.
But, as new network script is installed regardless of oldnet setting, the 
warning must be printed always to be useful.

Did you have a look at demerge. That is a software that makes a snapshot of 
which packages are installed with exact use-flag config and can rollback to 
that snapshot.

The use-flag "oldnet" itself is described like this:
Install the old type of network init-scripts with a symlink net.IFACE for each 
interface

Matthias

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 13 October 2009 22:15:52 Branko Badrljica wrote:
> This time, machine boots and sets both lo and eth0 without any error
> message, but it fails to set default route, so without manual "route add
> default gw 192.168.1.1" net is dead. And machine is stuck at "checking
> local filesystems " for a whole few minutes now without apprently doing
> anything, but this is besides the point here.
> 
> 1. openrc was remerged with default "oldnet" flag

the mailing list is not bugzilla.  any complaints you have about USE=oldnet 
have nothing to do with this thread.  it's a bug and should be treated as 
such.
-mike


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:30:52 Joshua Saddler wrote:
> All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to
>  magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in advance*
>  . . . is a silly idea. Good lord, can you imagine the shitstorm the X11
>  team would have gone through if they'd tried *that* without first writing
>  up xserver 1.5 and 1.6 migration guides?!

we arent talking migrations that are forced onto everyone.  we're talking 
about new code that users have to *opt in* for ("new net") that is only 
available in unstable.  expecting everything in testing to be documented up 
front is unreasonable.  no one is saying the stuff shouldnt be documented, 
just that complete user friendly coverage is not a requirement for unstable.  
your comments here dont really apply to bleeding edge -- they certainly apply 
to stable though.

this code doesnt even really appear to be documented upstream [1], so it seems 
only Roy knows the magic sauce atm.

1: http://roy.marples.name/archives/openrc-discuss/2009/0040.html
-mike


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Branko Badrljica]

Dawid Węgliński wrote:

sapphire ~ # qlist openrc | grep doc
/usr/share/doc/openrc/net.example
/usr/share/doc/openrc/net.default

  
As said, I already did that. In fact, that was the first thing I was 
looking for. After seeing post here about radical changes in v0.5, that 
was the first thing I did. But net.example showed NO obvious changes. 
Nevertheless, I tried both- my original net and one that I derived from 
net.example anew.


Just for the fun of it, I reemerged openrc-0.5-r1 just now, edited 
net.example, and tried both- my original net and edited net.example.


This time, machine boots and sets both lo and eth0 without any error 
message, but it fails to set default route, so without manual "route add 
default gw 192.168.1.1" net is dead. And machine is stuck at "checking 
local filesystems " for a whole few minutes now without apprently doing 
anything, but this is besides the point here.


And, for the umpteenth time:

1. openrc was remerged with default "oldnet" flag

2. I did check net.example

3. All I asked is for this things to be available. Few words, if nothing 
else. Preferrably on news, so I can get them after emerge but bugzilla 
is also acceptable. Forums are nice, but not adequate communication 
channel for such purpose.


I found only one chap with a problem close to mine on forum, and he was 
left without an answer:


net.eth0 doesn't work at boot 

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Joshua Saddler]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:54:31 +0200
Thomas Sachau  wrote:
> I disagree in this place. ~arch is called testing because it actually is
> about TESTING new versions and packages. You should expect problems and you
> should be able to recover from them and you should be able to use bugzilla.
> Else i suggest you move to a stable arch instead.
> 
> Your arguments could make sense, if it would be about the stable tree, but
> forcing the testing tree to be a second stable tree, just with newer package
> versions isnt our goal nor does it help anyone.

I'm going to pick on your email for this: you're not alone in your feelings, 
but yours is the most convenient email to reply to. :)

"You should expect problems and you should be able to recover from them."

You're right! You're so right that I'm going to go and completely expunge the 
OpenRC Migration guide from CVS, because users don't need documentation on how 
to make the change! They should already know that there "will be problems," so 
we don't need to tell them which *specific* problems those will be. Right? 
Right.

And since they should already "be able to recover from them," there's no need 
to list step-by-step instructions on making the change or dealing with 
complications, since they're supposed to already know that. I don't know how, 
but surely not by reading some silly guide! Guides are for n00bs! ~arch is for 
elite hax0rs who already know everything about OpenRC's internals. And if they 
don't know what they're doing, then they shouldn't be running ~arch packages, 
so let's presume to tell them what we think *their* needs are. We're right.

And we certainly don't want them testing something if there's a GUIDE for it, I 
mean, sheesh! That's like asking them to help out. No, no, we want our users to 
come crawling to US, through the festering, fetid sekrit corridors of our 
labyrinthine bugzilla, to join us in our even more sekrit rituals around the 
"Status whiteboard."

* * *

All that to say, Tommy (et al), is that the idea of expecting users to 
magically know everything and not to offer any documentation *in advance* . . . 
is a silly idea. Good lord, can you imagine the shitstorm the X11 team would 
have gone through if they'd tried *that* without first writing up xserver 1.5 
and 1.6 migration guides?!


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Joshua Saddler]

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:52:06 +0200
Dawid Węgliński  wrote:
> Upstream already provides such a documentation as you can see above. Gentoo 
> provides migration guide. I believe doc team will update use flag description 
> as soon as it's possible.

