[gentoo-dev] x86 2004.2 Profile

[gentoo-dev] x86 2004.2 Profile

[Benjamin Judas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 683 bytes --]

Hello folks,

Chris was talking to me today about the creation of default-x86-2004.2,
finally a new profile for the upcoming release. It would only include
minor changes but also the - now 80% settled - change from xfree to
xorg.

If you have any ideas/concerns then please voice them now.

Regards
-- 
Benjamin Judas

---------------------------------------------------------------------                                  
Gentoo-developer			http://dev.gentoo.org/~beejay
Release Coordinator x86				http://www.gentoo.org
Giessen, Germany

GPG-Key  	: 0xC31DEDD8
Key-Fingerprint : 4E65 AAFE 785B 61D8 E4D9  1671 E017 87B7 C31D EDD8
Jabber		: beejay@im.gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] x86 2004.2 Profile

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1483 bytes --]

On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 09:34, John Davis wrote:
> Is this that necessary? Why couldn't we merge this stuff into the
> default 2004.0 profile? It would impact more users that way (and even
> more if it was integrated into the 1.4 profile). With stackable profiles
> on their way (the only blocker now is the bootstrap script which is
> being worked on), does it make sense to create yet another profile?

For consitency's sake, yes, it is necessary.  I don't want to build a
machine today using the 2004.0 profile and build a machine tomorrow
using *the same profile* and have one using xfree and one using
xorg-x11.

It also diminishes the number of bugs that will crop up from confused
users.  Personally, I believe that a profile should never be changed
once it is created, as it introduces many of those "undocumented
changes" that our users are starting to get tired of seeing.  We have an
obligation to our users.  A 24K profile being added to the portage tree
will not kill us.  Hopefully, we'll be getting rid of all of the
"legacy" profiles in the future, and this profile will be deleted, but
for now, I think it is absolutely necessary.

I also think that this needs to be discussed on -dev and not -core,
which is why I sent my emails there, as this directly impacts our users
and is something I am sure they're interested in.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer
Gentoo Linux

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] x86 2004.2 Profile

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1243 bytes --]

Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Fri Jul 09 2004, 10:42:59AM EDT]
> For consitency's sake, yes, it is necessary.  I don't want to build a
> machine today using the 2004.0 profile and build a machine tomorrow
> using *the same profile* and have one using xfree and one using
> xorg-x11.

Just to make sure I understand, you're suggesting a new profile that
removes the absolutely pointless xfree line in the packages file
(pointless because it's not a system file and we haven't had any xfree
ebuilds in portage that fail to satisfy the requirement since probably
the 1.2 days) and change the default x11 virtual to point to xorg-x11?

It's not really clear to me that a new profile needs to be created every
time a default virtual changes.  My reasoning is that any user who
already has something installed that satisfies that virtual will see
absolutely no difference with the new profile.  With X, that would be the
vast majority of our users, who then might well be more confused
that using the new profile does _not_ cause them to upgrade to xorg-x11.

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] x86 2004.2 Profile

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2583 bytes --]

On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 11:37, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Fri Jul 09 2004, 10:42:59AM EDT]
> > For consitency's sake, yes, it is necessary.  I don't want to build a
> > machine today using the 2004.0 profile and build a machine tomorrow
> > using *the same profile* and have one using xfree and one using
> > xorg-x11.
> 
> Just to make sure I understand, you're suggesting a new profile that
> removes the absolutely pointless xfree line in the packages file
> (pointless because it's not a system file and we haven't had any xfree
> ebuilds in portage that fail to satisfy the requirement since probably
> the 1.2 days) and change the default x11 virtual to point to xorg-x11?

Yes, the removal of the xfree line from packages would be done.  I would
also change the default virtual for x11, opengl, glu, and xft.

