[gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Travis Tilley]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 114 bytes --]

here's an example of how his creates confusion, where on amd64 our 
stable kernel is named development-sources.



[-- Attachment #2: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Re: Technote Download page needs updated --]
[-- Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2951 bytes --]

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Re: Technote Download page needs updated
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:38:44 -0700
Message-ID: <pan.2004.08.25.06.38.43.565715@cox.net>

Kenny posted <412B7D72.9080605@comcast.net>, excerpted below,  on Tue, 24
Aug 2004 12:40:02 -0500:

> I'f im understanding this correctly, development-sources is just mainline
> from kernel.org...

I believe U R correct.  The name originated when it was kernel 2.5, which
/was/ development sources.  However, there's talk of removing the
dev(elopment) from the various 2.6 packages, as they are no longer
development, but stable.  One proposal was to make them into
linux26-sources or similar, as they did with the kernel-headers, but that
was opposed as it puts the version in the name.  Still, the goal is to
rename them somehow, removing the dev portion, ideally b4 2004.3, and
certainly by 2005.0.. so I guess we see what happens.

I was just pointing out that the listed portion of the technotes should be
put on somebody's update list, so when it happens, that portion is
updated, and it doesn't fall behind like the part that says 2004.0 is the
latest, has.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
Benjamin Franklin



--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list




[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 37 bytes --]

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Heiko Vogel]

Travis Tilley <lv@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Kenny posted <412B7D72.9080605@comcast.net>, excerpted below,  on Tue, 24
> Aug 2004 12:40:02 -0500:

>> I'f im understanding this correctly, development-sources is just mainline
>> from kernel.org...
>
> I believe U R correct.  The name originated when it was kernel 2.5, which
> /was/ development sources.  However, there's talk of removing the
> dev(elopment) from the various 2.6 packages, as they are no longer
> development, but stable.  One proposal was to make them into
> linux26-sources or similar, as they did with the kernel-headers, but that
> was opposed as it puts the version in the name.  Still, the goal is to
> rename them somehow, removing the dev portion, ideally b4 2004.3, and
> certainly by 2005.0.. so I guess we see what happens.

Why not just rename them to "vanilla-sources" and keyword the 2.6.x
ebuilds?

greetz,
haaner

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 02:03:51PM -0400, Travis Tilley wrote:
> here's an example of how his creates confusion, where on amd64 our 
> stable kernel is named development-sources.

I agree it's a pain.  Hopefully this can be fixed someday soon with
slots.

thanks,

greg k-h

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Ioannis Aslanidis]

Let me suggest the following:

rename all kernels to have their version concatenated, that is:

gentoo-sources24
gentoo-sources26

Instead of having no numbering, do the opposite, have them all
numbered. This way there will be no more problems with kernel
versioning again.


On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:22:58 -0700, Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 02:03:51PM -0400, Travis Tilley wrote:
> > here's an example of how his creates confusion, where on amd64 our
> > stable kernel is named development-sources.
> 
> I agree it's a pain.  Hopefully this can be fixed someday soon with
> slots.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> 
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> 


-- 
Ioannis Aslanidis
<aioannis[at]tinet[dot]org>
<dwcommander[at]users[dot]sourceforge[dot]net>

Hellenic Gentoo GNU/Linux project manager (http://hellenicgentoo.sf.net)
FIRECOPS++ project manager (http://firecops.sf.net)

Computer Engineering student at Universitat Rovira i Virgili

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 556 bytes --]

On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 14:22, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 02:03:51PM -0400, Travis Tilley wrote:
> > here's an example of how his creates confusion, where on amd64 our 
> > stable kernel is named development-sources.
> 
> I agree it's a pain.  Hopefully this can be fixed someday soon with
> slots.

Is there any way to restrict by slot?  To say, keep an ebuild with a
SLOT >= x from installing?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Operations/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] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 700 bytes --]

On 08/25/04  Chris Gianelloni wrote:

> On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 14:22, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 02:03:51PM -0400, Travis Tilley wrote:
> > > here's an example of how his creates confusion, where on amd64 our
> > > 
> > > stable kernel is named development-sources.
> > 
> > I agree it's a pain.  Hopefully this can be fixed someday soon with
> > slots.
> 
> Is there any way to restrict by slot?  To say, keep an ebuild with a
> SLOT >= x from installing?

