[gentoo-dev] making %95 of users happy

[gentoo-dev] making %95 of users happy

[Gaarde]

I've notice a pattern emerging here.  OK... the pattern has existed for a
long time, but with the advent of systems ala portage that allow lusers to
keep their systems up to date with bleeding edge software... and said lusers
lack of knowledge of what they are getting into... said pattern is becoming
visable to people who don't know better.

These same people, in turn, bitch to those who do... wasting our time
reporting 'bugs' that we are already aware of.  While most of the time, said
'bugs' are out of our hands.

Examples:
Zope still using python 2.1 instead of 2.2...
xcdroast using an older version of mkisofs... 
qt, kde-libs, gnome-libs, etc all using older versions of libpng...

To me this is an issue with dependency calculations.  Gentoo will blindly
update a package regardless of what other packages depend on it.  This
solution works great for those who want to keep thier systems bleeding edge. 
However, some users are willing to make a sacrifice and go for less-bleeding
edge.  For those users, before mentioned pattern causes HUGH problems.

The fix?  In a word, sacrifice.  Give the user a choice.  Let the user decide
if they want to shoot themselves in the head by going with BLEEDING edge
(developers), or if they want to shoot themselves in the foot by using a more
cautious dependency calculation algorhythm. (lusers)

example:  Upgrading to mkisofs 1.15a21 will break xcdroast

xcdroast needs mkisofs 1.15a20
cdrecord needs mkisofs 1.15a21 (it doesn't but this is an example)

Tell the user of the conflict, and ask them which path they want to choose.

The results:  A choice in how anal the dependancy calculations are.

The goal is to ALWAYS keep the system as bleeding-edge as possible, upon user
choice, back off on certain packages to fullfill said dependancies.

At the very least, let the user know where the dependancy issues are!

=====
---
"To thine own self be true." - Shakespeare

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

RE: [gentoo-dev] making %95 of users happy

[Todd Wright]

Gaarde wrote:

> Examples:
> Zope still using python 2.1 instead of 2.2...
> xcdroast using an older version of mkisofs... 
> qt, kde-libs, gnome-libs, etc all using older versions of libpng...
> 
> To me this is an issue with dependency calculations.  Gentoo will blindly
> update a package regardless of what other packages depend on it.  This
> solution works great for those who want to keep thier systems 
> bleeding edge. 
> However, some users are willing to make a sacrifice and go for 
> less-bleeding
> edge.  For those users, before mentioned pattern causes HUGH problems.
> 
> The fix?  In a word, sacrifice.  Give the user a choice.  Let the 
> user decide

<snip>

> example:  Upgrading to mkisofs 1.15a21 will break xcdroast
> 
> xcdroast needs mkisofs 1.15a20
> cdrecord needs mkisofs 1.15a21 (it doesn't but this is an example)


This is exactly what I am concerned about, and why I posted about "Tagging releases" - and presumably what started the "Gentoo Branches" thread. The example may not be good, but the idea holds.

Regardless of if you like branches or not, there needs to be a way to lock a collective group of packages at a particular level where they all co-exist nicely. This is normally known as a "stable" release.   The best and worst thing about Gentoo is that it is constantly changing - new ebuilds appearing all the time.  I emerge rsync to update my portage tree in the hope of finding a fix to a broken ebuild that I want, and suddenly Im faced with new versions of things I already nailed down.

Using the =category/package parameters isnt good enough. Often 2 versions of a library wont co-exist (out of the box) - one may overwrite another, but a new ebuild for package x might require the new library, while another package requires the old.

Someone in the development team needs to seriously think about this problem.

And to the person (Andrew I think) who quoted the following from the gentoo site as a reason for not having release branches...

"*Portage allows you to set up Gentoo Linux the way you like it*..."

It doesnt. Just when I get it how I like it, it changes.

-- _--_|\ --------- Todd Wright -- wylie@geekasylum.org --------
  /      \                  
  \_.--._* <---    http://www.dreams.darker.net/~wylie/
        v       Mobile: +61-403-796-001    Ph: +61-2-9521-8677
----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [gentoo-dev] making %95 of users happy

[Stefan Boresch]

Please look to the end of this mail why I am cross-posting to
gentoo-security.