In this case, "As soon as it's possible" means "when someone sends a patch to 
bugzilla, because I don't know what the hell to do." And I'm the document 
maintainer.

Take a look at the forums, folks -- there are a *lot* of threads on this major 
change. Things that should be simple and straightforward, are not really 
straightforward. Like the USE flag and reading its description in metadata.xml, 
or enabling it to get a working system. Right now, most of the reports are from 
users who for one reason or another don't have the flag enabled. And there are 
other regression reports from the .5 series in general, not specific to the USE 
flag. And lots of users just don't know what this change brings, or what they 
should expect, or what they need from the new version.

Who'll help them out? Who holds the hands of these users, to tell 'em there's a 
migration guide with the fixes for these problems? Who writes the information 
in the guide so that it will be there when they need help?

Not me. I don't write that stuff down. I'm "just" the guy who commits it. And 
I've got nothing to help our users. So if you know how OpenRC 0.5.x is supposed 
to behave, from the perspective of a stable user moving to ~arch OpenRC . . . 
then for the love of our users, go to bugs.gentoo.org and get me some patches.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[schism]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 01:03:22AM +0200, Dawid Węgliński wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 October 2009 00:59:26 sch...@subverted.org wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:52:06AM +0200, Dawid Węgliński wrote:
> > > sapphire ~ # qlist openrc | grep doc
> > > /usr/share/doc/openrc/net.example
> > > /usr/share/doc/openrc/net.default
> > 
> > That would be lovely if the concerns being raised weren't about 0.5.1,
> > that's the output from a 0.4.3 series install.
> > 
> # qlist -ICv openrc
> sys-apps/openrc-0.5.1
> 
> Yeah, you're right. ;)

Oh, you mean the docs that only cover the "old" configuration mechanism
and are only installed with USE=oldnet?  How silly to think that changes
that are likely to take testers' machines offline should be documented,
if nothing else with, say, 'ewarn "USE=-oldnet changes the network
configuration syntax, check it before rebooting"'.  I wasn't bitten
(because I am more cautious than that), but I WAS annoyed that a package
was sent out to be tested with zero instructions on the drastic changes
it made.

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 13 October 2009 20:41:51 Branko Badrljica wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i really dont buy this argument, but ignoring that, poor admin policy is
> > no excuse.  blindly accepting all unstable versions of a package instead
> > of pinning a specific version and then expecting a stable system isnt
> > going to happen.  Thomas is absolutely right here.
> 
> But just as an notice, I didn't expect STABLE but at least DOCUMENTED
> system ?
> Is that too much to ask ?

you have already documentation for the default install (which can only be 
deviated from by user's will) as pointed out by people.  you cant reasonable 
expect 100% documentation coverage for everything.

> Having some reasonable safety margin is base of sanity. Your PSU is
> galvanicaly insulated, but law demands that housing of your PC be
> connected to earth potential in case  of insulation  failing. Had that
> been done by Gentoo community courts would be full of cases of
> "unreasonable dead jerks who should be grateful"...

when openrc gains the ability to blow up your computer, let us know so we can 
add a news item to warn people.

> > documentation doesnt write itself.  this isnt directed specifically at
> > you, but clamoring "gimme gimme gimme" is more likely to get people to
> > tell you to toss off than get what you want.
> 
> And who should write documentation for new code ? Unreasonable users
> that find it not working or perhaps authors ?
> While I recognise the fact that Gentoo is not commercial distro, I want
> also some recognition for value of my time as a passive tester.

passive testers file bugs about things missing.  they dont go onto mailing 
lists demanding changes.

> I am happy to give what I can, but I expect at least some basic
> foundations for that. Having documentation about public changes at least
> for me falls well within that category.
> 
> At least for me, even otherwise useful changes can have NEGATIVE value,
> if they gob heaps of my time totally unnecesarilly and total lack of
> documentation is on top of the list of best ways to piss on masses.

you've already been given plenty of documentation foundation.  you just seem 
inclined to ignore it.

so to reiterate, pissing & moaning on this mailing list is going to get you 
nowhere.  i'm done responding to such e-mails in this thread.
-mike


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 13 October 2009 18:59:26 sch...@subverted.org wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:52:06AM +0200, Dawid Węgliński wrote:
> > sapphire ~ # qlist openrc | grep doc
> > /usr/share/doc/openrc/net.example
> > /usr/share/doc/openrc/net.default
> 
> That would be lovely if the concerns being raised weren't about 0.5.1,
> that's the output from a 0.4.3 series install.

you might want to check your facts before e-mailing.  the output in question 
is matches both versions in the default install.
-mike


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Dawid Węgliński]

On Wednesday 14 October 2009 00:59:26 sch...@subverted.org wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:52:06AM +0200, Dawid Węgliński wrote:
> > sapphire ~ # qlist openrc | grep doc
> > /usr/share/doc/openrc/net.example
> > /usr/share/doc/openrc/net.default
> 
> That would be lovely if the concerns being raised weren't about 0.5.1,
> that's the output from a 0.4.3 series install.
> 
# qlist -ICv openrc
sys-apps/openrc-0.5.1

Yeah, you're right. ;)
-- 
Cheers
Dawid Węgliński

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[schism]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:52:06AM +0200, Dawid Węgliński wrote:
> sapphire ~ # qlist openrc | grep doc
> /usr/share/doc/openrc/net.example
> /usr/share/doc/openrc/net.default

That would be lovely if the concerns being raised weren't about 0.5.1,
that's the output from a 0.4.3 series install.

