[gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Mike Frysinger]

This is your one-day friendly reminder !  The monthly Gentoo Council
meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net.  See the
channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).

If you're supposed to show up, please show up.  If you're not supposed
to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance
for you.

For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1254 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> This is your one-day friendly reminder !  The monthly Gentoo Council
> meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net.  See the
> channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
> 
> If you're supposed to show up, please show up.  If you're not supposed
> to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance
> for you.
> 
> For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/

Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss 
the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils 
requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually 
meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be 
approved sometimes this side of '09.

Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard 
that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, 
ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore 
standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of 
the general view.

Yes, ciaran shall comment.  My request still stands.
Thanks,
~harring

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Fernando J. Pereda]

On 11 Jun 2008, at 13:11, Brian Harring wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> This is your one-day friendly reminder !  The monthly Gentoo Council
>> meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net.  See the
>> channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
>>
>> If you're supposed to show up, please show up.  If you're not  
>> supposed
>> to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance
>> for you.
>>
>> For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our  
>> homepage:
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
>
> Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss
> the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils
> requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually
> meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be
> approved sometimes this side of '09.
>
> Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard
> that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt,
> ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore
> standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of
> the general view.

Did you send patches for those parts you don't agree with?

- ferdy
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[David Leverton]

On Wednesday 11 June 2008 12:11:33 Brian Harring wrote:
> Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard
> that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt,
> ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore
> standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of
> the general view.

Paludis isn't completely compliant either.  Not sure what you're referring to 
about portage and pkgcore... if you mean kdebuild, then a) the Council has 
decided that that won't be part of the official approved version, and b) PMS 
only describes what kdebuild is, it doesn't say that any package manager has 
to implement it.  As long as it's not being used in the main tree, that's up 
to the package manager maintainers, and what they think is most beneficial to 
their users.

If you mean something else, feel free to file bugs, it could well be just an 
oversight.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1794 bytes --]

On 03:06 Wed 11 Jun     , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> This is your one-day friendly reminder !  The monthly Gentoo Council
> meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net.  See the
> channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).

Here's the proposed agenda. I intend to get every requested topic on the 
agenda so there is no need for an open floor afterwards.

Carefully note the Preparation sections. If they aren't completed, we 
will postpone the topic to the -council mailing list or the next meeting 
instead of waste time during the meeting doing things that should've 
happened in advance.

Please respond with any suggestions, including suggested order of the 
topics by urgency (within "old topics" and "new topics"). Unfortunately 
not all of the topics were posted to the council meeting reminder 
thread, so it was hard to dig them out.


More meeting optimization
-------------------------

I'd like to also set a 2-hour limit on the meeting. Anything we don't 
hit during that timeframe will be postponed to the list or the next 
meeting.

We can also take an idea from http://en.opensuse.org/Meetings/About and 
set the +zmn channel modes:

  * +m - Moderated - People who don't have voices (+v) can't send 
    messages to the channel.
  * +n - No external messages - With this mode, no one can send messages 
    to the channel without even being joined.
  * +z - Relaxed moderation - When +z is set each message that would be 
    blocked by +m is sent to all the users who are currently operator.

That will allow council members to see everything said by everyone, but 
non-council people will not be able to see things said by other 
non-council people. Then +v can be given to anyone with good 
contributions. What do you think?

Thanks,
Donnie

[-- Attachment #2: 20080612-agenda.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3494 bytes --]

Updates to last month's topics
==============================

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20080508-summary.txt


Document of being an active developer
-------------------------------------
Requested attendees: araujo

Last month: Numerous suggested improvements to info on the certificate.

Preparation: araujo needs to post progress, an updated certificate and 
any new requests to the gentoo-council or gentoo-project list 2+ hours 
before the meeting.

Goal: Suggest changes. This should happen on-list. No discussion 
expected.


Slacker arches
--------------
Preparation: vapier needs to send the post 2+ hours before the meeting.

Goal: Suggest changes. This should happen on-list. No discussion 
expected.


Can the council help fewer bugs get ignored by arm/sh/s390 teams? 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
Preparation: Someone on an undermanned arch team needs to describe their 
workflow on-list 2+ hours before the meeting.

Goal: Suggest changes. This should happen on-list. No discussion 
expected.


PMS: Are versions allowed to have more than 8 digits?
-----------------------------------------------------
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_db2f5c09c2c0c8b042ca3d0dcec7cdaf.xml
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=188449

Preparation: Do the package maintainers with extremely long PVs need 
them? The involved packages:
	sys-process/fuser-bsd
	sys-apps/net-tools
	sys-apps/gradm
	net-im/ntame
	media-video/captury
	media-libs/libcaptury
	media-libs/capseo
	sys-block/btrace
	www-apache/mod_depends
	net-wireless/rt2500
	sys-fs/unionfs

Preparation: What's the impact of extending versionator.eclass? 

Goal: With data in hand, make a decision.


How to handle appeals
---------------------

Preparation: Post to the gentoo-council mailing list 2+ hours before the 
meeting with your opinion.

Goal: Vote on an approach that was previously posted to the list.


New topics
==========

as-needed by default
--------------------
antarus requested that we vote on whether to add it to the default 
LDFLAGS.

Preparation: Post your opinion to the -dev thread "RFC: --as-needed to 
default LDFLAGS" 2+ hours before the meeting.

Goal: Vote.


GLEP 54
-------
Preparation: Post your opinion to the -dev thread "A few questions to 
our nominees" 2+ hours before the meeting.

Goal: Vote.


GLEP 55
-------
Preparation: Post your opinion to the -dev thread "GLEP 55" 2+ hours 
before the meeting. Let it attempt to come to a consensus before we 
vote.

Goal: Vote once the discussion's no longer clearly ongoing. We can hold 
this vote on the -council mailing list instead of waiting for the next 
meeting.


GLEP 56
-------
Preparation: Post your opinion to the -dev thread "[GLEP56] USE flag 
descriptions in metadata" 2+ hours before the meeting. Let it attempt to 
come to a consensus before we vote.

Goal: Vote once the discussion's no longer clearly ongoing. We can hold 
this vote on the -council mailing list instead of waiting for the next 
meeting.


Status of PMS
-------------
ferringb said:
  I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, if 
  the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* 
  standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, and if 
  said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes this side of '09.

Preparation: Post your opinion to the -dev thread "One-Day Gentoo 
Council Reminder for June" 2+ hours before the meeting.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 14:58 Wed 11 Jun     , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Carefully note the Preparation sections. If they aren't completed, we 
> will postpone the topic to the -council mailing list or the next meeting 
> instead of waste time during the meeting doing things that should've 
> happened in advance.
> 
> Please respond with any suggestions, including suggested order of the 
> topics by urgency (within "old topics" and "new topics"). Unfortunately 
> not all of the topics were posted to the council meeting reminder 
> thread, so it was hard to dig them out.

amne talked to me and said he won't be able to post to any mailing lists 
before the meeting because he's at work, although he will be able to 
read them. I realize it was pretty late notice on the agenda, and the 
preparation+consequences is a new concept that we haven't all agreed on.

The idea behind posting to the list in advance is twofold -- holding 
council members accountable for:

 1) Knowing the relevant information, and

 2) Participating in the source discussion if they have anything new to
    add, rather than bringing it up during the meeting.

What we don't want is people speaking up at the meeting with previously 
unheard opinions or asking about already discussed topics, either of 
which often create prolonged discussions.

The alternative to posting in advance is that you agree with an opinion 
that's already out there and will not bring up anything new during the 
meeting. That's my interpretation of people not posting, and that's 
perfectly fine.

In the future, every council meeting should become little more than a 
time to hold a vote on predefined options for each topic. In fact, if we 
could get that far, we might not even need live meetings at all anymore 
It could all be on-list, or even using votify.

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Markus Ullmann]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 951 bytes --]

Donnie Berkholz schrieb:

 >Status of PMS
 >-------------
 >ferringb said:
 >  I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, if
 >  the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral*
 >  standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, and if
 >  said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes this side of'09.
 >
 >Preparation: Post your opinion to the -dev thread "One-Day Gentoo
 >Council Reminder for June" 2+ hours before the meeting.

After investing more than two hours to just read the Mails that popped 
up yesterday regarding this stuff, I'd say we can't really take this 
serious. The PMS maintainers were withholding information on 
compatibility issues they've seen.
As such we can't be sure this will pop up again in the future and so I 
strongly suggest dismissing this as something official for gentoo.

Best Regards
Markus Ullmann
Gentoo Council Member


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 711 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:36:18 +0200
Markus Ullmann <jokey@gentoo.org> wrote:
> After investing more than two hours to just read the Mails that
> popped up yesterday regarding this stuff, I'd say we can't really
> take this serious. The PMS maintainers were withholding information
> on compatibility issues they've seen.

No, we were trying to get the pkgcore people to write some frickin'
test cases for their code rather than continuing to screw up the
process by incorrectly claiming support for an EAPI.

You should instead be asking the pkgcore guys why they should be
allowed to continue keeping a package in the tree when they're
blatantly ignoring the EAPI process.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Luca Barbato]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> No, we were trying to get the pkgcore people to write some frickin'
> test cases for their code rather than continuing to screw up the
> process by incorrectly claiming support for an EAPI.