Not directly, but as long as the SLOT is derived from PV there shouldn't
be much of a difference from simply package.mask'ing it. 
The current SLOT implementation generally is only good for keeping old
versions around.

Marius

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 08:34:06PM +0200, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
> Let me suggest the following:
> 
> rename all kernels to have their version concatenated, that is:
> 
> gentoo-sources24
> gentoo-sources26
> 
> Instead of having no numbering, do the opposite, have them all
> numbered. This way there will be no more problems with kernel
> versioning again.

I don't have a problem with this, but the dependancy stuff might not
work out properly for some odd kernel-based userspace packages.

Anyone object to this?

thanks,

greg k-h

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 911 bytes --]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:40:20 -0700 Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
| > gentoo-sources24
| > gentoo-sources26
| 
| I don't have a problem with this, but the dependancy stuff might not
| work out properly for some odd kernel-based userspace packages.
| 
| Anyone object to this?

Well, it's pretty nasty... Part of the idea of SLOTs is that we never
need to include version numbers in packages... In fact our docs [1] even
say:

> Most distributions and ports systems tend to have a "freetype" package
> for freetype 1.x and "freetype2" for 2.x. We consider this approach a
> sign of a fundamentally broken package management system.

Do we really want to admit that our package manager is broken?

[1]: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/portage-manual.xml

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Stephen P. Becker]

I think that precedent has already been set with linux26-headers 
unfortunately.

-Steve

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:40:20 -0700 Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | > gentoo-sources24
> | > gentoo-sources26
> | 
> | I don't have a problem with this, but the dependancy stuff might not
> | work out properly for some odd kernel-based userspace packages.
> | 
> | Anyone object to this?
> 
> Well, it's pretty nasty... Part of the idea of SLOTs is that we never
> need to include version numbers in packages... In fact our docs [1] even
> say:
> 
> 
>>Most distributions and ports systems tend to have a "freetype" package
>>for freetype 1.x and "freetype2" for 2.x. We consider this approach a
>>sign of a fundamentally broken package management system.
> 
> 
> Do we really want to admit that our package manager is broken?
> 
> [1]: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/portage-manual.xml
> 


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Tom Wesley]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1114 bytes --]

On Wednesday 25 August 2004 21:05, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> I think that precedent has already been set with linux26-headers
> unfortunately.
>

Doesn't mean it shouldn't be reversed...

> -Steve
>
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:40:20 -0700 Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > | > gentoo-sources24
> > | > gentoo-sources26
> > |
> > | I don't have a problem with this, but the dependancy stuff might not
> > | work out properly for some odd kernel-based userspace packages.
> > |
> > | Anyone object to this?
> >
> > Well, it's pretty nasty... Part of the idea of SLOTs is that we never
> > need to include version numbers in packages... In fact our docs [1] even
> >
> > say:
> >>Most distributions and ports systems tend to have a "freetype" package
> >>for freetype 1.x and "freetype2" for 2.x. We consider this approach a
> >>sign of a fundamentally broken package management system.
> >
> > Do we really want to admit that our package manager is broken?
> >
> > [1]: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/portage-manual.xml
>

-- 
Tom Wesley <tom@tomaw.org>

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:00:13PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:40:20 -0700 Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | > gentoo-sources24
> | > gentoo-sources26
> | 
> | I don't have a problem with this, but the dependancy stuff might not
> | work out properly for some odd kernel-based userspace packages.
> | 
> | Anyone object to this?
> 
> Well, it's pretty nasty... Part of the idea of SLOTs is that we never
> need to include version numbers in packages... In fact our docs [1] even
> say:
> 
> > Most distributions and ports systems tend to have a "freetype" package
> > for freetype 1.x and "freetype2" for 2.x. We consider this approach a
> > sign of a fundamentally broken package management system.
> 
> Do we really want to admit that our package manager is broken?

But then what is preventing us from having both a 2.4 and 2.6 version of
gentoo-sources?  Is it the following statement in that same file:

	Currently, slots cannot be used to install multiple instances of
	the same version of a package. When it will be possible, one
	could even install the same version of gcc multiple times (for
	instance to build cross-compilers for different architectures).