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Dawid Węgliński]

On Wednesday 14 October 2009 02:41:51 Branko Badrljica wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i really dont buy this argument, but ignoring that, poor admin policy is
> > no excuse.  blindly accepting all unstable versions of a package instead
> > of pinning a specific version and then expecting a stable system isnt
> > going to happen.  Thomas is absolutely right here.
> 
> Well, if eh is absolutely right, then I won't argue anymore.
> 
> But just as an notice, I didn't expect STABLE but at least DOCUMENTED
> system ?
> Is that too much to ask ?

sapphire ~ # qlist openrc | grep doc
/usr/share/doc/openrc/net.example
/usr/share/doc/openrc/net.default

> 
> And even if I did a mistake of keywording openrc-0* instead of
> openrc-0.4-r3, do I really deserve such knife in the back ?
> 

Knife, eh? The worst thing could happen to you i lack of net connection. 

> And who should write documentation for new code ? Unreasonable users
> that find it not working or perhaps authors ?
> While I recognise the fact that Gentoo is not commercial distro, I want
> also some recognition for value of my time as a passive tester.
> 

Upstream already provides such a documentation as you can see above. Gentoo 
provides migration guide. I believe doc team will update use flag description 
as soon as it's possible.

But that's all has been already said.

-- 
Cheers
Dawid Węgliński

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Branko Badrljica]

Mike Frysinger wrote:



i really dont buy this argument, but ignoring that, poor admin policy is no 
excuse.  blindly accepting all unstable versions of a package instead of 
pinning a specific version and then expecting a stable system isnt going to 
happen.  Thomas is absolutely right here.


  

Well, if eh is absolutely right, then I won't argue anymore.

But just as an notice, I didn't expect STABLE but at least DOCUMENTED 
system ?

Is that too much to ask ?

And even if I did a mistake of keywording openrc-0* instead of 
openrc-0.4-r3, do I really deserve such knife in the back ?


Having some reasonable safety margin is base of sanity. Your PSU is 
galvanicaly insulated, but law demands that housing of your PC be 
connected to earth potential in case  of insulation  failing. Had that 
been done by Gentoo community courts would be full of cases of 
"unreasonable dead jerks who should be grateful"...



documentation doesnt write itself.  this isnt directed specifically at you, 
but clamoring "gimme gimme gimme" is more likely to get people to tell you to 
toss off than get what you want. 
And who should write documentation for new code ? Unreasonable users 
that find it not working or perhaps authors ?
While I recognise the fact that Gentoo is not commercial distro, I want 
also some recognition for value of my time as a passive tester.


I am happy to give what I can, but I expect at least some basic 
foundations for that. Having documentation about public changes at least 
for me falls well within that category.


At least for me, even otherwise useful changes can have NEGATIVE value, 
if they gob heaps of my time totally unnecesarilly and total lack of 
documentation is on top of the list of best ways to piss on masses.

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[William Hubbs]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 01:33:27AM +0200, Branko Badrljica wrote:
> 1. Much of the time on Gentoo using of ~ packages is not user explicit 
> choice but forced compromise.
> I don't remember exactly anymore what prompted me to enter openrc in 
> package.keywords, but I surely remember having a few headaches with it.
> Same is with many other packages- many times using ~arch is the only 
> answer, so 99% of the time it is used for getting some package to work 
> and not for pure testing.

The ~arch tree is where things go when they first enter the tree, and,
if there are no issues with them for a period of time they are marked
stable.  Hard masking, on the other hand, generally is for packages that
are known to break many systems.

The developer tested the package and had others test it and it worked
for them, so he committed it to the ~arch tree, which was the correct
thing for him to do.

> Having in mind state of the matter in_real_world, I really don't think 
> that having such things at least temporarily masked ( not to mention 
> DOCUMENTED!) is really not overdoing it.

Technically, there is nothing to document except possibly warning
against changing the oldnet use flag.  But, again, if you are using
~arch packages you should know how to recover.

 The openrc guide is at
 http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/openrc-migration.xml, and it still
 documents the correct way to upgrade to openrc if you did not switch to
 the new network scripts.

> As it was done, it presented me with nasty surprise. Machine has gotten 
> through upgrade world just fine and only after reboot it couldn't start 
> network interfaces. Manual restart croaked with some error about python 
> not being able to find some function.
 
 That doesn't sound like an openrc issue; openrc does not have anything
 to do with python as far as I know.

I would be curious what other packages were involved in the update?
What did you do to get the system up and running again?

> It felt exactly like a few last times when my ext4 decided to lose a few 
> hundred essential system files. There was nothing to suggest openrc. 
> After I lost some time reemerging system files and sifting through 
> ebuilds, packages and scripts, that casual message here about new openrc 
> hit me purely by chance, otherwise I would be in for much more pain.
> After I got system running again, I couldn't find anywhere anything at 
> all about any substantial change in openrc.
> Not on bugzilla, not on openrc home page nor anywhere else.
 