On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 04:29:52AM +1000, Todd Wright wrote:
> 
> And to the person (Andrew I think) who quoted the following from the gentoo site as a reason for not having release branches...
> 
> "*Portage allows you to set up Gentoo Linux the way you like it*..."
> 
> It doesnt. Just when I get it how I like it, it changes.

Great line -- I was going to write a lengthy reply to Andrew's mail,
but you put it in one line exactly. (And nailing with =< in
/var/cache/edb/world, while a great step in the right direction, isn't
sufficient; I totally agree!)

Here is my suggestion/wish:

Could one not create an --update security target to emerge.  This would
always do --update system, plus check for any updates of installed
packages (probably without consulting the edb/world file, or rather
counterchecking against it (*)) that are "earmarked" security relevant.
If such a beast existed, I could put a cron job calling 
emerge --update security -buildpkg
on my test machine, check every morning and distribute the binaries
to my network of 20+ workstations after quick tests that nothing serious
has been broken.

This target would give me the best of both worlds: Live on the
bleeding edge for my personal machine(s) [ which double as test
machines] and have something similar to a frozen major distribution
for the network where my boss, my students and collaborators try
to get their work done.

Oh, and I am happy to try contribute to following security alerts
and things like that.   Unfortunately, I haven't the least clue about
python, so I don't feel comfortable about writing --update security
myself.

Stefan

(*) If a user has nailed a package which has a potential
vulnerability, then the --update security target should yell
at him, but leave the responsibility with the administrator. That
would strike me as good Gentoo philosophy, doesn't it?

-- 
Stefan Boresch
Institute for Theoretical Chemistry and Structural Molecular Biology
University of Vienna, Waehringerstr. 17       A-1090 Vienna, Austria
Phone: -43-1-427752715                        Fax:   -43-1-427752790

Re: [gentoo-dev] making %95 of users happy

[Fuper]

> > And to the person (Andrew I think) who quoted the following from the gentoo site as a reason for not having release branches...
> > 
> > "*Portage allows you to set up Gentoo Linux the way you like it*..."
> > 
> > It doesnt. Just when I get it how I like it, it changes.

"IT changes"??  I'm at a loss here.  You mean that YOU keep telling it
to change?  <wink>  I think that you missed Daniel Robbins point:
>>>
I'd recommend that people who don't want to have the latest and greatest
versions of everything (and everything that goes with it), don't use
--update with emerge. <<<

When you get it how you like it -- stop.  Don't "emerge --update"; don't
"emerge" new stuff.  You've got what you want -- why change it?  ;-)

Well, at least make a backup at your "I like it" point.

RE: [gentoo-dev] making %95 of users happy

[Todd Wright]

> > > And to the person (Andrew I think) who quoted the following 
> from the gentoo site as a reason for not having release branches...
> > > 
> > > "*Portage allows you to set up Gentoo Linux the way you like it*..."
> > > 
> > > It doesnt. Just when I get it how I like it, it changes.
> 
> "IT changes"??  I'm at a loss here.  You mean that YOU keep telling it
> to change?  <wink>  I think that you missed Daniel Robbins point:

No, I think you and the other person who suggested "dont emerge --update world" missed mine.

The problem is not emerge, or in using "--update" or "world", rather it is in the fact that the portage tree keeps being updated constantly, and there is no mechanism to lock things down, that allows for this.

For example. I do an emerge rsync and then emerge package-a, but package-a is broken, so later I emerge rsync again, hoping a new package-a-r1 is available, it is, and it works, but requires lib-x at version 1.0, which I have so it compiles all nice and everyone s happy

So, package-a is done.

Now I need to fix package-b which is also broken, the latest rsync I just did for package-a also got me a new package-b-r5.ebuild

package-b requires lib-x at version 1.35, but I have 1.0 so it has lib-x-1.35 as a dependancy. The lib downloads and installs, but it overwrites lib-x-1.0. Now package-a is broken again and wont compile, so I wait. a new rsync gets me package-a-r2 which compiles with lib-x-1.35, and all is happy.

A week from now, I emerge rsync to see if there are any new package-c updates and a new ebuild for lib-x-1.80 arrives but I dont install it since the other packages wont compile with it. Thats fine, but if I ever decide to rebuild my system from scratch (I might change motherboards and require new optimisation) with emerge --emptytree world, (which doesnt work btw - see bug 1911) portage goes and compiles lib-x-1.80 and Im back to square one.