That isn't what has been perceived.

Whoever will take the portage specification will have to provide 
testcases while updating the spec, correctly split an version it to make 
implementation easier and behave properly.

> You should instead be asking the pkgcore guys why they should be
> allowed to continue keeping a package in the tree when they're
> blatantly ignoring the EAPI process.

The eapi process is something not defined so they cannot do much about 
it, same for the portage people.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1064 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:52:13 +0200
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > You should instead be asking the pkgcore guys why they should be
> > allowed to continue keeping a package in the tree when they're
> > blatantly ignoring the EAPI process.
> 
> The eapi process is something not defined so they cannot do much
> about it, same for the portage people.

The EAPI process requires that any package manager that claims to
support a particular EAPI really does. When someone releases a package
manager that has significant bugs in new EAPI handling, we have to
decide:

* whether we can use the EAPI in the tree
* whether we have to avoid the bits of that EAPI that are broken
* whether we have to release a new EAPI n+1 that's identical to EAPI n,
and completely ban EAPI n.

Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before
claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If package
manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible thing, the whole
point of EAPIs is lost.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Luca Barbato]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before
> claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If package
> manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible thing, the whole
> point of EAPIs is lost.

Thats a circular argument since portage and pkgcore developers are 
complaining about eapi definition and PMS management.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 702 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:12:47 +0200
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before
> > claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If
> > package manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible
> > thing, the whole point of EAPIs is lost.
> 
> Thats a circular argument since portage and pkgcore developers are 
> complaining about eapi definition and PMS management.

Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers
think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims
to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Denis Dupeyron]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers
> think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims
> to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't?

Please stop your incessant and gratuitous insinuations.

Denis.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 580 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:24:14 +0200
"Denis Dupeyron" <calchan@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers
> > think that they should be able to release a package manager that
> > claims to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't?
> 
> Please stop your incessant and gratuitous insinuations.

Then please explain what else Luca could possibly be implying with his
incessant and gratuitous interjections.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2759 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:16:51AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:12:47 +0200
> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before
> > > claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If
> > > package manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible
> > > thing, the whole point of EAPIs is lost.
> > 
> > Thats a circular argument since portage and pkgcore developers are 
> > complaining about eapi definition and PMS management.
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers
> think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims
> to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't?

When paludis hit the tree, it claimed to support eapi0.  Did it fully?  

No, bugs existed.

Via your logic, paludis should've never been in the tree.

See the failing here?  Bugs occur, you're claiming perfection is 
required when your own code hasn't met said standards.

You're also dodging the fact that apparently you've known about eapi1 
incompatibilities and intentionally withheld that information for 
the apparent purpose of discrediting pkgcore.  You've been stating for 
a long while eapi1 support was broke- for the default iuse support 
months back, and ongoing- I get the very strong vibe you've been 
sitting on bugs for a long while.

I've put up with lies from y'all for a long while- simplest gross 
example is the claims pkgcore devs were forking the format when 
in actuality paludis devs (you) were forking off exheres at the 
time of the accusation.  I'm accustomed to that bullshit, and I 
stomach it because limited dealing with you benefits gentoo, at least 
as long as you wield the political hammer that is PMS.

What's over the line however is that via your withholding of 
information, you intentionally allowing users to see breakage to try 
and discredit the competition.

That's not acceptable in any form.  Actual bug reports, for ebuild 
support bugs turn around (including release) for pkgcore is typically 
within same day.  I give a *damn* about compatibility, even if it 
means enabling paludis to grow (thus providing more power for your 
insepid games).

The fact that the -r0 incident occured out of the blue a month or two 
back isn't exactly heartening either- proving it was intentional 
breakage admittedly is not possible.  However considering the 
behaviour displayed here, it's a pretty logical assumption to presume 
the -r0 was an intentional breakage for yet more discrediting BS.

You pulled a pretty major no-no here, and the fact you can't admit it 
is pretty fricking sad.

~harring


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1868 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:40:06 -0700
Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers
> > think that they should be able to release a package manager that
> > claims to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't?
> 
> When paludis hit the tree, it claimed to support eapi0.  Did it
> fully?  
> 
> No, bugs existed.
> 
> Via your logic, paludis should've never been in the tree.
> 
> See the failing here?  Bugs occur, you're claiming perfection is 
> required when your own code hasn't met said standards.

Except that there's no well defined way of testing EAPI 0. There is a
well defined way of testing EAPI 1.

> That's not acceptable in any form.  Actual bug reports, for ebuild 
> support bugs turn around (including release) for pkgcore is typically 
> within same day.  I give a *damn* about compatibility, even if it 
> means enabling paludis to grow (thus providing more power for your 
> insepid games).

If you care, why don't you write simple test cases?

> The fact that the -r0 incident occured out of the blue a month or two 
> back isn't exactly heartening either- proving it was intentional 
> breakage admittedly is not possible.  However considering the 
> behaviour displayed here, it's a pretty logical assumption to presume 
> the -r0 was an intentional breakage for yet more discrediting BS.

And you accuse us of spreading FUD?

If anyone really wanted to break a package manager, there'd be much
more spectacular ways of doing it...

> You pulled a pretty major no-no here, and the fact you can't admit it 
> is pretty fricking sad.

No, *you* 'pulled a pretty major no-no' by refusing to do basic
testing, and the fact that you're trying so hard to make it look like
someone else's fault is pretty fricking sad.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Denis Dupeyron]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The idea behind posting to the list in advance is twofold -- holding
> council members accountable for:
>
>  1) Knowing the relevant information, and
>
>  2) Participating in the source discussion if they have anything new to
>    add, rather than bringing it up during the meeting.
>
> What we don't want is people speaking up at the meeting with previously
> unheard opinions or asking about already discussed topics, either of
> which often create prolonged discussions.
>
> The alternative to posting in advance is that you agree with an opinion
> that's already out there and will not bring up anything new during the
> meeting. That's my interpretation of people not posting, and that's
> perfectly fine.
>
> In the future, every council meeting should become little more than a
> time to hold a vote on predefined options for each topic. In fact, if we
> could get that far, we might not even need live meetings at all anymore
> It could all be on-list, or even using votify.

This is going into an interesting direction. Another thing I'd like to
see is rather than simply postponing a decision, making sure the
reason(s) for the postponing do(es) not exist any more for the next
meeting or in a given time. The method usually includes making someone
responsible for solving the issue (in our case somebody will need to
volunteer), making sure that person can and will dedicate enough time,
making sure (s)he will have have access to the necessary people or
tools, etc... It's classic problem solving methodology, and I'm sure
you, Donnie, can much better elaborate on this. I don't think we need
to formalize this, but like your proposition of how to efficiently
conduct a meeting it's just a sane habit to acquire.

Denis.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[David Leverton]

On Thursday 12 June 2008 08:36:18 Markus Ullmann wrote:
> After investing more than two hours to just read the Mails that popped
> up yesterday regarding this stuff, I'd say we can't really take this
> serious. The PMS maintainers were withholding information on
> compatibility issues they've seen.
> As such we can't be sure this will pop up again in the future and so I
> strongly suggest dismissing this as something official for gentoo.

Ciaran already explained about that, but even if you don't agree with the 
reasoning, that's no reason to shut down a project that will benefit Gentoo 
as a whole.

If you have a problem with the content of PMS, then as I already said, please 
file bugs or send patches.  As the history shows, we are willing to change 
Paludis and PMS to match Portage behaviour, when we become aware of any 
discrepancies.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun     , Brian Harring wrote:
> Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss 
> the current status of PMS,

People actually working on the PMS would be better-placed to discuss its 
current status, if by that you mean progress toward an approved spec. 
The last I heard was a couple months ago when Ciaran asked us whether 
there were any further major issues and removed kdebuild-1 from the PDF 
to be approved.

> if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* 
> standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards,

Anyone working on a package manager (and anyone else suitably 
knowledgeable) should be able to get commit access to it. The only 
person "running" it is doing so by virtue of making the most commits.

> and if said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes this side 
> of '09.

This is basically the same as the first question from my ability to 
answer it.

> Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard 
> that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, 
> ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore 
> standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of 
> the general view.

I'd like to know what's holding you back from contributing to it, 
instead of telling us that someone else is doing things you don't like. 
Is there some kind of technical barrier (like the TeX)? Or what? Are you 
filing bugs against the parts you don't like? What's happening to them?

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1344 bytes --]

On Thursday 12 June 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun     , Brian Harring wrote:
> > Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss
> > the current status of PMS,
>
> People actually working on the PMS would be better-placed to discuss its
> current status, if by that you mean progress toward an approved spec.
> The last I heard was a couple months ago when Ciaran asked us whether
> there were any further major issues and removed kdebuild-1 from the PDF
> to be approved.

he was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the repo and this has yet to happen

> > Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard
> > that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt,
> > ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore
> > standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of
> > the general view.
>
> I'd like to know what's holding you back from contributing to it,
> instead of telling us that someone else is doing things you don't like.
> Is there some kind of technical barrier (like the TeX)? Or what? Are you
> filing bugs against the parts you don't like? What's happening to them?

