Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition - round 2

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi wrote: > Ronald van Haren wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Pierre Schmitz > > wrote: >> >>     On Thursday 23 July 2009 14:21:43 Allan McRae wrote: >>     > Allan McRae wrote: >>     > > A couple of

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition - round 2

Ronald van Haren wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Pierre Schmitz > wrote: > > On Thursday 23 July 2009 14:21:43 Allan McRae wrote: > > Allan McRae wrote: > > > A couple of fixes have been applied to these packages since > the last > > >

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty*?transition

Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi wrote: > __ > / \ ___ > | | / \ > @ @ | It looks like you are | > || ||| trying to update your | > || || <--| system, are you sure? | > |\_/|\___/ > \___/ The ASCII-art is by far the best

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

Allan McRae wrote: And given the number of complaints I got about libjpeg7 (wheres the thanks now gtk and kde are working?) Thank you! :-) DR

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition - round 2

Allan McRae wrote: A couple of fixes have been applied to these packages since the last signoff message. The list of packages looking for signoffs now are: filesystem 2009.07-1 initscripts 2009.07-3 syslog-ng 3.0.3-2 udev 141-5 Cheers, Allan Would it be possible to have a news item, after th

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote: > On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:23, Randy Morris wrote: >> I think of out all the options here, copying the current inittab to >> .pacsave and installing a new, working inittab makes the most sense. >> Then a user would at least have a chance to bo

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

On Sun 19 Jul 2009 13:43 -0400, Daenyth Blank wrote: > On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:23, Randy Morris wrote: > > I think of out all the options here, copying the current inittab to > > .pacsave and installing a new, working inittab makes the most sense. > > Then a user would at least have a chance to

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:23, Randy Morris wrote: > I think of out all the options here, copying the current inittab to > .pacsave and installing a new, working inittab makes the most sense. > Then a user would at least have a chance to boot and read their logs to > see what happened if they even

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

FWIW, I subscribe to this list and have read every post in this thread, and my system was killed because I didn't fix the file before a reboot out of my own laziness. It took me all of 2 minutes to fix my system. Could it have been prevented? Yes. Do I really give a shit that I had to fix it? No

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 10:13 -0400, Matthew wrote: > Baho Utot wrote: > > On Sat, 2009-07-18 at 22:34 -0400, Loui Chang wrote: > > > >> If you expect the users to be stupid they will be stupid, and you will > >> hold their hand, and they will begin to expect you to hold their hand, > >> and then

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

Baho Utot wrote: On Sat, 2009-07-18 at 22:34 -0400, Loui Chang wrote: If you expect the users to be stupid they will be stupid, and you will hold their hand, and they will begin to expect you to hold their hand, and then we're in trouble. We will snowball right into Archbuntu. So. Do what's

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

On Sat, 2009-07-18 at 23:03 -0400, Matthew wrote: > Allan McRae wrote: > > First off, I don't like modifying config files. But, given I did this > > update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it with a > > reboot... > > > > So it is a question of which I hate more; post install

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

On Sat, 2009-07-18 at 22:34 -0400, Loui Chang wrote: > On Sun 19 Jul 2009 12:01 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > > First off, I don't like modifying config files. But, given I did > > this update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it > > with a reboot... > > > > So it is a question o

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 12:20 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > Daenyth Blank wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 22:01, Allan McRae wrote: > > > >> post_install() > >> { > >> if [ -f "/etc/inittab.pacnew" ]; then > >> echo "You are being very stupid if you did not take notice of that > >> warning >

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 12:01 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > First off, I don't like modifying config files. But, given I did this > update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it with a > reboot... > > So it is a question of which I hate more; post install messages or > automatical

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 13:16, Thomas Bächler wrote: > Aaron Griffin schrieb: >> >> However, I must point out: odds are most people don't touch inittab, so >> the >> upgrade will do things as expected and the sed line will only do work a >> small subset of end users. > > You are wrong here. I would

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

i don't get the point of this discussion! isn't it the devs choice to do it how _he_ thinks it's good and reasonable? if thomas thinks putting a sed line in the .install is the best way, then he should do it! On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 12:57:30PM +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: > Pierre Chapuis schrieb

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

Pierre Chapuis schrieb: That teaching might require breaking the system of those that don't follow simple rules such as read the output of Pacman. How can a user distinguish between important pacman output and the crap that is put everywherre? Moreover, I have modified /etc/inittab, and de

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

Le Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:29:28 -0500, Aaron Griffin a écrit : > And to be clear, I definitely do not like the pandering to users thing... if > people whining about stupid shit gets on your nerves, stop visiting the > forums and IRC. It worked for me! ( google 'eternal september' for kicks :). > Pyt

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

Allan McRae schrieb: First off, I don't like modifying config files. But, given I did this update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it with a reboot... So, the average advanced user won't even notice the problem, even you didn't (and you did get a .pacnew and a warning, di

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

Aaron Griffin schrieb: However, I must point out: odds are most people don't touch inittab, so the upgrade will do things as expected and the sed line will only do work a small subset of end users. You are wrong here. I would guess virtually any user touched it. And to be clear, I definitely

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

Holy hell this is out of control. Here's the two sides, boiled down: * Use an automatic sed to prevent people from complaining * Post a news item and let people do it manually. As we can tell from this thread, people are going to bitch either way - making the 'no bitching' argument a little moot.