Or is it something else that I'm just not aware of?

thanks,

greg k-h

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Mike Williams]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 25 August 2004 21:00, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Well, it's pretty nasty... Part of the idea of SLOTs is that we never
> need to include version numbers in packages... In fact our docs [1] even
>
> say:
> > Most distributions and ports systems tend to have a "freetype" package
> > for freetype 1.x and "freetype2" for 2.x. We consider this approach a
> > sign of a fundamentally broken package management system.
>
> Do we really want to admit that our package manager is broken?

It is nasty, yes, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's broken, rather a 
documented limitation has been met.
The 2 paragraphs following your quote states areas for improvement.

| Sometimes Portage forces users to upgrade their applications to the most 
recent version even if the version they have installed is in a different 
slot. Moreover, for those who write ebuilds it is not possible to express the 
dependency on a specific slot of a package. 

> [1]: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/portage-manual.xml

- -- 
Mike Williams
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBLPONInuLMrk7bIwRAjlIAJ98WVvNhWqztrLQtZwOnXYDzNO3WgCdH0Eb
EzdT1leLuMfy4AWPzSxRB6I=
=I6Iz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 823 bytes --]

On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 16:13, Greg KH wrote:
> But then what is preventing us from having both a 2.4 and 2.6 version of
> gentoo-sources?  Is it the following statement in that same file:

Nothing... which was why we had the vote at the manager's meeting. 
While I have planned out a fairly extensive timeline, if the kernel
developers decided they wished to merge the two, I would think that is
their prerogative.

Kernels are already SLOTted based on their version, so I don't think it
would cause a problem.  All we would have to do is be sure to document
that if a user wants to stick with a 2.4 gentoo-sources, that they
should p.mask >=sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.5*

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Operations/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] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 06:41:49PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 16:13, Greg KH wrote:
> > But then what is preventing us from having both a 2.4 and 2.6 version of
> > gentoo-sources?  Is it the following statement in that same file:
> 
> Nothing... which was why we had the vote at the manager's meeting. 

Great, I didn't realize that was the outcome.

> While I have planned out a fairly extensive timeline, if the kernel
> developers decided they wished to merge the two, I would think that is
> their prerogative.

Well, I'll gladly do it tomorrow if I'm allowed to :)

But what was your timeline?

> Kernels are already SLOTted based on their version, so I don't think it
> would cause a problem.  All we would have to do is be sure to document
> that if a user wants to stick with a 2.4 gentoo-sources, that they
> should p.mask >=sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.5*

If that's it, that's not so bad.  But where do we document such a
change?

thanks,

greg k-h

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Will Buckner]

on 08/25/04 14:34 Ioannis Aslanidis said the following:
> Let me suggest the following:
> 
> rename all kernels to have their version concatenated, that is:
> 
> gentoo-sources24
> gentoo-sources26
> 
> Instead of having no numbering, do the opposite, have them all
> numbered. This way there will be no more problems with kernel
> versioning again.
> 

This is what makes sense to me. What happens when 2.7 comes around? 2.4 and 
2.6 are both stable kernels. Whether or not version numbers are used though,
*SOMETHING* has to be done. The 2.6 kernel is the latest stable kernel, and 
there's nothing "development" about it. This is just confusing for users,

Wcc

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2182 bytes --]

On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 19:49, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 06:41:49PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 16:13, Greg KH wrote:
> > > But then what is preventing us from having both a 2.4 and 2.6 version of
> > > gentoo-sources?  Is it the following statement in that same file:
> > 
> > Nothing... which was why we had the vote at the manager's meeting. 
> 
> Great, I didn't realize that was the outcome.
> 
> > While I have planned out a fairly extensive timeline, if the kernel
> > developers decided they wished to merge the two, I would think that is
> > their prerogative.
> 
> Well, I'll gladly do it tomorrow if I'm allowed to :)
> 
> But what was your timeline?