TeX isnt a format that integrates with Gentoo.  should just convert it to 
docbook and be done with this garbage.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 835 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Santiago M. Mola]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 12 June 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun     , Brian Harring wrote:
>> > Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss
>> > the current status of PMS,
>>
>> People actually working on the PMS would be better-placed to discuss its
>> current status, if by that you mean progress toward an approved spec.
>> The last I heard was a couple months ago when Ciaran asked us whether
>> there were any further major issues and removed kdebuild-1 from the PDF
>> to be approved.
>
> he was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the repo and this has yet to happen
>

This shouldn't block PMS discussions. There's an up to date copy in
pdf of PMS built without kdebuild at
http://dev.gentoo.org/~coldwind/pms-without-kdebuild.pdf

Regards,
-- 
Santiago M. Mola
Jabber ID: cooldwind@gmail.com
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[George Prowse]

Luca Barbato wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before
>> claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If package
>> manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible thing, the whole
>> point of EAPIs is lost.
> 
> Thats a circular argument since portage and pkgcore developers are 
> complaining about eapi definition and PMS management.
> 
> lu
> 
If the bickering is stopping development then maybe it should be given 
to a 3rd party to complete and have the last word.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[David Leverton]

On Thursday 12 June 2008 18:14:21 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> he was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the repo and this has yet to happen

I just checked the April meeting log, and while I admit I didn't read every 
word from start to finish, all I could see was that kdebuild couldn't be in 
the final, official version.  In particular, you yourself wrote:

22:36 <    vapier@> i generate the pms for reference.  it better not include 
anything that hasnt been approved.

It looks like that isn't the default in current git, but it's trivial to fix 
if that's what people want.

If I missed something in the log, or if this was discussed somewhere else, 
please let me know.

> TeX isnt a format that integrates with Gentoo.  should just convert it to
> docbook and be done with this garbage.

I would think that anyone proposing such a disruptive change at this point 
should either give a damn good reason or do the work themselves, preferably 
both.  I can't even figure out what "integrates with Gentoo" means, let alone 
decide whether it counts as "damn good".  (And if you're suggesting DocBook 
as an alternative, it can't possibly mean "is the same as all the other 
Gentoo documentation".)
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1802 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:14:21 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 12 June 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun     , Brian Harring wrote:
> > > Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please
> > > discuss the current status of PMS,
> >
> > People actually working on the PMS would be better-placed to
> > discuss its current status, if by that you mean progress toward an
> > approved spec. The last I heard was a couple months ago when Ciaran
> > asked us whether there were any further major issues and removed
> > kdebuild-1 from the PDF to be approved.
> 
> he was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the repo and this has yet to
> happen

No, I was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the version sent to the
Council for approval. Doing so is just a case of toggling a switch in
PMS.

Also, until they were all mysteriously fired, Gentoo's KDE people were
planning to ask the Council for official approval of kdebuild-1 so that
it could remain in PMS. So that's still up in the air too.

> > I'd like to know what's holding you back from contributing to it,
> > instead of telling us that someone else is doing things you don't
> > like. Is there some kind of technical barrier (like the TeX)? Or
> > what? Are you filing bugs against the parts you don't like? What's
> > happening to them?
> 
> TeX isnt a format that integrates with Gentoo.  should just convert
> it to docbook and be done with this garbage.

And docbook does integrate with Gentoo? Please point me to other Gentoo
documentation that uses docbook.

Also, I've yet to be told how to get automatic, verified,
zero-work-upon-relocation cross-document links using either docbook or
guidexml. Perhaps you'd care to explain.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 443 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:32:35 +0100
George Prowse <cokehabit@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the bickering is stopping development then maybe it should be
> given to a 3rd party to complete and have the last word.

Considering third parties have at best contributed a few small patches,
I don't see that getting very far... If a third party's genuinely
prepared to take over and do the work they're more than welcome to.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 19:03 Thu 12 Jun     , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:14:21 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 June 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun     , Brian Harring wrote:
> > > > Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please
> > > > discuss the current status of PMS,
> > >
> > > People actually working on the PMS would be better-placed to
> > > discuss its current status, if by that you mean progress toward an
> > > approved spec. The last I heard was a couple months ago when Ciaran
> > > asked us whether there were any further major issues and removed
> > > kdebuild-1 from the PDF to be approved.
> > 
> > he was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the repo and this has yet to
> > happen
> 
> No, I was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the version sent to the
> Council for approval. Doing so is just a case of toggling a switch in
> PMS.
> 
> Also, until they were all mysteriously fired, Gentoo's KDE people were
> planning to ask the Council for official approval of kdebuild-1 so that
> it could remain in PMS. So that's still up in the air too.

All? Only one person I know of, Philantrop. Were rbrown or spb 
committing much to KDE stuff?

> > > I'd like to know what's holding you back from contributing to it,
> > > instead of telling us that someone else is doing things you don't
> > > like. Is there some kind of technical barrier (like the TeX)? Or
> > > what? Are you filing bugs against the parts you don't like? What's
> > > happening to them?
> > 
> > TeX isnt a format that integrates with Gentoo.  should just convert
> > it to docbook and be done with this garbage.
> 
> And docbook does integrate with Gentoo? Please point me to other Gentoo
> documentation that uses docbook.

http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/doc/
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-projects/pax-utils/man/

> Also, I've yet to be told how to get automatic, verified,
> zero-work-upon-relocation cross-document links using either docbook or
> guidexml. Perhaps you'd care to explain.

You've mentioned this as a requirement. Is it something that happens so 
often that it's a significant burden if it isn't available?

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Doug Goldstein]

Brian Harring wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>   
>> This is your one-day friendly reminder !  The monthly Gentoo Council
>> meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net.  See the
>> channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
>>
>> If you're supposed to show up, please show up.  If you're not supposed
>> to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance
>> for you.
>>
>> For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
>>     
>
> Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss 
> the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils 
> requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually 
> meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be 
> approved sometimes this side of '09.
>
> Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard 
> that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, 
> ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore 
> standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of 
> the general view.
>
> Yes, ciaran shall comment.  My request still stands.
> Thanks,
> ~harring
>   
I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. 
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/

On this page it'd be nice if there was an official link to the current 
PMS instead of having to rely on grabbing it from random locations i.e. 
d.g.o/~coldwind/ or d.g.o/~spb/
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 392 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. 
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/

There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane
decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on
PMS appears to have commit access to it...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1342 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:14:00 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > No, I was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the version sent to the
> > Council for approval. Doing so is just a case of toggling a switch
> > in PMS.
> > 
> > Also, until they were all mysteriously fired, Gentoo's KDE people
> > were planning to ask the Council for official approval of
> > kdebuild-1 so that it could remain in PMS. So that's still up in
> > the air too.
> 
> All? Only one person I know of, Philantrop. Were rbrown or spb 
> committing much to KDE stuff?

All three were involved in the design of kdebuild-1.

> > And docbook does integrate with Gentoo? Please point me to other
> > Gentoo documentation that uses docbook.
> 
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/doc/
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-projects/pax-utils/man/

So no actual Gentoo documentation then, just documentation for some
programs hosted by Gentoo?

> > Also, I've yet to be told how to get automatic, verified,
> > zero-work-upon-relocation cross-document links using either docbook
> > or guidexml. Perhaps you'd care to explain.
> 
> You've mentioned this as a requirement. Is it something that happens
> so often that it's a significant burden if it isn't available?

Yes.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Doug Goldstein]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400
> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
>   
>> I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. 
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/
>>     
>
> There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane
> decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on
> PMS appears to have commit access to it...
>
>   
I saw that page but I think you'd agree it'd a bit lacking in information.

Additionally, the fact that rane removed spb from the page due to his 
retirement does not mean that you need to fling your BS on the ML and 
accuse people of vandalizing anything. Comments like that are 
unnecessary to the discussion and poisonous.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1038 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400
> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. 
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/
> 
> There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane
> decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on
> PMS appears to have commit access to it...

The only commit from rane that I see is [1], which removes "spb" as a 
maintainer. As far as I can tell, this is not a vandalizing, but a 
completely legitimate status update which was triggered by spb's retirement.

All Gentoo developers have access to the file in question, so I'm 
looking forward to a bugreport from you assigned to myself that has a 
patch attached which clearly states what should be updated.

Cheers,
-jkt

[1] 
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa/pms.xml?r1=text&tr1=1.1&r2=text&tr2=1.2&makepatch=1&diff_format=h

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Doug Goldstein]

Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>  
>>> This is your one-day friendly reminder !  The monthly Gentoo Council
>>> meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net.  See the
>>> channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
>>>
>>> If you're supposed to show up, please show up.  If you're not supposed
>>> to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance
>>> for you.
>>>
>>> For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
>>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
>>>     
>>
>> Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss 
>> the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils 
>> requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually 
>> meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be 
>> approved sometimes this side of '09.
>>
>> Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard 
>> that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, 
>> ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore 
>> standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of 
>> the general view.
>>
>> Yes, ciaran shall comment.  My request still stands.
>> Thanks,
>> ~harring
>>   
> I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. 
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/
>
> On this page it'd be nice if there was an official link to the current 
> PMS instead of having to rely on grabbing it from random locations 
> i.e. d.g.o/~coldwind/ or d.g.o/~spb/

Allow me to clarify a bit more. I'd like to see a collaborative website 
that developers for all actively maintained package managers can 
contribute to and update providing details about compatibility and 
implementation of the PMS and future additions or revisions of the PMS 
that will be put forth before the Gentoo Council.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Wernfried Haas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 786 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:36:18AM +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote:
> After investing more than two hours to just read the Mails that popped up 
> yesterday regarding this stuff, I'd say we can't really take this serious. 
> The PMS maintainers were withholding information on compatibility issues 
> they've seen.
> As such we can't be sure this will pop up again in the future and so I 
> strongly suggest dismissing this as something official for gentoo.