The problem is not in compiling the world and being bleeding edge, it is in the fact that the portage tree is a constantly moving target. Every time you rsync to get a new version of one package you get the new version of _ALL_ packages.

What I have been saying all along is there needs to be a way to lock the system at a particular level - whether it is locked by the developers or by me, to say "this set of packages work reasonably well togehter".  This doesnt have to be guaranteed, but you should be able to say "I have a reasonably stable system, lets keep it at this level", but still emerge rsync to get ebuilds for vital security fixes etc which apply to the packages that you have installed already, but nothing else.

Personally, being familiar with Linux, I can live with portage the way it is, but as a technologist I can see what others are saying, and agree with them. Im just trying to explain it the best I can.

Perhaps this will work itself out all by itself.   When Gentoo 1.2 is released and the make.profile is changed to point at the default-1.2 profile, the bleeding edgers can use that while the more conservative keep their link to 1.0  Thinking about it, this is probably the ultimate solution, its just not apparent right now since Gentoo is so young, and the only available option is to use the 1.0 profile. When there is a choice, the current version profile will be bleeding edge, while the previous version will only be updated with major fixes, and will become the "stable" release.

There. Ive just convinced myself. This is a temporary problem that solves itself as Gentoo matures.

-- _--_|\ --------- Todd Wright -- wylie@geekasylum.org --------
  /      \                  
  \_.--._* <---    http://www.dreams.darker.net/~wylie/
        v       Mobile: +61-403-796-001    Ph: +61-2-9521-8677
----------------------------------------------------------------

RE: [gentoo-dev] making %95 of users happy

[Sherman Boyd]

Gentoo is a meta-distribution, or at least it could be if we keep
heading in that direction.  I think creating a stable Linux workstation
with a set of predefined applications that play well together falls
under the realm of a sub-distro.  

I guess I'm with the 5% of users that is already happy with Gentoo. 
I've been using Gentoo Linux on production servers since RC6 and I've
never had any problems with 'stability'.  Gentoo doesn't force you to
install anything, and emerge --pretend works great.

Sherman Boyd
Gentoo Doc Czar
meekrob_AT_gentoo.org

RE: [gentoo-dev] making %95 of users happy

[Fuper]

On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 07:04, Todd Wright wrote:
> > > > And to the person (Andrew I think) who quoted the following 
> > from the gentoo site as a reason for not having release branches...
> > > > 
> > > > "*Portage allows you to set up Gentoo Linux the way you like it*..."
> > > > 
> > > > It doesnt. Just when I get it how I like it, it changes.
> > 
> > "IT changes"??  I'm at a loss here.  You mean that YOU keep telling it
> > to change?  <wink>  I think that you missed Daniel Robbins point:
> 
> Perhaps this will work itself out all by itself.
> When Gentoo 1.2 is released and the make.profile is changed to point at the default-1.2 profile
> the bleeding edgers can use that while the more conservative keep their link to 1.0  
> Thinking about it, this is probably the ultimate solution, 
> its just not apparent right now since Gentoo is so young, and the only
> available option is to use the 1.0 profile. When there is a choice,
> the current version profile will be bleeding edge, while the previous
> version will only be updated with major fixes, and will become the 
> "stable" release.
> 
> There. I've just convinced myself. This is a temporary problem that solves itself as Gentoo matures.

You've convinced me too.

I think that some of the concerns and proposals reflect a belief that
Gentoo keeps changing and therefore can not survive.  That has been
Microsoft's argument against Linux itself.  My argument is that by
extending our control loop back further in the process, all the way back
to the source codes, we have created an inherently stable system (there
will be perturbations but we will always recover).  The alternative
being proposed is like the formalizations of the Debian release
procedure, and notice that Debian is having a hard time getting a stable
release of Woody (and that Woody still uses the 2.2 kernel by default).