 That's because there wasn't one, and because ~arch is not considered
 stable anyway.  ~arch is where things go so that we can get them
 tested, after we test them ourselves, before they move to stable.  And,
as was said above, if you are running ~arch and things break, you are
expected to know how to recover.

When you file the bug, please give us all of the details about what you
did, what was upgraded, the exact error message you got, etc.

-- 
William Hubbs
gentoo accessibility team lead
willi...@gentoo.org


pgpyWbVOHzY48.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:33:27 Branko Badrljica wrote:
> Thomas Sachau wrote:
> > I disagree in this place. ~arch is called testing because it actually is
> > about TESTING new versions and packages. You should expect problems and
> > you should be able to recover from them and you should be able to use
> > bugzilla. Else i suggest you move to a stable arch instead.
> >
> > Your arguments could make sense, if it would be about the stable tree,
> > but forcing the testing tree to be a second stable tree, just with newer
> > package versions isnt our goal nor does it help anyone.
> 
> 1. Much of the time on Gentoo using of ~ packages is not user explicit
> choice but forced compromise.

i really dont buy this argument, but ignoring that, poor admin policy is no 
excuse.  blindly accepting all unstable versions of a package instead of 
pinning a specific version and then expecting a stable system isnt going to 
happen.  Thomas is absolutely right here.

> 3. My main if not only argument was about at last documenting such changes.

documentation doesnt write itself.  this isnt directed specifically at you, 
but clamoring "gimme gimme gimme" is more likely to get people to tell you to 
toss off than get what you want.  the only reason the new openrc version 
happened is that someone (Matthias) stepped up to do work because other people 
didnt have time to do it.  if he keeps getting dumped on, i cant imagine him 
volunteering for such a thing again.

if the current docs need expanding, then they will.  as for how soon, that 
depends on someone volunteering to do it.
-mike


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Branko Badrljica]

Thomas Sachau wrote:





I disagree in this place. ~arch is called testing because it actually is about 
TESTING new versions
and packages. You should expect problems and you should be able to recover from 
them and you should
be able to use bugzilla. Else i suggest you move to a stable arch instead.

Your arguments could make sense, if it would be about the stable tree, but 
forcing the testing tree
to be a second stable tree, just with newer package versions isnt our goal nor 
does it help anyone.

  
1. Much of the time on Gentoo using of ~ packages is not user explicit 
choice but forced compromise.
I don't remember exactly anymore what prompted me to enter openrc in 
package.keywords, but I surely remember having a few headaches with it.
Same is with many other packages- many times using ~arch is the only 
answer, so 99% of the time it is used for getting some package to work 
and not for pure testing.
Having in mind state of the matter in_real_world, I really don't think 
that having such things at least temporarily masked ( not to mention 
DOCUMENTED!) is really not overdoing it.


2. About using bugzilla- how the heck was I supposed to use it without 
net access ?


3. My main if not only argument was about at last documenting such changes.

As it was done, it presented me with nasty surprise. Machine has gotten 
through upgrade world just fine and only after reboot it couldn't start 
network interfaces. Manual restart croaked with some error about python 
not being able to find some function.


It felt exactly like a few last times when my ext4 decided to lose a few 
hundred essential system files. There was nothing to suggest openrc. 
After I lost some time reemerging system files and sifting through 
ebuilds, packages and scripts, that casual message here about new openrc 
hit me purely by chance, otherwise I would be in for much more pain.
After I got system running again, I couldn't find anywhere anything at 
all about any substantial change in openrc.

Not on bugzilla, not on openrc home page nor anywhere else.


4. About filing bugzilla bug, I can't do it now, since I am in a hurry 
and without it I can't contribute any really useful data.

Will do when I get around to it...

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[William Hubbs]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:43:49PM +0200, Branko Badrljica wrote:
> Which I did. I don't have openrc in /etc/portage/package.use, so it was 
> emerged with default USE flags ( if you count default as in "as set in 
> make.conf" ). emerge -pv openrc woould emerge it as:
> 
> sys-apps/openrc-0.5.1 [0.4.3-r4] USE="ncurses oldnet%* pam unicode -debug"
> 
> ... which means with "oldnet" flag.
 
 In that case, if your system was broken, I'm sure the maintainers would
 like to know about and would like to know how you fixed it, since it
 was a different issue.

> And whenever I tried it, it broke my system.
 
 Please file a bug.

 We need to know all steps and all details of what happened when you did
 the upgrade.  Did you use etc-update or something similar to update all
 of your configuration files?  What happened when you attempted to
 reboot?  From what you described in your original email there is not
 enough information to tell us what was going on.

> > If you accept the defaults and it doesn't work, I will gladly agree that
> > there is a major regression and the package should be masked.  On the
> > other hand, if the new network scripts  do not work, I don't see that as
> > a show stopper.  Yes, I would agree that there should be a warning about
> > turning off the oldnet use flag, but I don't think this warrants masking
> > the ebuild, unless I am missing something.  If I am, definitely let me
> > know.
> I don't feel comfortable with your philosophy. It doesn't matter how 
> obvious matters seem to you, your changes can affect many people in many 
> situations and configurations, not necessarily allways without unforseen 
> consequences.