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 23:03, Matthew wrote: > Could someone please enlighten me why you and Thomas want to please the > users that complain? I simply do not understand. You said yourself that you > don't like modifying config files, so don't. To hell with the users that > don't like it. There are

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

Allan McRae wrote: First off, I don't like modifying config files. But, given I did this update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it with a reboot... So it is a question of which I hate more; post install messages or automatically fixing the file. A post install message m

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

On Sun 19 Jul 2009 12:01 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > First off, I don't like modifying config files. But, given I did > this update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it > with a reboot... > > So it is a question of which I hate more; post install messages or > automatically fix

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

Daenyth Blank wrote: On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 22:01, Allan McRae wrote: post_install() { if [ -f "/etc/inittab.pacnew" ]; then echo "You are being very stupid if you did not take notice of that warning about a .pacnew file" fi } +1 to this solution from me. I guess you missed m

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 22:01, Allan McRae wrote: > post_install() > { >  if [ -f "/etc/inittab.pacnew" ]; then >   echo "You are being very stupid if you did not take notice of that warning > about a .pacnew file" >  fi > } +1 to this solution from me.

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

First off, I don't like modifying config files. But, given I did this update and still managed to screw my system up when testing it with a reboot... So it is a question of which I hate more; post install messages or automatically fixing the file. A post install message means that I tell a

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 20:09, Loui Chang wrote: > Haha. Yeah I just don't want packages to be messing with my configs > behind my back. Post a message with a sed command, or a .pacnew file, or > something. Don't do it without letting me have that control. > > That's rude. > > Agreed. I'm very muc

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

On Sun 19 Jul 2009 01:39 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: > Matthew schrieb: > >What if the post_upgrade() message gives the users the sed command to run? > > Seems kind of pointless. > > >Who cares about the users? Arch has been a distro that is made the > >way the developers want it, not the users.

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

I have to agree with pyther. You, devs, have been doing all you can to warn the users. There is the arch-announce mailing list, there are messages from pacman when it installs something that might break others, there is the forum, there are announcements on Arch's home page... Damn! there are even

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

Matthew schrieb: What if the post_upgrade() message gives the users the sed command to run? Seems kind of pointless. Who cares about the users? Arch has been a distro that is made the way the developers want it, not the users. The users just reap the benefits of all the developers hard work.

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

Thomas Bächler wrote: Aaron Griffin schrieb: Loui stated it very well. I also agree with Loui. We've always tried to avoid these automatic sed type things. I think a message and a news item should be enough It seems wrong to me to let so many people perform the same step by hand when we cou

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

2009/7/19 Thomas Bächler : > We have to think about what's simpler here: Have a short and safe sed-line > in post_upgrade, or have a shitload of users spend their time booting with > live CDs and editing files /and opening bugs and shouting in the forums and > crying on the mailing lists/ because t

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

Aaron Griffin schrieb: Loui stated it very well. I also agree with Loui. We've always tried to avoid these automatic sed type things. I think a message and a news item should be enough It seems wrong to me to let so many people perform the same step by hand when we could have done it automat

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

Loui Chang wrote: > Hah. It seems that Arch is turning into one of them user friendly > distros where things are automatically configured and all eh Feature request for pacman-4.0: Please add a Clippy like assistant :P __ / \ ___ | | / \ @ @

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Matthew wrote: > Loui Chang wrote: >> >> On Sat 18 Jul 2009 22:11 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: >> >>> >>> Matthew schrieb: >>> Although you are correct, I do not think automatically fixing the problem is a good solution here. First, I am not

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

Loui Chang wrote: On Sat 18 Jul 2009 22:11 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: Matthew schrieb: Although you are correct, I do not think automatically fixing the problem is a good solution here. First, I am not a big fan of the idea of package modifying a core file. Secondly what will happen

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

On Sat 18 Jul 2009 22:11 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: > Matthew schrieb: > >Although you are correct, I do not think automatically fixing the > >problem is a good solution here. > > > >First, I am not a big fan of the idea of package modifying a core > >file. Secondly what will happen when a user r

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

Matthew schrieb: Although you are correct, I do not think automatically fixing the problem is a good solution here. First, I am not a big fan of the idea of package modifying a core file. Secondly what will happen when a user reinstalls the initscripts? If my memory holds me correctly the sed

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

Dan McGee wrote: On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote: Allan McRae schrieb: From experience... not necessarily. I got into X without doing that although I had no tty's. But exactly how do we deal with this? Post a new item before the move? Fix it: apply a co

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi wrote: Allan McRae wrote: Signoffs needed for the following packages: filesystem 2009.07-1 initscripts 2009.07-2 (what I tagged as -1 did not shutdown correctly) syslog-ng 3.0.3-2 udev 141-4 Allan For udev missing the last patch for PKGBUILD [#1] in my last

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vc/* -> tty* transition

Allan McRae wrote: > Signoffs needed for the following packages: > > filesystem 2009.07-1 > initscripts 2009.07-2 (what I tagged as -1 did not shutdown correctly) > syslog-ng 3.0.3-2 > udev 141-4 > > > Allan > > > > For udev missing the last patch for PKGBUILD [#1] in my last-1 comment [#2] And fo