Re: [gentoo-dev] making %95 of users happy

[Terje Kvernes]

"Todd Wright" <wylie@geekasylum.org> writes:

  [ ... ]

> "*Portage allows you to set up Gentoo Linux the way you like it*..."
> 
> It doesnt. Just when I get it how I like it, it changes.

  cheap shot, nobody forces you to do an --update world.  still, some
  extra measures are needed, and I for one will try to see how it can
  be done.  :)

-- 
Terje

Re: [gentoo-dev] making %95 of users happy

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Thursday 18 April 2002 21:35, Terje Kvernes wrote:
> "Todd Wright" <wylie@geekasylum.org> writes:
>
>   [ ... ]
>
> > "*Portage allows you to set up Gentoo Linux the way you like it*..."
> >
> > It doesnt. Just when I get it how I like it, it changes.
>
>   cheap shot, nobody forces you to do an --update world.  still, some
>   extra measures are needed, and I for one will try to see how it can
>   be done.  :)

Why not create a new profile, call it gentoo-stable-1.0 or whatever, and fix 
the packages that are part of it. At the moment a security update is needed 
(or a critical bug gets fixed), the packages involved can be bumped in the 
profile. It is possible with the current architecture, it only needs some 
extra files in cvs, and an explanation on the website.

Paul

ps.
In case you have a network of gentoo machines, you can also make your own 
personalised profile (and mount /usr/portage/profiles in over nfs or similar)

pps.
If you run a webserver locally and have a lot of gentoo machines, it is very 
useful to serve the /usr/portage/distfiles dir on the webserver, and to name 
this dir as first mirror in your make.conf. This way emerge will first try to 
download something locally, when that failes it will try the normal mirrors.

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Junior Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

Re: [gentoo-dev] making %95 of users happy

[Terje Kvernes]

Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@cs.kun.nl> writes:

  [ ... ]

> Why not create a new profile, call it gentoo-stable-1.0 or whatever,
> and fix the packages that are part of it. At the moment a security
> update is needed (or a critical bug gets fixed), the packages
> involved can be bumped in the profile. It is possible with the
> current architecture, it only needs some extra files in cvs, and an
> explanation on the website.

  the only problem I see with using a profile is that it'll "lock" you
  down more than you'd like.  it would be nice to say "give me a
  stable core, but a bleeding edge movieplayer and games".
 
  [ ... ]

> If you run a webserver locally and have a lot of gentoo machines, it
> is very useful to serve the /usr/portage/distfiles dir on the
> webserver, and to name this dir as first mirror in your
> make.conf. This way emerge will first try to download something
> locally, when that failes it will try the normal mirrors.

  nah, I just run my own mirror of Gentoo.  so much easier and a lot
  less fuzz.  :)

-- 
Terje

Re: [gentoo-dev] making %95 of users happy

[Einar Karttunen]

On 19.04 11:44, Terje Kvernes wrote:
>   the only problem I see with using a profile is that it'll "lock" you
>   down more than you'd like.  it would be nice to say "give me a
>   stable core, but a bleeding edge movieplayer and games".
>  

Which is where branches like in debian help you. There are some problems
however. A big one is dependencies e.g. packages A and B use package C,
and need a specific version. A and B of stable use C version 1.2 and
the ones in devel 2.0. Now you want to use the devel version of A on
your stable system and have to use the devel versions of A, B and C.
Replace C with e.g. gtk and you see the problem.

- Einar Karttunen

Re: [gentoo-dev] making %95 of users happy

[Mike Payson]

On Friday 19 April 2002 03:19 am, Einar Karttunen wrote:
> On 19.04 11:44, Terje Kvernes wrote:
> >   the only problem I see with using a profile is that it'll "lock" you
> >   down more than you'd like.  it would be nice to say "give me a
> >   stable core, but a bleeding edge movieplayer and games".
>
> Which is where branches like in debian help you. There are some problems
> however. A big one is dependencies e.g. packages A and B use package C,
> and need a specific version. A and B of stable use C version 1.2 and
> the ones in devel 2.0. Now you want to use the devel version of A on
> your stable system and have to use the devel versions of A, B and C.
> Replace C with e.g. gtk and you see the problem.

Here's my suggestion posted previouly to the Gentoo-user list. I think this 
solution prevents the problems associated with branches, while not locking 
anyone into a system that they're not happy with.

I propose the addition of stability levels to gentoo. This would allow users 
to run a bit behind the state-of-the-art, while still taking advantage of the 
features Portage provides.

The levels I propose would be something like:
Stable: Conservative, for people who require extreme stability.
Standard: The base level. A few weeks behind what we have today.
Current: Gentoo as we know it today. For people who are a bit more 
     adventurous, but aren't willing to accept betas.
Devel: beta packages are installed by default. Only for the most adventurous.

In addition, all packages at a fixed version level (ie 1.0) would be flagged 
as such, allowing a user to recreate that version number months down the 
road.