Agreed.  However, it is also impossible for developers to test packages
on every possible system with every possible configuration, so there
will be times, if you are running ~arch, that things may not work right.
If that happens, the best thing you can do is file a bug so that we can
try to fix the issue.

As was said earlier in this thread, the person who put it in the tree
tested it, and he had several others test it with no problems.  Also, he
did follow upstream's recommendation and configure the new openrc to use
the old network scripts.  So, if there is an issue, we need to know
about it.

> I understand that Gentoo is not for pussies and that you can't make an 
> ISO-9001 procedure for every change with every user, but it would really 
> be nice to have at least some _basic_ safety, like mentioning changes in 
> eselect news, or at least on home page of the package.

I'm sure that any documentation issues will be taken care of by the time
the package goes stable.

For the record, I am not a maintainer of openrc either, but my
experience was that that there was no change to be made since I stayed
with the old network scripts.  Like I said above, maybe there should
have been a warning to not try to switch to the new scripts yet unless
you were willing to test them, but I don't see why it should have
prevented ~arch users from getting the package.


-- 
William Hubbs
gentoo accessibility team lead
willi...@gentoo.org


pgpQad0F48AUn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Thomas Sachau]

Branko Badrljica schrieb:
> William Hubbs wrote:
>> If you accept the defaults and it doesn't work, I will gladly agree that
>> there is a major regression and the package should be masked.  On the
>> other hand, if the new network scripts  do not work, I don't see that as
>> a show stopper.  Yes, I would agree that there should be a warning about
>> turning off the oldnet use flag, but I don't think this warrants masking
>> the ebuild, unless I am missing something.  If I am, definitely let me
>> know.
> I don't feel comfortable with your philosophy. It doesn't matter how
> obvious matters seem to you, your changes can affect many people in many
> situations and configurations, not necessarily allways without unforseen
> consequences.
> 
> I understand that Gentoo is not for pussies and that you can't make an
> ISO-9001 procedure for every change with every user, but it would really
> be nice to have at least some _basic_ safety, like mentioning changes in
> eselect news, or at least on home page of the package.

I disagree in this place. ~arch is called testing because it actually is about 
TESTING new versions
and packages. You should expect problems and you should be able to recover from 
them and you should
be able to use bugzilla. Else i suggest you move to a stable arch instead.

Your arguments could make sense, if it would be about the stable tree, but 
forcing the testing tree
to be a second stable tree, just with newer package versions isnt our goal nor 
does it help anyone.


-- 
Thomas Sachau

Gentoo Linux Developer



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Branko Badrljica]

William Hubbs wrote:

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:55:45PM +0200, Branko Badrljica wrote:
  
Main question is NOT whether it works for you, but whether it will break 
stuff on significant percent of other users.
It broke on my machine, for example, and it was quite disconcerting, 
since it was at quite inconvenient moment and I had note get to any 
shred of documentation about ANY kind of substantial behaviour change of 
new openrc...

 
The default is to use the old net.ethx style network scripts, which

still work as usual, so, that is why I said that I disagree about there
being a regression.  A regression means that something worked before,
but it doesn't now, and that is not the case if you accept the defaults.

  
Which I did. I don't have openrc in /etc/portage/package.use, so it was 
emerged with default USE flags ( if you count default as in "as set in 
make.conf" ). emerge -pv openrc woould emerge it as:


sys-apps/openrc-0.5.1 [0.4.3-r4] USE="ncurses oldnet%* pam unicode -debug"

... which means with "oldnet" flag.

And whenever I tried it, it broke my system.




If you accept the defaults and it doesn't work, I will gladly agree that
there is a major regression and the package should be masked.  On the
other hand, if the new network scripts  do not work, I don't see that as
a show stopper.  Yes, I would agree that there should be a warning about
turning off the oldnet use flag, but I don't think this warrants masking
the ebuild, unless I am missing something.  If I am, definitely let me
know.
I don't feel comfortable with your philosophy. It doesn't matter how 
obvious matters seem to you, your changes can affect many people in many 
situations and configurations, not necessarily allways without unforseen 
consequences.


I understand that Gentoo is not for pussies and that you can't make an 
ISO-9001 procedure for every change with every user, but it would really 
be nice to have at least some _basic_ safety, like mentioning changes in 
eselect news, or at least on home page of the package.

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:47 AM, William Hubbs  wrote:
> The default is to use the old net.ethx style network scripts, which
> still work as usual, so, that is why I said that I disagree about there
> being a regression.  A regression means that something worked before,
> but it doesn't now, and that is not the case if you accept the defaults.
>

Agreed, not a regression.

[snip]
> Yes, I would agree that there should be a warning about
> turning off the oldnet use flag, but I don't think this warrants masking
> the ebuild, unless I am missing something.  If I am, definitely let me
> know.
>

If the USE-flags of an ebuild are visible to the user, it can be
assumed that they are safe to use (after following the documentation
and warnings if any). Which means that the maintainer needs to be even
more careful w.r.t. system packages; providing adequate warnings and
documentation.

If there's no documentation on how to use the new network scripts;
there should atleast be a big /FAT/ warning. Obviously the
documentation must be updated soon as well; unless the ebuild never
intends to make it to stable ;)

Personally, I wouldn't even dream of adding a core package like openrc
to ~arch until there was documentation about unexpected behaviour
(default or not). But to each his own.