> It's not really clear to me that a new profile needs to be created every
> time a default virtual changes.  My reasoning is that any user who
> already has something installed that satisfies that virtual will see
> absolutely no difference with the new profile.  With X, that would be the
> vast majority of our users, who then might well be more confused
> that using the new profile does _not_ cause them to upgrade to xorg-x11.

I understand that users that switch profiles will see no difference, and
am fine with that.  I'm not worried about people that do that, since we
will in essence not be affecting them at all.  Since the switch from
xfree to xorg-x11 has the potential to be so wide-spread, I think it
should be done with the creation of a new profile.

The idea of changing a virtual mid-release has *always* bothered me and
is a prime example of Gentoo's problems when it comes to enterprise
users.  In an enterprise environment, consistency between releases is
expected.  I should *never* have to wonder which X server got installed
between on each machine between multiple 2004.2 installations.  I should
*know* that 2004.0 and 2004.1 used XFree86 and that 2004.2+ uses X.org's
server.

I have no problem dealing with the users that switch their profiles
themselves and then wonder why they didn't switch X servers rather than
dealing with the inconsistency between installs.

If GCC 3.4 were ready for wide-spread usage, I would recommend changing
it in the packages file, also.  Unfortunately, it is not at that point
yet, so we are not making such a change.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer
Gentoo Linux

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] x86 2004.2 Profile

[John Davis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1290 bytes --]

On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 12:11, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> The idea of changing a virtual mid-release has *always* bothered me and
> is a prime example of Gentoo's problems when it comes to enterprise
> users.  In an enterprise environment, consistency between releases is
> expected.  I should *never* have to wonder which X server got installed
> between on each machine between multiple 2004.2 installations.  I should
> *know* that 2004.0 and 2004.1 used XFree86 and that 2004.2+ uses X.org's
> server.

But at this point in time, Gentoo is *not* an Enterprise system.
Packages have zero consistency between releases (even between weeks).
Creating a whole new profile and then going through the hoops
(documentation and user support) to get them all to switch over to the
new profile far outweighs the benefit .. especially for (basically) one
package!

The problem of consistency is far beyond the xfree/ xorg switch. Why put
all of the effort into one package when we don't have more important
things, like our toolchain, stabilized between releases?

Cheers,
-- 
John Davis
Gentoo Linux Developer
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen>

----
GnuPG Public Key: <http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen/zhen_pub.asc>
Fingerprint: 4F9E 41F6 D072 5C1A 636C  2D46 B92C 4823 E281 41BB

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] x86 2004.2 Profile

[Dylan Carlson]

On Friday 09 July 2004 1:15 pm, John Davis wrote:
> But at this point in time, Gentoo is *not* an Enterprise system.
> Packages have zero consistency between releases (even between weeks).
> Creating a whole new profile and then going through the hoops
> (documentation and user support) to get them all to switch over to the
> new profile far outweighs the benefit .. especially for (basically) one
> package!

1/  Saying that Gentoo isn't an enterprise system isn't doing anything to 
solve the problem.  The fact remains we should be doing new profiles on a 
regular basis, and finding out what we need to get that done.

2/ Package inconsistency is more justification for new profiles.  We have 
had discussions earlier about separate branches in CVS, pinned packages in 
profiles, etc.   Also see GLEP19.   This is not even something that is 
Enterprise-specific, that's good QA.   We shouldn't even have profiles at 
all if we don't use them. 

3/ Users should be able to settle into a profile for while, and only get 
occasional updates associated with security fixes and major bugs.    
Besides, it makes less sense for us to have old profiles that are moving 
targets -- the support overhead is greater juggling multiple profiles that 
are always changing, than freezing the old ones and focusing primarily on 
adding/updating packages in the upcoming release/profile.   They should be 
more or less frozen, so that we know a certain combination of packages 
*works* beyond any reasonable doubt.

We can't be having bikeshed debates in -dev forever.  We've only had a 
general consensus that, yes we need some kind of Enterprise Gentoo... 
overlooking the fact that everyday users also need some kind of 
predictable release process and profiling.