This doesn't lock people in to a given stability level, it only changes the 
default behavior of the installer & emerge. The stability level could always 
be overridden, just by specifying a newer (or older) version of a particular 
package.

These features should be easy to implement on top of the current package mask 
system (though I should state: I am not a programmer, and am not very 
familiar with the internal workings of Portage). 

This should not be viewed as creating 'branches'. Instead, it creates 
'reference points'. All development takes place at the devel level. From 
there, the only maintenance required would be gradually changing the masks to 
move packages in to the progressively more stable environments. This will 
require some extra work on behalf of the package maintainers, but it 
shouldn't require more then maybe 30 minutes of work a month on actively 
developed packages (even less on the vast majority of packages).

A more flexible package management system simplifies things greatly. Many 
users don't want a bleeding edge system. How often are significant bugs 
discovered only after a upgrade has been available for weeks? And in the 
three months or so I've been using Gentoo, I've already seen at least a 
couple of times when packages were accidentally unmasked prematurely.

Having stability levels allow the adventurous to run a bleeding edge system, 
the middle 80% can run a system that is maybe a few weeks behind the bleeding 
edge. And those people who need a bit more stability can run stable. 

Gentoo's ease of management makes it ideal in many ways for an office 
environment and servers, but when you have users relying on the computers 
working every morning when they get there, bleeding edge doesn't cut it. 
Having a stable flag makes this sort of system manageable. 

RE: [gentoo-dev] making %95 of users happy

[Gaarde]

> Perhaps this will work itself out all by itself.   When Gentoo 1.2 is
> released and the make.profile is changed to point at the default-1.2
> profile, the bleeding edgers can use that while the more conservative
> keep their link to 1.0  Thinking about it, this is probably the ultimate
> solution, its just not apparent right now since Gentoo is so young, and
> the only available option is to use the 1.0 profile. When there is a
> choice, the current version profile will be bleeding edge, while the
> previous version will only be updated with major fixes, and will become
> the "stable" release.

DISCLAIMER:  I'm intentionally being rude... it helps convey my message.
*smile*  I now return you to your regularly scheduled rant.

First and foremost, I agree with the person who stated the above %100.

Second, And I quote from the paragraph above, "its just not apparent right
now since Gentoo is so young, and the only available option is to use the 1.0
profile."

Being so young, the documentation, the sence of community, the code (albeit
in this case a 1.0 is quite nice.  Kudos guys!), everything about the Gentoo
product is NOT AS MATURE AS MORE WIDELY DISTRIBUTED DISTRIBUTIONS!  What does
7.2 mean to you?  Or 8.1?  What does 1.1 mean to you?

I guess some people just jumped head first into Gentoo without knowing what
they were getting into.  (The middle of a development cycle... that just
never ends.)

Now, Consider the previous statement a direct *POKE* at the people I refer to
as lusers.  Did they read the documentation?  Did the read the part about
profiles?  Did they bother to learn about profiles so they can start fixing
problems themselves and submit errors to http://bugs.gentoo.org ??  Do they
realize these collections of code known as packages are being written by
people NOT DEVELOPING GENTOO (some exceptions may apply)?  Do they realize
the ebuild scripts, emerge, ebuild, the installer, initscripts, etc are what
Gentoo really is?

Admittedly profiles aren't as 'slick' as they could be... but some people
just need a reality check. [end of luser rant]

When you thinking about the 'Subject: ' field of this thread... How many
users are capable of being an effective Gentoo user?  Who is the Gentoo
distributions target audience?  Now if you consider the number of people in
that target audience vs the number of people who jumped head first into
Gentoo without knowing what they were getting into...  %95 seems to me to be
about the right ratio.  Admittedly I'm just guessing.

If you want to make those users falling into the middle of a never-ending
development cycle due to ignorance, the depenancy issue (aka DLL Hell) must
be able to be presented to lusers in a manner that lusers can deal with. 
Preaching patience to those users will not get them to shut up. [end of
developer rant]

With all that being said... let the flames begin!

=====
---
"To thine own self be true." - Shakespeare

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Re: [gentoo-dev] making %95 of users happy

[John White]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 10:57:58AM -0700, Gaarde wrote:
> 
> DISCLAIMER:  I'm intentionally being rude... it helps convey my message.

Ah, how kind.
 