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

GNOME+Mozilla Team, Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[William Hubbs]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:55:45PM +0200, Branko Badrljica wrote:
> Main question is NOT whether it works for you, but whether it will break 
> stuff on significant percent of other users.
> It broke on my machine, for example, and it was quite disconcerting, 
> since it was at quite inconvenient moment and I had note get to any 
> shred of documentation about ANY kind of substantial behaviour change of 
> new openrc...
 
The default is to use the old net.ethx style network scripts, which
still work as usual, so, that is why I said that I disagree about there
being a regression.  A regression means that something worked before,
but it doesn't now, and that is not the case if you accept the defaults.

If you accept the defaults and it doesn't work, I will gladly agree that
there is a major regression and the package should be masked.  On the
other hand, if the new network scripts  do not work, I don't see that as
a show stopper.  Yes, I would agree that there should be a warning about
turning off the oldnet use flag, but I don't think this warrants masking
the ebuild, unless I am missing something.  If I am, definitely let me
know.

-- 
William Hubbs
gentoo accessibility team lead
willi...@gentoo.org


pgp8wv1dYW9uw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Jeremy Olexa]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:55:45 +0200, Branko Badrljica
 wrote:

> Main question is NOT whether it works for you, but whether it will break

> stuff on significant percent of other users.
> It broke on my machine, for example, and it was quite disconcerting, 
> since it was at quite inconvenient moment and I had note get to any 
> shred of documentation about ANY kind of substantial behaviour change of

> new openrc...

This is an unreasonable expectation for ~arch. Matthias tested it himself,
had another person test it and then had a number of people say that there
were no problems for them on this thread alone. There was no behavior
change according to upstream, which suggested the method that Matthias took
with USE=oldnet (MKOLDNET?). I respect that every system might be
different, did you file a bug with relevant info so that the docs can get
updated for the people in your situation? We can't document information if
people don't help.

I guess what I am trying to say, is give Matthias a break here. He did
more testing than most of us can do before we bump packages in ~arch.
Progress will not be made if packages live in p.mask, this is proven with
libtool-2, gcc, etc.

-Jeremy

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Branko Badrljica]

William Hubbs wrote:

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 06:23:32PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
  

On Saturday 10 October 2009 23:30:05 Matthias Schwarzott wrote:


On Samstag, 10. Oktober 2009, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
  

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Alin N??stac  wrote:


On 10/9/09 7:57 PM, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
  

* does new scripts already can do all that was possible with net.* ?


No. PPP is not compatible with the new scripts.
  

Major regression. It never pays to drop surprises on people like this.
I *strongly* suggest masking openrc-0.5.1 until the documentation is
updated and a news file is sent.


Why do you suggest masking it immediately?
Emerging it without changing any use-flags, has oldnet enabled by default,
 so user gets exactly the same net init-scripts as with openrc-0.4 before,
 so where is the regression that needs to be masked?
One can still use the same stuff and nobody is forced to transition to the
 new network script.

Regards
Matthias

  
I agree with Nirbheek. You should always provide an updated documentation ( 
and a news item if necessary ) when you release a new major update of such 
core packages. I would like to see new openrc masked until the documentation 
is ready with full details about the transition to the new network init 
script.
If you don't provide such documentation in time, you will fail to make users 
switch to new init script in the near future, since everybody will forget 
about this and will use the 'oldnet' use flag anyway.
The sooner you will explain them how to migrate, the better 
results/feedback/updated systems you will get

 
I do not agree that masking the new openrc is appropriate, since it

works fine with the oldnet use flag and that is the default (I upgraded
flawlessly and left the use flags alone).

Maybe there should be a warning for now if you turn off the oldnet use
flag that warns you that the new network scripts may not work in all
situations.

Then, when it comes time to migrate, you can drop the oldnet use flag
entirely and explain in a news item how to migrate.

  
Main question is NOT whether it works for you, but whether it will break 
stuff on significant percent of other users.
It broke on my machine, for example, and it was quite disconcerting, 
since it was at quite inconvenient moment and I had note get to any 
shred of documentation about ANY kind of substantial behaviour change of 
new openrc...

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[William Hubbs]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 06:23:32PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Saturday 10 October 2009 23:30:05 Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> > On Samstag, 10. Oktober 2009, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Alin N??stac  wrote:
> > > > On 10/9/09 7:57 PM, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> > > >> * does new scripts already can do all that was possible with net.* ?
> > > >
> > > > No. PPP is not compatible with the new scripts.
> > >
> > > Major regression. It never pays to drop surprises on people like this.
> > > I *strongly* suggest masking openrc-0.5.1 until the documentation is
> > > updated and a news file is sent.
> > 
> > Why do you suggest masking it immediately?
> > Emerging it without changing any use-flags, has oldnet enabled by default,
> >  so user gets exactly the same net init-scripts as with openrc-0.4 before,
> >  so where is the regression that needs to be masked?
> > One can still use the same stuff and nobody is forced to transition to the
> >  new network script.
> > 
> > Regards
> > Matthias
> > 
> I agree with Nirbheek. You should always provide an updated documentation ( 
> and a news item if necessary ) when you release a new major update of such 
> core packages. I would like to see new openrc masked until the documentation 
> is ready with full details about the transition to the new network init 
> script.
> If you don't provide such documentation in time, you will fail to make users 
> switch to new init script in the near future, since everybody will forget 
> about this and will use the 'oldnet' use flag anyway.
> The sooner you will explain them how to migrate, the better 
> results/feedback/updated systems you will get
 
I do not agree that masking the new openrc is appropriate, since it
works fine with the oldnet use flag and that is the default (I upgraded
flawlessly and left the use flags alone).