Yes, we'd need more people, and to some extent, more red tape.  This has 
been an on-going discussion since even before I became a dev (2002) -- and 
we're no closer to implementing anything.

xorg is a significant change.  Ideally we'd be rolling up a number of 
significant changes into a new profile, and freezing the old one out.  
We're not there yet, but it's no reason to not try.

>
> The problem of consistency is far beyond the xfree/ xorg switch. Why put
> all of the effort into one package when we don't have more important
> things, like our toolchain, stabilized between releases?

You know, there are a group of people working on toolchain.   If the 
toolchain herd needs help to make things stable, they should get more 
people.   That needs to go to devrel and they need to scale.  That issue 
is independent of QA/Release Management/profiles/etc.

Cheers,
Dylan Carlson [absinthe@gentoo.org]
Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x708E165F

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] x86 2004.2 Profile

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1891 bytes --]

On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 13:15, John Davis wrote:
> But at this point in time, Gentoo is *not* an Enterprise system.
> Packages have zero consistency between releases (even between weeks).
> Creating a whole new profile and then going through the hoops
> (documentation and user support) to get them all to switch over to the
> new profile far outweighs the benefit .. especially for (basically) one
> package!

...and it will never be an enterprise-grade system if we always use the
excuse that it isn't one already to keep us from doing something that
leads in that direction.

I'm not talking about moving, removing, nor deprecating the 2004.0
profile, simply creating a new one for use with GRP and the new release
out of the box.

> The problem of consistency is far beyond the xfree/ xorg switch. Why put
> all of the effort into one package when we don't have more important
> things, like our toolchain, stabilized between releases?

When was the last time someone suggest switching from gcc to icc as our
default compiler mid-release?  That's right... never.

You're comparing apples to oranges.  I'm not talking about the
stabilization/change of a package *version* but rather of the change in
what many consider an essential function from one package to another. 
While it may seem like a small thing to you, when I install from a
2004.1 CD, I know that I'll end up with xfree when I go to install X. 
*THIS SHOULD NOT CHANGE*
We are all well aware that the *version* of xfree (or any other package,
for that matter) may change during the time since release, but the
actual packages themselves should be the same.  The only exception to
this would be in the case of the original package being completely
removed from the tree.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer
Gentoo Linux

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] x86 2004.2 Profile

[Andrew Gaffney]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 13:15, John Davis wrote:
> When was the last time someone suggest switching from gcc to icc as our
> default compiler mid-release?  That's right... never.
> 
> You're comparing apples to oranges.  I'm not talking about the
> stabilization/change of a package *version* but rather of the change in
> what many consider an essential function from one package to another. 
> While it may seem like a small thing to you, when I install from a
> 2004.1 CD, I know that I'll end up with xfree when I go to install X. 
> *THIS SHOULD NOT CHANGE*
> We are all well aware that the *version* of xfree (or any other package,
> for that matter) may change during the time since release, but the
> actual packages themselves should be the same.  The only exception to
> this would be in the case of the original package being completely
> removed from the tree.

I don't understand why the switch from xfree to xorg-x11 is a big deal. They are 
  currently source and binary compatible. Almost everything (if not everything) 
works the same with xorg-x11 as it did with xfree.

-- 
Andrew Gaffney
Network Administrator
Skyline Aeronautics, LLC.
636-357-1548


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] x86 2004.2 Profile

[Sami Samhuri]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1401 bytes --]