> Being so young, the documentation, the sence of community, the code (albeit
> in this case a 1.0 is quite nice.  Kudos guys!), everything about the Gentoo
> product is NOT AS MATURE AS MORE WIDELY DISTRIBUTED DISTRIBUTIONS!  What does
> 7.2 mean to you?  Or 8.1?  What does 1.1 mean to you?

Well, with people being intentionally rude, it seems like a nicely
developed and mature sense of community...
 
> I guess some people just jumped head first into Gentoo without knowing what
> they were getting into.  (The middle of a development cycle... that just
> never ends.)

Well, some people wait for a non < 1.0 release.  I know I did.

> Now, Consider the previous statement a direct *POKE* at the people I refer to
> as lusers.  Did they read the documentation?  

What?!?!?!  You just stated that the documentation isn't comparably
mature.  Actually, you stated that it wasn't comparably mature, and
that it's quite nice.  Or maybe it's just the code that's quite nice.
Perhaps you could clarify.  Or, being intentionally rude, perhaps you
won't.

> Did the read the part about profiles?  

In the comparably less mature documentation?  Are you talking about
the Portage Manual section 1, under Defaults, which talks about profiles
only in the context of default and auto USE variables (and not to change
make.defaults under make.profile/)?

Perhaps there's another profile documentation section which describes
how profiles should be used by the user to submit bug reports for
the current profile?  Not the Portage User Guid.  The word profile
doesn't exist there.

I think these kind of rants would be more effective with pointers
to the exact sections of documentation being referenced.  Because
as I enter my 7th day of reading gentoo docs, I'm not seeing them.

-- 
John White

Re: [gentoo-dev] making %95 of users happy

[Gaarde]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 10:57:58AM -0700, Gaarde wrote:
> > DISCLAIMER:  I'm intentionally being rude... it helps convey my message.

Ah, how kind.
 
> Being so young, the documentation, the sence of community, the code (albeit
> in this case a 1.0 is quite nice.  Kudos guys!), everything about the 
Gentoo
> product is NOT AS MATURE AS MORE WIDELY DISTRIBUTED DISTRIBUTIONS!  What 
does
> 7.2 mean to you?  Or 8.1?  What does 1.1 mean to you?

Well, with people being intentionally rude, it seems like a nicely
developed and mature sense of community...
 
> I guess some people just jumped head first into Gentoo without knowing what
> they were getting into.  (The middle of a development cycle... that just
> never ends.)

Well, some people wait for a non < 1.0 release.  I know I did.

> Now, Consider the previous statement a direct *POKE* at the people I refer 
to
> as lusers.  Did they read the documentation?  

What?!?!?!  You just stated that the documentation isn't comparably
mature.  Actually, you stated that it wasn't comparably mature, and
that it's quite nice.  Or maybe it's just the code that's quite nice.
Perhaps you could clarify.  Or, being intentionally rude, perhaps you
won't.

> Did the read the part about profiles?  

In the comparably less mature documentation?  Are you talking about
the Portage Manual section 1, under Defaults, which talks about profiles
only in the context of default and auto USE variables (and not to change
make.defaults under make.profile/)?

Perhaps there's another profile documentation section which describes
how profiles should be used by the user to submit bug reports for
the current profile?  Not the Portage User Guid.  The word profile
doesn't exist there.

I think these kind of rants would be more effective with pointers
to the exact sections of documentation being referenced.  Because
as I enter my 7th day of reading gentoo docs, I'm not seeing them.

-- 
John White

Mr. White,

My point to lusers was simple.  Gentoo is young.  Thus, the documentation is
not as mature as %95 of the newer gentoo users are used to (as compared to
more mature distributions).

My point to developers was also simple.  Preaching patience does not help
users effectively use Gentoo.  Documention that does not confuse lusers,
rather educates them, is absolutely necessary at this juncture.  This will
get a lot of the lusers off the developers backs so they can do what they do
best... write code... not documentation.

I believe I made mention about the maturity of the profiles documentation,
but whereas that was not the point of my rant, maybe I did not stress it
enough.  If I did not, then I apologise for the confusion I caused you.

Here's an idea!  Help the developers help you!  Learn as much as you can with
what they give you... ask educated questions, get answers, and take notes. 
Give your notes to the developers so they know where the weeknesses in Gentoo
and the documentation there of, resides.

Will that help?  Let the flames continue.

=====
---
"To thine own self be true." - Shakespeare

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/