Maybe there should be a warning for now if you turn off the oldnet use
flag that warns you that the new network scripts may not work in all
situations.

Then, when it comes time to migrate, you can drop the oldnet use flag
entirely and explain in a news item how to migrate.

-- 
William Hubbs
gentoo accessibility team lead
willi...@gentoo.org


pgp0adkeSjbsl.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Matthias Schwarzott]

On Dienstag, 13. Oktober 2009, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
> I agree with Nirbheek. You should always provide an updated documentation (
> and a news item if necessary ) when you release a new major update of such
> core packages. I would like to see new openrc masked until the
> documentation is ready with full details about the transition to the new
> network init script.
> If you don't provide such documentation in time, you will fail to make
> users switch to new init script in the near future, since everybody will
> forget about this and will use the 'oldnet' use flag anyway.
> The sooner you will explain them how to migrate, the better
> results/feedback/updated systems you will get
>

You are right. If I want everybody to switch to new net init script. But do I 
want that?
I still use the old one, as I think it is more powerful.
The old scripts will not be dropped in medium future if it does not break 
stuff.

By the way I am no official maintainer of openrc, still caring about it and 
fixing stuff if it annoys me or I have too much of free time.

About the new scripts in general: Do we consider them already good enough and 
stable enough to recommend (non power-)users to transition?

Regards
Matthias

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Markos Chandras]

On Saturday 10 October 2009 23:30:05 Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> On Samstag, 10. Oktober 2009, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Alin Năstac  wrote:
> > > On 10/9/09 7:57 PM, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> > >> * does new scripts already can do all that was possible with net.* ?
> > >
> > > No. PPP is not compatible with the new scripts.
> >
> > Major regression. It never pays to drop surprises on people like this.
> > I *strongly* suggest masking openrc-0.5.1 until the documentation is
> > updated and a news file is sent.
> 
> Why do you suggest masking it immediately?
> Emerging it without changing any use-flags, has oldnet enabled by default,
>  so user gets exactly the same net init-scripts as with openrc-0.4 before,
>  so where is the regression that needs to be masked?
> One can still use the same stuff and nobody is forced to transition to the
>  new network script.
> 
> Regards
> Matthias
> 
I agree with Nirbheek. You should always provide an updated documentation ( 
and a news item if necessary ) when you release a new major update of such 
core packages. I would like to see new openrc masked until the documentation 
is ready with full details about the transition to the new network init 
script.
If you don't provide such documentation in time, you will fail to make users 
switch to new init script in the near future, since everybody will forget 
about this and will use the 'oldnet' use flag anyway.
The sooner you will explain them how to migrate, the better 
results/feedback/updated systems you will get

just my 2cc :)
-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer [KDE/Qt/Sound/Sunrise]
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Matthias Schwarzott]

On Samstag, 10. Oktober 2009, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Alin Năstac  wrote:
> > On 10/9/09 7:57 PM, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> >> * does new scripts already can do all that was possible with net.* ?
> >
> > No. PPP is not compatible with the new scripts.
>
> Major regression. It never pays to drop surprises on people like this.
> I *strongly* suggest masking openrc-0.5.1 until the documentation is
> updated and a news file is sent.

Why do you suggest masking it immediately?
Emerging it without changing any use-flags, has oldnet enabled by default, so 
user gets exactly the same net init-scripts as with openrc-0.4 before, so 
where is the regression that needs to be masked?
One can still use the same stuff and nobody is forced to transition to the new 
network script.

Regards
Matthias

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Tomáš Chvátal]

News item?
Will be/Wont be/In progress??

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[William Hubbs]

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 11:53:37AM +0200, Branko Badrljica wrote:
> Joshua Saddler wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 19:57:07 +0200
> > Matthias Schwarzott  wrote:
> >
> >   
> >> Hi there!
> >>
> >> As some of you have waited long for this to happen, sys-apps/openrc-0.5.1 
> >> is 
> >> there. It has a default enabled (eapi-1) useflag oldnet to install the 
> >> old-style network scripts called net.*.
> >> Regardless of this use-flag, the new init-script /etc/init.d/network is
> >> always installed.
> >>
> >> For transition to new-style network script there is something todo I think.
> >> Unordered list of todos:
> >> * hotplug? at least udev does explicitly call in net.* scripts
> >> * New systems should get old or new scripts?
> >> * does new scripts already can do all that was possible with net.* ?
> >>
> >> So far I hope the update does not break any system.
> >> In case this happens nevertheless open a bug as usual.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Matthias
> >>
> >> 
> >
> > As long as this new version is ~arch (and not hardmasked), you also need to 
> > send some documentation updates for 
> > http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/openrc-migration.xml; patches to 
> > bugs.gentoo.org, Documentation product. This way we in the GDP can take 
> > care of keeping the guide up-to-date. Thanks.
> >   
> I've just updated the system and it installed openrc-0.5.1. After reboot 
> I have noticed that none of my network interfaces were configured ( 
> lo,eth0). If it wasn't for this mail, it'd take a headache or two to 
> figure out that init. script is new.
> 
> But I still don't have a clue how to use it. I have started it, but it 
> dd not seem to do anything. I thought that it would probably take 
> settings from /etc/conf.d/net, but that doesn't seem to be the case, 
> ande there is no other config in sight.
> 
> Also, neither on gentoo.org or on roy.maples.name seem to be anything 
> resembling documentation...
 