Agreed, if this is the way PMS is done, we should either get rid of it
or do it differently.
The current status as presented here is inacceptable.

cheers,
	Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org
#gentoo-forums (freenode)

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Luca Barbato]

Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> Brian Harring wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>  
>>>> This is your one-day friendly reminder !  The monthly Gentoo Council
>>>> meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net.  See the
>>>> channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
>>>>
>>>> If you're supposed to show up, please show up.  If you're not supposed
>>>> to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance
>>>> for you.
>>>>
>>>> For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
>>>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss 
>>> the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils 
>>> requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually 
>>> meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be 
>>> approved sometimes this side of '09.
>>>
>>> Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard 
>>> that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, 
>>> ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore 
>>> standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of 
>>> the general view.
>>>
>>> Yes, ciaran shall comment.  My request still stands.
>>> Thanks,
>>> ~harring
>>>   
>> I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. 
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/
>>
>> On this page it'd be nice if there was an official link to the current 
>> PMS instead of having to rely on grabbing it from random locations 
>> i.e. d.g.o/~coldwind/ or d.g.o/~spb/
> 
> Allow me to clarify a bit more. I'd like to see a collaborative website 
> that developers for all actively maintained package managers can 
> contribute to and update providing details about compatibility and 
> implementation of the PMS and future additions or revisions of the PMS 
> that will be put forth before the Gentoo Council.

I agree with Cardoe, the specification should be made as useful as 
possible to the package maintainers, as accessible as possible by every 
interested party and possibly have a regression/conformance test built 
in (such a small tree with dummy ebuilds and eclasses) to allow 
automated validation. Stronger and well defined versioning should help 
as well.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Alec Warner]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>
>> Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>>
>>> Brian Harring wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is your one-day friendly reminder !  The monthly Gentoo Council
>>>>> meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net.  See the
>>>>> channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're supposed to show up, please show up.  If you're not supposed
>>>>> to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance
>>>>> for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
>>>>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss
>>>> the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils
>>>> requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually meets
>>>> said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes
>>>> this side of '09.
>>>>
>>>> Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard that
>>>> effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, ask portage
>>>> folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore standpoint)- it's
>>>> about time the council comment upon it in light of the general view.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, ciaran shall comment.  My request still stands.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> ~harring
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e.
>>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/
>>>
>>> On this page it'd be nice if there was an official link to the current
>>> PMS instead of having to rely on grabbing it from random locations i.e.
>>> d.g.o/~coldwind/ or d.g.o/~spb/
>>
>> Allow me to clarify a bit more. I'd like to see a collaborative website
>> that developers for all actively maintained package managers can contribute
>> to and update providing details about compatibility and implementation of
>> the PMS and future additions or revisions of the PMS that will be put forth
>> before the Gentoo Council.
>
> I agree with Cardoe, the specification should be made as useful as possible
> to the package maintainers, as accessible as possible by every interested
> party and possibly have a regression/conformance test built in (such a small
> tree with dummy ebuilds and eclasses) to allow automated validation.
> Stronger and well defined versioning should help as well.

I believe the biggest problem with this list is you have a long list
of wants but seem to not want to do
any of the work yourself.  For the folks making the requests; are you
working on doing any of them yourself?

Otherwise your suggestions are mere recommendations at best.

-Alec

>
> lu
>
> --
>
> Luca Barbato
> Gentoo Council Member
> Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[David Leverton]

On Thursday 12 June 2008 22:21:48 Wernfried Haas wrote:
> Agreed, if this is the way PMS is done, we should either get rid of it
> or do it differently.
> The current status as presented here is inacceptable.

Could someone please explain what's wrong with PMS, other than "needs moar 
XML" and "I hate the people doing it"?
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[George Prowse]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:32:35 +0100
> George Prowse <cokehabit@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If the bickering is stopping development then maybe it should be
>> given to a 3rd party to complete and have the last word.
> 
> Considering third parties have at best contributed a few small patches,
> I don't see that getting very far... If a third party's genuinely
> prepared to take over and do the work they're more than welcome to.
> 
I dont see that the work isn't done, I see arguing about standards and 
implementations and as there is 3 voices in this and little is being 
decided then anything that can't be sorted should be submitted for 
review and decisions taken.

There are things that I don't understand about the EAPI structure (why 
versions may be incompatible with each other) but it seems like we are 
heading for differing standards soon.

Feel free to flame and call me a fool...
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[George Prowse]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400
> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. 
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/
> 
> There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane
> decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on
> PMS appears to have commit access to it...
> 
I would like to comment that the wording on that page is unacceptable.

"With the advent of alternative package managers, this ill-defined 
standard is no longer sufficient..." makes it sound like the previous 
work that was done was by idiots.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Luca Barbato]

Alec Warner wrote:
> I believe the biggest problem with this list is you have a long list
> of wants but seem to not want to do any of the work yourself.
> For the folks making the requests; are you working on doing any of them yourself?

I will =)

> Otherwise your suggestions are mere recommendations at best.

You are right.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Thomas Anderson]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:11:51PM +0100, George Prowse wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400
>> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. 
>>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/
>> There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane
>> decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on
>> PMS appears to have commit access to it...
> I would like to comment that the wording on that page is unacceptable.
>
> "With the advent of alternative package managers, this ill-defined standard 
> is no longer sufficient..." makes it sound like the previous work that was 
> done was by idiots.
> -- 
> gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

That says nothing about the previous state of the portage. It only says
the standard wasn't well-defined before PMS.

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Duncan]

David Leverton <levertond@googlemail.com> posted
200806122258.26896.levertond@googlemail.com, excerpted below, on  Thu, 12
Jun 2008 22:58:26 +0100:

> On Thursday 12 June 2008 22:21:48 Wernfried Haas wrote:
>> Agreed, if this is the way PMS is done, we should either get rid of it
>> or do it differently.
>> The current status as presented here is inacceptable.
> 
> Could someone please explain what's wrong with PMS, other than "needs
> moar XML" and "I hate the people doing it"?

Umm... pardon me for speaking my mind a bit here, and nothing personal, 
particularly since I have the utmost respect for the talent and skills of 
the people involved, but after seeing a pattern repeated over the last 
couple days I've seen time and time before, it's getting tiresome enough 
to write up!

In this instance, it's the "pulling teeth" to get info on a claimed known 
bug from PMS folks on pkgcore, while at the same time, complaints about 
the non-clarity of PMS is met with remarks (by the same group of people) 
of (paraphrased) "filed a patch yet?"

The problem is that this hasn't been the only case.  There's a pattern.  
It /frequently/ takes a day or two's worth of mails to get any decent 
info out of this paludis/PMS lead, with him claiming it should be 
obvious, but it's not, and while even the slightest criticism the other 
way is met with filed a patch yet?

Eventually the dog and pony circus every time to drag out the needed 
information gets old -- both for those forced to be the dog and ponies, 
and for those reading it.

Ultimately, something's going to give.  Either information won't require 
a dog and pony show to get so often from the current solution, or another 
solution, perhaps inferior otherwise and certainly a duplication of 
effort, will have to be found.

It's not just pkgcore either, it's two of the three current PMs having 
problems, with the "One True Way" that everyone with any sense must 
/surely/ see is superior (or so it seems the thought is) gets filed a bug 
(or patch) yet if met with any criticism as well, from the same folks 
that it's like pulling teeth from to get any info from them.  It has also 
been a pattern in quite a number of previous multi-day multi-hundred-post 
threads on various topics, involving the same people with the same 
pattern, refusing to answer a simple request for info on the one hand, 
while demanding bugs and/or patches when it's their turn.

What if the "filed a bug yet" attitude held on both sides, or even if one 
side simply refused to play that begging dog or tricking pony the other 
side expects them to be?  It simply cannot go on that way forever.  
Something's going to give, now, or later, when there's ultimately no more 
Gentoo to pull apart and therefore no more Gentoo PMs or PMS to continue 
fighting over.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Duncan]

Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> posted pan.2008.06.13.00.42.33@cox.net,
excerpted below, on  Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:42:34 +0000:

> Umm... pardon me for speaking my mind a bit here, and nothing personal,
> particularly since I have the utmost respect for the talent and skills
> of the people involved, but after seeing a pattern repeated over the
> last couple days I've seen time and time before, it's getting tiresome
> enough to write up!

> What if the "filed a bug yet" attitude held on both sides, or even if
> one side simply refused to play that begging dog or tricking pony the
> other side expects them to be?  It simply cannot go on that way forever.
> Something's going to give, now, or later, when there's ultimately no
> more Gentoo to pull apart and therefore no more Gentoo PMs or PMS to
> continue fighting over.