* It was Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 03:00:18PM -0500 when Andrew Gaffney said:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> >On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 13:15, John Davis wrote:
> >When was the last time someone suggest switching from gcc to icc as our
> >default compiler mid-release?  That's right... never.
> >
> >You're comparing apples to oranges.  I'm not talking about the
> >stabilization/change of a package *version* but rather of the change in
> >what many consider an essential function from one package to another. 
> >While it may seem like a small thing to you, when I install from a
> >2004.1 CD, I know that I'll end up with xfree when I go to install X. 
> >*THIS SHOULD NOT CHANGE*
> >We are all well aware that the *version* of xfree (or any other package,
> >for that matter) may change during the time since release, but the
> >actual packages themselves should be the same.  The only exception to
> >this would be in the case of the original package being completely
> >removed from the tree.
> 
> I don't understand why the switch from xfree to xorg-x11 is a big deal. 
> They are currently source and binary compatible. Almost everything (if not 
>  everything) works the same with xorg-x11 as it did with xfree.

Yes, thanks to the gentoo devs this is as easy as emerge -C xfree &&
emerge xorg-x11, but I'm sure a lot of work was done to make this
possible.

-- 
Sami Samhuri

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] x86 2004.2 Profile

[Donnie Berkholz]

Sami Samhuri said:
> Yes, thanks to the gentoo devs this is as easy as emerge -C xfree &&
> emerge xorg-x11, but I'm sure a lot of work was done to make this
> possible.

Just a bit. =)

Donnie



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] x86 2004.2 Profile

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1269 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 15:00:18 -0500
Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@skylineaero.com> wrote:

> I don't understand why the switch from xfree to xorg-x11 is a big
> deal. They are currently source and binary compatible. Almost
> everything (if not everything)  works the same with xorg-x11 as it did
> with xfree.



Except that if you do something like this :
emerge sync; emerge -u world
cp -a /etc/X11/XF86Config /etc/ssh /etc/pass* /etc/grou* /etc/shad*
/etc/conf.d /etc/pcmcia /etc/rc.conf  /var/lib/portage/world /backup

reformat, unpack the -same- stage3, and then restore them...

oops. suddenly things don't work because even when they are binary
compatible, they aren't config compatible, and users should be able to
expect that if they install the same applications (face it, the world
file isn't likely to contain the xfree version, most likely it contains
mozilla, Gnome, KDE, xfce or other such thing that brought X in as a
dependency ) They will get them.  We currently break reliability often,
which is a pretty bad thing. :-/

only by actually doing things like this new profile, can we in fact
increase reliability.  



//Spider


-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] x86 2004.2 Profile

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 19:16, Spider wrote:
> begin  quote
> On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 15:00:18 -0500
> Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@skylineaero.com> wrote:
> 
> > I don't understand why the switch from xfree to xorg-x11 is a big
> > deal. They are currently source and binary compatible. Almost
> > everything (if not everything)  works the same with xorg-x11 as it did
> > with xfree.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that if you do something like this :
> emerge sync; emerge -u world
> cp -a /etc/X11/XF86Config /etc/ssh /etc/pass* /etc/grou* /etc/shad*
> /etc/conf.d /etc/pcmcia /etc/rc.conf  /var/lib/portage/world /backup
> 
> reformat, unpack the -same- stage3, and then restore them...
> 
> oops. suddenly things don't work because even when they are binary
> compatible, they aren't config compatible, and users should be able to
> expect that if they install the same applications (face it, the world
> file isn't likely to contain the xfree version, most likely it contains
> mozilla, Gnome, KDE, xfce or other such thing that brought X in as a
> dependency ) They will get them.  We currently break reliability often,
> which is a pretty bad thing. :-/
> 
> only by actually doing things like this new profile, can we in fact
> increase reliability.  

So what is the consensus?  I am either going to make the new profile or
make xorg-x11 the default in the current profile as soon as spyderous
marks it stable, so we can start building the stages for 2004.2.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer
Gentoo Linux

Is your power animal a pengiun?


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] x86 2004.2 Profile

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 509 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 14:23:15 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> So what is the consensus?  I am either going to make the new profile
> or make xorg-x11 the default in the current profile as soon as
> spyderous marks it stable, so we can start building the stages for
> 2004.2.


New profile is my vote. We want to reach towards higher reliability.