I reemerged it and rebooted here fine.  I have one network card with a
static ip (I'm behind a router), and once I emerged openrc-0.5.1, ran
through etc-update and made sure all of the new scripts were in place,
I rebooted and my old network configuration was fine.

-- 
William Hubbs
gentoo accessibility team lead
willi...@gentoo.org


pgpkC1jH9h85w.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Alin Năstac  wrote:
> On 10/9/09 7:57 PM, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
>> * does new scripts already can do all that was possible with net.* ?
>>
> No. PPP is not compatible with the new scripts.
>

Major regression. It never pays to drop surprises on people like this.
I *strongly* suggest masking openrc-0.5.1 until the documentation is
updated and a news file is sent.


-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

GNOME+Mozilla Team, Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Alin Năstac]

On 10/9/09 7:57 PM, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> * does new scripts already can do all that was possible with net.* ?
>   
No. PPP is not compatible with the new scripts.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Branko Badrljica]

Joshua Saddler wrote:

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 19:57:07 +0200
Matthias Schwarzott  wrote:

  

Hi there!

As some of you have waited long for this to happen, sys-apps/openrc-0.5.1 is 
there. It has a default enabled (eapi-1) useflag oldnet to install the 
old-style network scripts called net.*.

Regardless of this use-flag, the new init-script /etc/init.d/network is
always installed.

For transition to new-style network script there is something todo I think.
Unordered list of todos:
* hotplug? at least udev does explicitly call in net.* scripts
* New systems should get old or new scripts?
* does new scripts already can do all that was possible with net.* ?

So far I hope the update does not break any system.
In case this happens nevertheless open a bug as usual.

Regards
Matthias




As long as this new version is ~arch (and not hardmasked), you also need to 
send some documentation updates for 
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/openrc-migration.xml; patches to bugs.gentoo.org, 
Documentation product. This way we in the GDP can take care of keeping the 
guide up-to-date. Thanks.
  
I've just updated the system and it installed openrc-0.5.1. After reboot 
I have noticed that none of my network interfaces were configured ( 
lo,eth0). If it wasn't for this mail, it'd take a headache or two to 
figure out that init. script is new.


But I still don't have a clue how to use it. I have started it, but it 
dd not seem to do anything. I thought that it would probably take 
settings from /etc/conf.d/net, but that doesn't seem to be the case, 
ande there is no other config in sight.


Also, neither on gentoo.org or on roy.maples.name seem to be anything 
resembling documentation...




Branko

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Joshua Saddler]

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 19:57:07 +0200
Matthias Schwarzott  wrote:

> Hi there!
> 
> As some of you have waited long for this to happen, sys-apps/openrc-0.5.1 is 
> there. It has a default enabled (eapi-1) useflag oldnet to install the 
> old-style network scripts called net.*.
> Regardless of this use-flag, the new init-script /etc/init.d/network is
> always installed.
> 
> For transition to new-style network script there is something todo I think.
> Unordered list of todos:
> * hotplug? at least udev does explicitly call in net.* scripts
> * New systems should get old or new scripts?
> * does new scripts already can do all that was possible with net.* ?
> 
> So far I hope the update does not break any system.
> In case this happens nevertheless open a bug as usual.
> 
> Regards
> Matthias
> 

As long as this new version is ~arch (and not hardmasked), you also need to 
send some documentation updates for 
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/openrc-migration.xml; patches to bugs.gentoo.org, 
Documentation product. This way we in the GDP can take care of keeping the 
guide up-to-date. Thanks.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc-0.5.1 arrived in the tree

[Alexey Shvetsov]

On Пятница 09 октября 2009 21:57:07 Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> Hi there!
> 
> As some of you have waited long for this to happen, sys-apps/openrc-0.5.1
>  is there. It has a default enabled (eapi-1) useflag oldnet to install the
>  old-style network scripts called net.*.
> Regardless of this use-flag, the new init-script /etc/init.d/network is
>  always installed.
> 
> For transition to new-style network script there is something todo I think.
> Unordered list of todos:
> * hotplug? at least udev does explicitly call in net.* scripts
> * New systems should get old or new scripts?
> * does new scripts already can do all that was possible with net.* ?
> 
> So far I hope the update does not break any system.
> In case this happens nevertheless open a bug as usual.
> 
> Regards
> Matthias
> 
I think we should have unicode=yes in rc.conf by default if we have +unicode 
in USE

-- 

Alexey 'Alexxy' Shvetsov
Gentoo/KDE
Gentoo/MIPS
Gentoo Team Ru


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