OK, blame the continued posting on lack of sleep if you'd like, but it's 
an honestly held opinion.  What makes it worse is that the people 
involved are, honestly, very skilled.  Were it not so, were they say, 
more like me (heh), it'd be easy enough to simply ignore them.  However, 
they can be very helpful when they want to be, it's a big loss, and it's 
only this sick idea of entertainment, forcing humans to the humiliation 
of basically doing tricks like animals for a bit of what after all is 
claimed to be so simple information but that others can't seem to see, 
that's the problem.  The trouble is, the info, once the performance has 
been deemed to have gone on long enough, is so often right...

Still, ultimately, there are better ways to get it.  If one person won't 
provide it without someone stooping to his low idea of entertainment, 
well, either time will provide, or perhaps it was a not-so-critical 
corner case after all.

If we could only treat each other as humans instead of trained circus 
animals, something I'm still endeavoring to do, even in all this, thus 
pointing out the virtues and a very good reason for respect, as well.
No, the information doesn't /have/ to be provided as has been well 
demonstrated, but it sure hopes when we're all at least ideally targeting 
a similar goal, if we cooperate in going that direction, instead of 
fighting over it.

Poisonous people indeed... I was skeptical at first, but the 
demonstration has continued until I'm beginning to come, ever so 
regretfully, to the same conclusion.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[David Leverton]

2008/6/13 Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>:
> In this instance, it's the "pulling teeth" to get info on a claimed known
> bug from PMS folks on pkgcore, while at the same time, complaints about
> the non-clarity of PMS is met with remarks (by the same group of people)
> of (paraphrased) "filed a patch yet?"

In the case of the pkgcore bug, there was an objective statement of
the fact that a bug existed, including simple instructions for
reproducing it (which were dismissed by a certain person claiming he
had already done so and found no bug  - clearly a lie).  In the case
of PMS, we have vague ad-hominems - not even "complaints about the
non-clarity", which in any case would be highly subjective, but just a
shrill "inacceptable".

> The problem is that this hasn't been the only case.  There's a pattern.
> It /frequently/ takes a day or two's worth of mails to get any decent
> info out of this paludis/PMS lead, with him claiming it should be
> obvious, but it's not, and while even the slightest criticism the other
> way is met with filed a patch yet?

The pkgcore was (or should have been) highly obvious to anyone who had
so much glanced at the offending code.

> It's not just pkgcore either, it's two of the three current PMs having
> problems, with the "One True Way" that everyone with any sense must
> /surely/ see is superior (or so it seems the thought is) gets filed a bug
> (or patch) yet if met with any criticism as well, from the same folks
> that it's like pulling teeth from to get any info from them.

I can't even parse this sentence.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[George Prowse]

Thomas Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:11:51PM +0100, George Prowse wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400
>>> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. 
>>>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/
>>> There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane
>>> decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on
>>> PMS appears to have commit access to it...
>> I would like to comment that the wording on that page is unacceptable.
>>
>> "With the advent of alternative package managers, this ill-defined standard 
>> is no longer sufficient..." makes it sound like the previous work that was 
>> done was by idiots.
>> -- 
>> gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> That says nothing about the previous state of the portage. It only says
> the standard wasn't well-defined before PMS.
> 
It sounds and looks bad. It is so poorly written it looks as if the 
author is saying "the last one was crap so we have to do a better one". 
In fact, "ill-defined" needn't be in there at all. "this is no longer 
sufficient" is sufficient. A better thing to write would be:

"With the advent of alternative package managers a further defining of 
standard is necessary..."
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6945 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:09:43AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun     , Brian Harring wrote:
> > if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* 
> > standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards,
> 
> Anyone working on a package manager (and anyone else suitably 
> knowledgeable) should be able to get commit access to it. The only 
> person "running" it is doing so by virtue of making the most commits.

Person 'running' it is the one w/ commit control; as far as I know, 
that's ciaran and halcy0n (latter being inactive from what I've seen).


> > Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard 
> > that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, 
> > ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore 
> > standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of 
> > the general view.
> 
> I'd like to know what's holding you back from contributing to it, 
> instead of telling us that someone else is doing things you don't like. 
> Is there some kind of technical barrier (like the TeX)? Or what? Are you 
> filing bugs against the parts you don't like? What's happening to them?

Duncan's recent post,
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_3baa8ff0b7d3a65206ddaefa7cc4a346.xml
actually lays out some of the issues fairly succinctly.  What he 
doesn't state outright (and I shall) is that when bound by a standards 
group actively hostile to your manager/involvement, the 'dog and pony 
show' duncan refers to becomes far worse, and typically nastier.

It becomes far less worth being involved additionally, if it's known 
up front it's going to be flaming.

Meanwhile, couple of technical faults ignored either for paludis 
benefit, or (best I can figure) because I brought it up.

1) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171291
metadata/cache (hence labeled flat_list cache format) mtime 
requirements.

This actually is a fairly old issue- I raised it when pms was first 
finally shown to people.  Basically issue is that for flat_list cache 
format, the cache entries mtime is the ebuilds mtime.  This was used 
to try and detect stale cache entries via comparing ebuild mtime- 
doesn't handle eclass related invalidation, but that is a seperate 
issue.

Current spec intentionally leaves out mtime, no mention of it.  Why 
this matters- paludis's implementation of flat_list (hence labeled 
paludis_flat_list) differs- instead of the historical cache mtime == 
ebuild mtime, it's cache mtime == max(ebuild mtime, eclasses mtimes).

Personally, I don't care about their cache implementation on disk, as 
long as it doesn't affect me - it's their way of addressing what 
flat_hash for portage/pkgcore addresses, full eclass staleness 
detection.  Fair enough.

What *does* matter is that via this omission in PMS, paludis_flat_list 
is considered a valid cache for $PORTDIR/metadata/cache.  Using 
paludis_flat_list as $PORTDIR/metadata/cache means that 
pkgcore/paludis identify the cache as stale, and regenerate it.  In 
other words, flat_list works with portage/pkgcore/paludis, 
paludis_flat_list works with paludis only (triggering invalid 
regeneration for the rest).

It may seem minor, but think through the response when a 
portage/pkgcore user hits a repository generated by paludis- 
"pkgcore/portage are broke, not our fault" due to PMS omission of 
historical behaviour.

Issue is known, and ignored at this point.


2) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196561; changing (within 
eapi0) the behaviour of ~ operator.  Currently, portage ignores any 
revision for ~, pkgcore gives the finger if you try combining ~ with a 
revision (it's not a valid atom), paludis follows the PMS rules;

long term behaviour of ~; any revision of this version suffices.
PMS/paludis behaviour: revisions greater then, or equal to this 
  revision, equal to this version.

Why this matters; portage long term behaviour has been to drop -r* 
when found.  Parsing is/was loose, basically.  Due to eapi0's nature, 
one can't just force in what they think is the one true way, have to 
force in what works for all and matches history.

Issue is known, and ignored at this point.


3) good 'ole mr -r0 and the issues it triggers,
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215403
initial dev thread,
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_de84ebd5116546518879e266bf60f32b.xml
relevant flaws ignoring this issue induces:
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f98bab69d67bd4132917be0eb04e8f3e.xml

Spawned by a rather odd commit from rbrown flushing out a user visible 
breakage for pkgcore users, it also flushed out PM incompatibilities 
in handling of PVR/PR; specifically since -r0 has *never* been used in 
ebuild names, all ebuilds have been written assuming PVR lacks -r0.  
What was the end result of this rather obnoxious (ebuild dev viewable) 
variance?

Accusations that pkgcore devs are trying to legislate away their 
'bugs' (ignoring that the issue was fixed/released about the same time 
as the accusation) while ignoring the issue in the spec.

This obviously benefits the spec, although I'm not smart enough to see 
how...


Note these are just the issues from memory atm.  I say memory since as 
long as I've audited PMS, pointing out issues has basically been 
intentionally stepping in front of the firing line.

Hell, getting access to the damn thing required a fairly large amount 
of BS/insults-
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/46163

Which was ignored (despite council backing it at the time), resulting 
in
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/46417 .


Essentially, what the last year/half of dealing w/ pms is culminating 
in, is an ongoing buildup of reasons to *not* deal with the current 
folk in control, end result being not dealing with pms.  Shitty 
scenario actually; either willingly get kicked in the shins, or ignore 
it (thus ceding a voice in the format directly influencing your work).

If that actually were to change, meaning <all> folks could point out 
flaws, interact w/ the controllers w/out getting their nuts blown 
off, generally actually accomplish something other then being 
taunted, yes, I'd be more then willing to reaudit the bugger and take 
another stab at it.

As it is however, contributing to it is effectively blocked by the 
folks involved- and actual interaction w/ it serves only as a hammer 
to beat on pkgcore with.

To be clear; while I don't relish interacting w/ ciaran and co., I'm a 
damned adult and willing to deal w/ folk I don't like.  What I'm 
unwilling to do however is be in the situation where I'm forced to 
contribute to folk who are after baiting; it's just a waste of time, 
simple as that, and it in no way benefits gentoo.

~harring

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

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 390 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 01:14:21PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> TeX isnt a format that integrates with Gentoo.  should just convert it to 
> docbook and be done with this garbage.