//Spider

-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] x86 2004.2 Profile

[George Shapovalov]

On Saturday 10 July 2004 11:23, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> So what is the consensus?  I am either going to make the new profile or
> make xorg-x11 the default in the current profile as soon as spyderous
> marks it stable, so we can start building the stages for 2004.2.
Considering the features being worked on (and some even planned for Aug 
release) and tips of planned conversion to autotools, it looks like xorg and 
xfree86 will diverge rather soon. So I am in favor of a new profile too.

George


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] x86 2004.2 Profile

[Dylan Carlson]

On Saturday 10 July 2004 2:23 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> So what is the consensus?  I am either going to make the new profile or
> make xorg-x11 the default in the current profile as soon as spyderous
> marks it stable, so we can start building the stages for 2004.2.

new profile

Cheers,
Dylan Carlson [absinthe@gentoo.org]
Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x708E165F

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] x86 2004.2 Profile

[John Davis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2090 bytes --]

On Sat, 2004-07-10 at 14:23, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 19:16, Spider wrote:
> > begin  quote
> > On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 15:00:18 -0500
> > Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@skylineaero.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > I don't understand why the switch from xfree to xorg-x11 is a big
> > > deal. They are currently source and binary compatible. Almost
> > > everything (if not everything)  works the same with xorg-x11 as it did
> > > with xfree.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Except that if you do something like this :
> > emerge sync; emerge -u world
> > cp -a /etc/X11/XF86Config /etc/ssh /etc/pass* /etc/grou* /etc/shad*
> > /etc/conf.d /etc/pcmcia /etc/rc.conf  /var/lib/portage/world /backup
> > 
> > reformat, unpack the -same- stage3, and then restore them...
> > 
> > oops. suddenly things don't work because even when they are binary
> > compatible, they aren't config compatible, and users should be able to
> > expect that if they install the same applications (face it, the world
> > file isn't likely to contain the xfree version, most likely it contains
> > mozilla, Gnome, KDE, xfce or other such thing that brought X in as a
> > dependency ) They will get them.  We currently break reliability often,
> > which is a pretty bad thing. :-/
> > 
> > only by actually doing things like this new profile, can we in fact
> > increase reliability.  
> 
> So what is the consensus?  I am either going to make the new profile or
> make xorg-x11 the default in the current profile as soon as spyderous
> marks it stable, so we can start building the stages for 2004.2.

If you truly think it is the best thing to do, and have developer
consensus, then by all means, do it. The opinion of the people who
directly maintain the package has more weight than mine, as they know
wtf is going on as well as the reasoning behind a new profile.

Cheers,
-- 
John Davis
Gentoo Linux Developer
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen>

----
GnuPG Public Key: <http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen/zhen_pub.asc>
Fingerprint: 4F9E 41F6 D072 5C1A 636C  2D46 B92C 4823 E281 41BB

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] x86 2004.2 Profile

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1103 bytes --]

On Saturday 10 July 2004 01:16, Spider wrote:
> begin  quote
> On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 15:00:18 -0500
>
> Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@skylineaero.com> wrote:
> > I don't understand why the switch from xfree to xorg-x11 is a big
> > deal. They are currently source and binary compatible. Almost
> > everything (if not everything)  works the same with xorg-x11 as it
> > did with xfree.
>
> Except that if you do something like this :
> emerge sync; emerge -u world
> cp -a /etc/X11/XF86Config /etc/ssh /etc/pass* /etc/grou* /etc/shad*
> /etc/conf.d /etc/pcmcia /etc/rc.conf  /var/lib/portage/world /backup
>

As far as I know this is not an issue with xorg-x11 at all. In any case 
the needed removal of xfree is a manual step that should tell users that 
something important changed and that they should be aware of it. I don't 
see where a new profile is necessary. Especially since it is allready 
very easy to run xorg-x11 and all initial bugs/issues have about been 
solved.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]