The timeline that we had laid out and that was agreed upon was to make
the change around February, which gives 6 months to "prove" that both
gentoo-dev-sources and udev are capable of becoming the defaults for the
virtual/linux-sources and virtual/dev-manager.  The idea is for us to
start using them both much heavier.  The 2004.3 release will only have
one kernel on the CD (gentoo-dev-sources) and will use udev, so it will
definitely help us iron out any bugs which are still around.  I would
think the only thing really slowing adoption is the non-sysfs aware
drivers out there, which need either patches, or to be fixed upstream.

> > Kernels are already SLOTted based on their version, so I don't think it
> > would cause a problem.  All we would have to do is be sure to document
> > that if a user wants to stick with a 2.4 gentoo-sources, that they
> > should p.mask >=sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.5*
> 
> If that's it, that's not so bad.  But where do we document such a
> change?

The handbook would definitely be a good place to start.  I also think it
wouldn't be a bad idea to put a sticky on the forums and an article on
the front page, when such a change occurs.  The idea would be to put the
information in as many places as possible, so our users would be able to
find it easily.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Operations/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] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Wednesday 25 August 2004 22:00, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> say:
> > Most distributions and ports systems tend to have a "freetype" package
> > for freetype 1.x and "freetype2" for 2.x. We consider this approach a
> > sign of a fundamentally broken package management system.
>
> Do we really want to admit that our package manager is broken?

That "admission" was allready made when development-sources was first 
incarnated. Also the kernel is something different than freetype. The issue 
is not with the package management system. The problem is in a big part 
caused by the fact that people do not like to say 'emerge 
\<vanilla-sources-2.5' to get the stable kernel. The kernel is a beast on 
it's own and giving it some extra attention should not be a problem.

Paul

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

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Thursday 26 August 2004 16:04, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > Kernels are already SLOTted based on their version, so I don't think it
> > > would cause a problem.  All we would have to do is be sure to document
> > > that if a user wants to stick with a 2.4 gentoo-sources, that they
> > > should p.mask >=sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.5*
> >
> > If that's it, that's not so bad.  But where do we document such a
> > change?

This is also where the profiles come in. The default profile would mask the 
2.6 series of the kernel so users will not be surprised by such a big update.

Paul

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

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 707 bytes --]

On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 09:52, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> This is also where the profiles come in. The default profile would mask the 
> 2.6 series of the kernel so users will not be surprised by such a big update.

...and how would you run a machine with both if one were masked by the
profile?  A user should not be required to change profiles to change
kernels.

How did PPC deal with it?  I somehow doubt it was too much trouble.

What I am trying to say is if we document it well, and everywhere we can
think of, then it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Operations/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] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Friday 27 August 2004 20:50, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 09:52, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > This is also where the profiles come in. The default profile would mask
> > the 2.6 series of the kernel so users will not be surprised by such a big
> > update.
>
> ...and how would you run a machine with both if one were masked by the
> profile?  A user should not be required to change profiles to change
> kernels.

Well, the "higher" or 2.6 profile would allow both. If the change is "no 
problem" enough then a new profile would not be necessary, but at least for 
x86 the 2.6 kernel is still a bit experimental. Normal users should not be 
automatically updated.

Paul

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

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1109 bytes --]

On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 17:37, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > ...and how would you run a machine with both if one were masked by the
> > profile?  A user should not be required to change profiles to change
> > kernels.
> 
> Well, the "higher" or 2.6 profile would allow both. If the change is "no 
> problem" enough then a new profile would not be necessary, but at least for 
> x86 the 2.6 kernel is still a bit experimental. Normal users should not be 
> automatically updated.

That makes sense as far as the profiles are concerned.

I do disagree on the "normal users should not be automatically upgraded"
for two reasons.  One is that Linus, et al. consider the kernel to be
the "stable" kernel.  The second is that we don't force anyone to
upgrade their kernel.  It is still a manual process.

That being said, I'm more than willing to go with a specific profile,
and was actually planning on implementing one for 2004.3 as a separate
stacked profile.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Operations/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] devleopment sources are no longer 'development' - example

[Terje Kvernes]

Will Buckner <wcc@techmonkeys.org> writes:

  [ ... ]

> This is what makes sense to me. What happens when 2.7 comes around?

  on the upside, Linus has given people time to prepare well for 2.7.
  :-)


-- 
Terje

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list