I've not looked, but is anyone aware of a simple way to integrate this 
doc into the gentoo web hierarchy?

Pdf's are nice, but gentoo documentation is typically accessed as web 
pages...
~harring

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Arun Raghavan]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:43 AM, David Leverton
<levertond@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 2008/6/13 Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>:
>> In this instance, it's the "pulling teeth" to get info on a claimed known
>> bug from PMS folks on pkgcore, while at the same time, complaints about
>> the non-clarity of PMS is met with remarks (by the same group of people)
>> of (paraphrased) "filed a patch yet?"
>
> In the case of the pkgcore bug, there was an objective statement of
> the fact that a bug existed, including simple instructions for
> reproducing it (which were dismissed by a certain person claiming he
> had already done so and found no bug  - clearly a lie).  In the case

There's a bug is an objective statement, I agree. Write some tests and
figure it out for yourself is simply malice (yes, I realise it was you
who provided the failing ebuild, and that is appreciated).

And why do you have to be plain insulting about it? Nobody can
magically spot every single bug in any piece of code presented to
them. In fact it's why the "given enough eyes ..." adage is one of the
bases of open source development.

I _honestly_ do not understand why there is so much trouble in simple
cooperation amongst adults.

Regards,
-- 
Arun Raghavan
(http://nemesis.accosted.net)
v2sw5Chw4+5ln4pr6$OFck2ma4+9u8w3+1!m?l7+9GSCKi056
e6+9i4b8/9HTAen4+5g4/8APa2Xs8r1/2p5-8 hackerkey.com
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 406 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:39:13 +0200
Jan Kundrát <jkt@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The only commit from rane that I see is [1], which removes "spb" as a 
> maintainer. As far as I can tell, this is not a vandalizing, but a 
> completely legitimate status update which was triggered by spb's
> retirement.

What, going around removing authors' names is 'a legitimate status
update'?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 630 bytes --]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:30:54 +0530
"Arun Raghavan" <arunisgod@gmail.com> wrote:
> And why do you have to be plain insulting about it? Nobody can
> magically spot every single bug in any piece of code presented to
> them. In fact it's why the "given enough eyes ..." adage is one of the
> bases of open source development.

Which is why any responsible person ensures good test coverage.

> I _honestly_ do not understand why there is so much trouble in simple
> cooperation amongst adults.

I agree entirely. Why the pkgcore people refuse to do basic automated
tests is completely beyond me.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Arun Raghavan]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> I _honestly_ do not understand why there is so much trouble in simple
>> cooperation amongst adults.
>
> I agree entirely. Why the pkgcore people refuse to do basic automated
> tests is completely beyond me.

This seems to be more of the kind of baiting that you use to cause
threads to spiral into irrelevant bickering that more than enough
people on this list are sick of having their mailboxes flooded with.
So I'm out of this thread until there is a reasonable discussion
happening.

-- 
Arun Raghavan
(http://nemesis.accosted.net)
v2sw5Chw4+5ln4pr6$OFck2ma4+9u8w3+1!m?l7+9GSCKi056
e6+9i4b8/9HTAen4+5g4/8APa2Xs8r1/2p5-8 hackerkey.com
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Roy Marples]

On Friday 13 June 2008 02:13:19 David Leverton wrote:
> The pkgcore was (or should have been) highly obvious to anyone who had
> so much glanced at the offending code.

Good behaviour
Hey - I found this bug in your code.
Here's a patch!

Bad behaviour
Hey guys - stop using Foo as it has a highly obvious bug which *would* have 
been caught in automated testing. This is a clear demonstration that Foo 
sucks and you should use Bar!

So which side of the coin landed here?
Or is now Bad Good, Black White and hopefully you'll get run over at the next 
Zebra crossing?

Thanks

Roy
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 565 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> What, going around removing authors' names is 'a legitimate status
> update'?

Nobody removed any author names. rane just removed a former developer 
from the list of active members of one Gentoo project. This happens all 
the time when a developer is retired. Being listed as a "developer" on 
that page says exactly nothing about one's ability to contribute to the PMS.

If you are unhappy with present state of the page, then I hope you'll 
file a bugreport.

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Duncan]

Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> posted
20080613062612.46931b33@googlemail.com, excerpted below, on  Fri, 13 Jun
2008 06:26:12 +0100:

> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:30:54 +0530
> "Arun Raghavan" <arunisgod@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And why do you have to be plain insulting about it? Nobody can
>> magically spot every single bug in any piece of code presented to them.
>> In fact it's why the "given enough eyes ..." adage is one of the bases
>> of open source development.
> 
> Which is why any responsible person ensures good test coverage.
> 
>> I _honestly_ do not understand why there is so much trouble in simple
>> cooperation amongst adults.
> 
> I agree entirely. Why the pkgcore people refuse to do basic automated
> tests is completely beyond me.

That may or may not be, but it's beside the point.  The point is that a 
bug was found, that fact was stated, and regardless of other points that 
could be made, the developer of the code in question was all but forced 
to call the person who caught the bug God and ask forgiveness for his 
sin, in ordered to find out what the bug was.  

Cooperation is understanding that people may have different development 
methods and reporting the bug as found so it can be fixed, possibly 
pointing out while doing so how much simpler it would be to find such 
bugs in the future if an automated test case was created.  Cooperation is 
not forcing them to do it my way now, or at least admit my way's better, 
before deigning to reveal the bug I know and they don't.  If enough bugs 
happen due to the lack of those tests and they hit enough people, the 
problem will one way or another take care of itself as the test cases are 
either provided and integrated somehow some way, or people move on to 
more stable solutions.  If not, perhaps those test cases weren't so vital 
after all, and fixing the handful of bugs as they appeared ultimately 
worked just as well as doing all those extra corner-case tests.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1028 bytes --]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:16:57 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> > I agree entirely. Why the pkgcore people refuse to do basic
> > automated tests is completely beyond me.
> 
> That may or may not be, but it's beside the point.  The point is that
> a bug was found, that fact was stated, and regardless of other points
> that could be made, the developer of the code in question was all but
> forced to call the person who caught the bug God and ask forgiveness
> for his sin, in ordered to find out what the bug was.  

No no, calling me God won't get anyone anywhere...

He was forced to do the kind of extremely basic testing that should
have been done before an EAPI 1 accepting package manager was put in
the tree. Unfortunately, he then committed a fix and didn't add unit
tests to prevent future regressions, nor did he add unit tests to cover
the rest of EAPI 1 functionality.

There is a big difference between obscure bugs and blatant
irresponsibility here.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Patrick Lauer]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:30:54 +0530
> "Arun Raghavan" <arunisgod@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> And why do you have to be plain insulting about it? Nobody can
>> magically spot every single bug in any piece of code presented to
>> them. In fact it's why the "given enough eyes ..." adage is one of the
>> bases of open source development.
>>     
>
> Which is why any responsible person ensures good test coverage.
>   
Just to pour some oil on the flames -

Y'all are aware that paludis can't parse a valid make.conf and does 
ignore package.keywords at times, yes?

Test case is:

FEATURES="strict" # test and stricter fail

in make.conf ... if you had the tests you claim others lack that would 
have been fixed a long time ago.
So please stop trolling when you fail so badly at it.
>   
>> I _honestly_ do not understand why there is so much trouble in simple
>> cooperation amongst adults.
>>     
>
> I agree entirely. Why the pkgcore people refuse to do basic automated
> tests is completely beyond me.
>   
Mirror, mirror on the wall.

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Fernando J. Pereda]

On 13 Jun 2008, at 11:01, Patrick Lauer wrote:

> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:30:54 +0530
>> "Arun Raghavan" <arunisgod@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And why do you have to be plain insulting about it? Nobody can
>>> magically spot every single bug in any piece of code presented to
>>> them. In fact it's why the "given enough eyes ..." adage is one of  
>>> the
>>> bases of open source development.
>>>
>>
>> Which is why any responsible person ensures good test coverage.
>>
> Just to pour some oil on the flames -

Then don't do it. You are doing a very bad marketing for the pkgcore  
guys with your whinnings.


> Y'all are aware that paludis can't parse a valid make.conf and does  
> ignore package.keywords at times, yes?
>
> Test case is:
>
> FEATURES="strict" # test and stricter fail
>
> in make.conf ... if you had the tests you claim others lack that  
> would have been fixed a long time ago.

Yes, we are aware of that bug in a feature we consider highly  
experimental.

You are amusing...

- ferdy

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1264 bytes --]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:01:19 +0200
Patrick Lauer <bugs@dev.gentooexperimental.org> wrote:
> Just to pour some oil on the flames -
> 
> Y'all are aware that paludis can't parse a valid make.conf and does 
> ignore package.keywords at times, yes?

Yep. We don't claim to or aim to completely support Portage configs.

> Test case is:
> 
> FEATURES="strict" # test and stricter fail
> 
> in make.conf ... if you had the tests you claim others lack that
> would have been fixed a long time ago.

No, we just don't bother supporting it. Remember that configs aren't
part of PMS.

Also note that if you had something like this in package.use:

foo/bar baz # monkey

Portage would until relatively recently (and after that section of PMS
was written, for the profiles side of it) set USE="baz # monkey".
Paludis chose to indicate an error rather than accept clearly nonsense
input.

There's no PMS violation here -- user configs aren't covered (and if
you do use a Portage user configuration with Paludis, you get a big fat
warning saying "this probably won't work, file tickets if you want
stuff fixed"), and PMS restricts profile use files to behaviour safely
supported by all EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Patrick Lauer]

Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
>>>
>> Just to pour some oil on the flames -
>
> Then don't do it. You are doing a very bad marketing for the pkgcore 
> guys with your whinnings.
Dude. Shut up.

I'm not a pkgcore guy. If anything I'm a portage supporter. That I 
accidentally host pkgcore.org doesn't mean I'm "one of them".
>
>
>> Y'all are aware that paludis can't parse a valid make.conf and does 
>> ignore package.keywords at times, yes?
>>
>> Test case is:
>>
>> FEATURES="strict" # test and stricter fail
>>
>> in make.conf ... if you had the tests you claim others lack that 
>> would have been fixed a long time ago.
>
> Yes, we are aware of that bug in a feature we consider highly 
> experimental.
Hmm, I'd have guessed config files are moderately relevant. And why 
don't y'all fix a bug like that? First you insult others for not doing 
tests, then you show a lack of tests and are proud of it. Augh.
>
> You are amusing... 
Hey, I gave you a testcase - now fix it, chop chop!

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 677 bytes --]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:16:31 +0200
Patrick Lauer <bugs@dev.gentooexperimental.org> wrote:
> > Yes, we are aware of that bug in a feature we consider highly 
> > experimental.
>
> Hmm, I'd have guessed config files are moderately relevant.

You didn't notice the large warning telling you not to use Portage
config files?

> And why don't y'all fix a bug like that?

We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments (which is
the same as what some EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions do, so PMS
can't allow inline comments), and indicate an error (rather than
writing junk, as older Portage did) when inline comments are used.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Fernando J. Pereda]

On 13 Jun 2008, at 11:16, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> Then don't do it. You are doing a very bad marketing for the  
>> pkgcore guys with your whinnings.


> I'm not a pkgcore guy. If anything I'm a portage supporter. That I  
> accidentally host pkgcore.org doesn't mean I'm "one of them".

Were you able to read English you'd have noted that I implicitly  
excluded you from the "pkgcore guys" in that sentence.

>> Yes, we are aware of that bug in a feature we consider highly  
>> experimental.
> Hmm, I'd have guessed config files are moderately relevant. And why  
> don't y'all fix a bug like that? First you insult others for not  
> doing tests, then you show a lack of tests and are proud of it. Augh.

Use of Portage configuration files will lead to sub-optimal  
performance and loss of functionality. Full support for Portage  
configuration formats is not guaranteed; issues should be reported via  
trac.

That's the pretty nice warning. Full support is not guaranteed. We do  
take sane patches, however.

Stop flaming, please.

- ferdy

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[David Leverton]

On Friday 13 June 2008 03:20:23 Brian Harring wrote:
> 1) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171291
> metadata/cache (hence labeled flat_list cache format) mtime
> requirements.

The current spec attempts to handle things as well as possible on the package 
manager side.  If you'd like it to be restricted more, then please provide 
precise details along with reasoning.

> 2) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196561; changing (within
> eapi0) the behaviour of ~ operator.  Currently, portage ignores any
> revision for ~, pkgcore gives the finger if you try combining ~ with a
> revision (it's not a valid atom), paludis follows the PMS rules;

As the bug says, there has been at least one ebuild in the past that appeared 
to expect the PMS behaviour, but it's gone now.  We can change the spec to 
match portage, but we'd like a repoman check to make sure people don't start 
doing it again.

> 3) good 'ole mr -r0 and the issues it triggers,
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215403
> initial dev thread,
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_de84ebd5116546518879e266bf60f32b.
>xml relevant flaws ignoring this issue induces:
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f98bab69d67bd4132917be0eb04e8f3e.
>xml
>
> Spawned by a rather odd commit from rbrown flushing out a user visible
> breakage for pkgcore users, it also flushed out PM incompatibilities
> in handling of PVR/PR; specifically since -r0 has *never* been used in
> ebuild names, all ebuilds have been written assuming PVR lacks -r0.
> What was the end result of this rather obnoxious (ebuild dev viewable)
> variance?

I'm not quite sure exactly what you're requesting here... to ban -r0 entirely?  
I still don't see the point in doing that in the spec - tree policy, fine, 
but package managers have to deal with similar issues anyway in other parts 
of the version syntax.

If you want the description of PVR changed, then please file a new bug giving 
details, as Ciaran already asked.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Patrick Lauer]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:16:31 +0200
> Patrick Lauer <bugs@dev.gentooexperimental.org> wrote:
>   
>>> Yes, we are aware of that bug in a feature we consider highly 
>>> experimental.
>>>       
>> Hmm, I'd have guessed config files are moderately relevant.
>>     
>
> You didn't notice the large warning telling you not to use Portage
> config files?
>   
I did. But how else can I compare things or move back to portage if I 
don't like it?

>> And why don't y'all fix a bug like that?
>>     
>
> We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments (which is
> the same as what some EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions do, so PMS
> can't allow inline comments), and indicate an error (rather than
> writing junk, as older Portage did) when inline comments are used.
>   
So you say the thing you wrote excludes things you don't like so you can 
claim things by referencing it as authoritative.

Does anyone else think that maybe there's a slight conflict of interest 
there?

I hope that PMS, as it stands now, does not become a standard. It is 
obviously very leaky and ignores issues so that you can claim PMS 
compatibility without being compatible to each other.

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1303 bytes --]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:53:02 +0200
Patrick Lauer <bugs@dev.gentooexperimental.org> wrote:
> > You didn't notice the large warning telling you not to use Portage
> > config files?
> >   
> I did. But how else can I compare things or move back to portage if I 
> don't like it?

You can set up a Paludis config. It's nice and easy.

> > We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments
> > (which is the same as what some EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions
> > do, so PMS can't allow inline comments), and indicate an error
> > (rather than writing junk, as older Portage did) when inline
> > comments are used. 
> So you say the thing you wrote excludes things you don't like so you
> can claim things by referencing it as authoritative.
> 
> Does anyone else think that maybe there's a slight conflict of
> interest there?
> 
> I hope that PMS, as it stands now, does not become a standard. It is 
> obviously very leaky and ignores issues so that you can claim PMS 
> compatibility without being compatible to each other.

Where possible, we exclude things that break Portage. Are you
suggesting that we should instead ignore what EAPI-0-supporting Portage
does and does not handle and just document things the way we'd like
them to be?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> And why don't y'all fix a bug like that?
>
> We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments (which is
> the same as what some EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions do, so PMS
> can't allow inline comments), and indicate an error (rather than
> writing junk, as older Portage did) when inline comments are used.

I believe this is reasoning is no longer valid. Current versions of
Portage accepts inline comments just fine (so does pkgcore). So, your
logic for PMS not allowing inline comments is based on "some [...]
[old] Portage versions" and does not specify current Portage
behaviour. IMO, it should be fixed to reflect majority (and
specifically portage) behaviour.

Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.


-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1490 bytes --]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:40:46 +0530
"Nirbheek Chauhan" <nirbheek.chauhan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> And why don't y'all fix a bug like that?
> >
> > We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments
> > (which is the same as what some EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions
> > do, so PMS can't allow inline comments), and indicate an error
> > (rather than writing junk, as older Portage did) when inline
> > comments are used.
> 
> I believe this is reasoning is no longer valid. Current versions of
> Portage accepts inline comments just fine (so does pkgcore). So, your
> logic for PMS not allowing inline comments is based on "some [...]
> [old] Portage versions" and does not specify current Portage
> behaviour. IMO, it should be fixed to reflect majority (and
> specifically portage) behaviour.

But some EAPI-0 accepting Portage versions don't accept inline
comments. Using inline comments in the tree will break those Portage
versions.

This one's especially an issue when you consider how long it's been
since Gentoo has released official stage tarballs...

> Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
> comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.

Paludis behaviour there matches Portage behaviour at the time it was
written, except that instead of proceeding with garbage values, Paludis
gives an error.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Where possible, we exclude things that break Portage. Are you
> suggesting that we should instead ignore what EAPI-0-supporting Portage
> does and does not handle and just document things the way we'd like
> them to be?

Wait, what?

"Where possible" ?

PMS is supposed to be a specification which is as close to Gentoo's
Official Package manager's behaviour as possible while (preferably)
leaving out deprecated behaviour. But right now you're saying:

"We're writing a spec that's somewhat like Portage, but where it
breaks Paludis, we prefer to get Portage to change it's behaviour
instead. Don't crib about this however. We could just have easily have
created a whole new spec which broke Portage completely."

I hope everyone realises just how ridiculous this is.

PS: An example of something in PMS that is different from Portage:
inline comments are disallowed. The only reason I can think for doing
this is to not make Paludis change it's behaviour.

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[David Leverton]

On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
> comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.

There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason applies 
to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS doesn't allow 
them.  There's no evil conspiracy here, just pure logic.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> But some EAPI-0 accepting Portage versions don't accept inline
> comments. Using inline comments in the tree will break those Portage
> versions.
>
> This one's especially an issue when you consider how long it's been
> since Gentoo has released official stage tarballs...

Which versions exactly? How old?

>
>> Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
>> comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.
>
> Paludis behaviour there matches Portage behaviour at the time it was
> written, except that instead of proceeding with garbage values, Paludis
> gives an error.

Well, then it should be updated to match current Portage behaviour.
PMS is not supposed to document "How portage worked at one point of
time" or "The intersection of the capabilities of Portage and
Paludis". It should follow the current portage's behaviour as closely
as possible.


-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[David Leverton]

On Friday 13 June 2008 11:18:53 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> Wait, what?
>
> "Where possible" ?

You'd prefer us to do impossible things too?

> PMS is supposed to be a specification which is as close to Gentoo's
> Official Package manager's behaviour as possible while (preferably)
> leaving out deprecated behaviour. But right now you're saying:
>
> "We're writing a spec that's somewhat like Portage, but where it
> breaks Paludis, we prefer to get Portage to change it's behaviour
> instead. Don't crib about this however. We could just have easily have
> created a whole new spec which broke Portage completely."
>

No, we're saying nothing of the sort.  Please feel free to browse the history 
and see where we've changed both Paludis and PMS to match Portage, when we 
become aware of differences - preferably before posting such nonsense in 
future.

> PS: An example of something in PMS that is different from Portage:
> inline comments are disallowed. The only reason I can think for doing
> this is to not make Paludis change it's behaviour.

Fortunately you don't have to think, you can just read Ciaran's explanation.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Luca Barbato]

David Leverton wrote:
> On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
>> comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.
> 
> There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason applies 
> to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS doesn't allow 
> them.  There's no evil conspiracy here, just pure logic.

Care to share the logic and wise reasoning ?

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM, David Leverton
<levertond@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
>> comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.
>
> There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason applies
> to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS doesn't allow
> them.  There's no evil conspiracy here, just pure logic.

Then I believe we would all like to know the reason why.


-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1203 bytes --]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:48:53 +0530
"Nirbheek Chauhan" <nirbheek.chauhan@gmail.com> wrote:
> PMS is supposed to be a specification which is as close to Gentoo's
> Official Package manager's behaviour as possible while (preferably)
> leaving out deprecated behaviour. But right now you're saying:
> 
> "We're writing a spec that's somewhat like Portage, but where it
> breaks Paludis, we prefer to get Portage to change it's behaviour
> instead. Don't crib about this however. We could just have easily have
> created a whole new spec which broke Portage completely."
> 
> I hope everyone realises just how ridiculous this is.

No, we're saying:

"There are some things that Portage does that're so obviously weird or
wrong that it's impossible to document that behaviour in a standard, so
occasionally we'll have to consider Portage to have bugs."

> PS: An example of something in PMS that is different from Portage:
> inline comments are disallowed. The only reason I can think for doing
> this is to not make Paludis change it's behaviour.

Did you check whether Portage that's included in current Gentoo
releases supports inline comments in profiles?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Fernando J. Pereda]

On 13 Jun 2008, at 12:18, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> "We're writing a spec that's somewhat like Portage, but where it
> breaks Paludis, we prefer to get Portage to change it's behaviour
> instead. Don't crib about this however. We could just have easily have
> created a whole new spec which broke Portage completely."

Care to give an example instead of FUDing? Paludis is written to match  
PMS, not the other way around. And when PMS changes, Paludis is  
changed to reflect such changes.

Don't be childish.

- ferdy

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 884 bytes --]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:52:30 +0530
"Nirbheek Chauhan" <nirbheek.chauhan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
> >> comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.
> >
> > Paludis behaviour there matches Portage behaviour at the time it was
> > written, except that instead of proceeding with garbage values,
> > Paludis gives an error.
> 
> Well, then it should be updated to match current Portage behaviour.
> PMS is not supposed to document "How portage worked at one point of
> time" or "The intersection of the capabilities of Portage and
> Paludis". It should follow the current portage's behaviour as closely
> as possible.

Do you really want to make it impossible to install Gentoo using the
most recent official release? Because that's what will happen if we do
what you're suggesting...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[David Leverton]

On Friday 13 June 2008 11:23:29 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM, David Leverton
> > There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason
> > applies to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS
> > doesn't allow them.  There's no evil conspiracy here, just pure logic.
>
> Then I believe we would all like to know the reason why.

The same reason the Ciaran already explained in this very thread.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2420 bytes --]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:32:20AM +0100, David Leverton wrote:
> On Friday 13 June 2008 11:23:29 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM, David Leverton
> > > There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason
> > > applies to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS
> > > doesn't allow them.  There's no evil conspiracy here, just pure logic.
> >
> > Then I believe we would all like to know the reason why.
> 
> The same reason the Ciaran already explained in this very thread.

Ciaran/Company actually are subtly wrong on this one.  Reason is 
miscommunication/misreading.


Quoting the original flamebait posting by patrick-

"""
Test case is:                                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                         
FEATURES="strict" # test and stricter fail                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                         
in make.conf ... <flamebait>
"""

Note 'make.conf'.  User configuration.

Not make.profile, or any other profile file.  

Meaning not under PMS jurisdiction, via the line in the sand ciaran 
has drawn to exclude portage configuration from PMS.

Now if the discussion *was* about profile files, yes, inline comments 
are not allowed due to backwards compatibility requirements.

In other words, ciaran is wrong about make.conf, but right about 
make.defaults and friends, which is what he probably interpretted the 
thread about.  Screwups happen, unfortunately w/ the air of gentoo-dev 
being one of hostility, it sprawls into mega-threads like this.

Either way, this isn't particularly relevant to -dev; belongs on 
-project at best, else the paludis mls due to it being a discussion of 
paludis incompatibility with existing portage configuration support.

Hopefully the statements above clear up any further reason for this 
thread to continue, so kindly leave it dead/buried.

Cheers,
~harring

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Duncan]

"Nirbheek Chauhan" <nirbheek.chauhan@gmail.com> posted
8b4c83ad0806130322s560c4fb7u70cd03964108723c@mail.gmail.com, excerpted
below, on  Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:52:30 +0530:

> Well, then it should be updated to match current Portage behaviour. PMS
> is not supposed to document "How portage worked at one point of time" or
> "The intersection of the capabilities of Portage and Paludis". It should
> follow the current portage's behaviour as closely as possible.

Ciaran's right on this one.  It may have been a bug in portage, now 
fixed, but at least until a stable current release media set, a working 
PMS can't change the EAPI-0 definition to fail with portage on the old 
release media, however stale it might be.  If a current release happens 
before PMS EAPI-0 finalization, this could possibly be subject to debate, 
but until then, it just doesn't work, however much we might wish it could.

Additionally, he and Brian both agree (!!) that out-of-tree portage 
config is outside the PMS domain, so the make.conf example doesn't have 
anything to do with PMS in any case.

Anyway, I agree with Brian in a different subthread post.  The council 
has met and this thread and discussions on it are stale, so best to let 
it die.  I'd have not replied here except after my earlier negative 
posts, I felt the need to provide some balance, and take the opportunity 
to point out that here, the Paludis devs are right, both practically 
(breaking new installs) and theoretically (out of PMS domain).

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Peter Volkov]

В Чтв, 12/06/2008 в 09:36 +0200, Markus Ullmann пишет:
> The PMS maintainers were withholding information on compatibility
> issues they've seen. As such we can't be sure this will pop up again
> in the future and so I strongly suggest dismissing this as something
> official for gentoo.

Dismissing does not fix PMS. Since PMS requires some specific
knowledge about package manager (PM) internals only few people can
decide on this matters and do actual work. I think what council could do
is to formalize PMS process and thus move from this "draft" point.

By formalizing I mean the following: call for and form PMS team. Team
must represent portage developers and could paludis and pkgcore. All
suggestions for PMS draft must go into bugzilla and after patch for PMS
is created PMS team members should vote on that patch. After voting
patch is applied or discarded. Until there are open bugs in bugzilla
council can not approve PMS.

Of course this is just a sketch of idea. I'm not expanding it and not
trying to discuss details at the moment as to make it viable at least
one portage developer should support this idea... But even without
portage developers this process at least could clear a bit the
situation. For example, currently, PMS team does not include anybody
from portage team - official PM team and thus this team can't represent
Gentoo interests. So until team which will represent Gentoo interests
arise, they'll work on PMS bugs and tell us that PMS is ready we should
not spend our time discussing PMS and trying to approve it.

-- 
Peter.

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 983 bytes --]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:42:28 +0400
Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:
> By formalizing I mean the following: call for and form PMS team. Team
> must represent portage developers and could paludis and pkgcore. All
> suggestions for PMS draft must go into bugzilla and after patch for
> PMS is created PMS team members should vote on that patch. After
> voting patch is applied or discarded. Until there are open bugs in
> bugzilla council can not approve PMS.

How would a voting system be better than the current "if anyone doesn't
like it, don't commit it until whatever they don't like is fixed"
process?

Do you think that the current proportion of patches that are rejected
for PMS inclusion is too high or too low?

Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches
from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the proportion
of patches from 'Portage people' or 'Pkgcore people' indicates a
problem?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[David Leverton]

On Sunday 15 June 2008 15:42:28 Peter Volkov wrote:
> For example, currently, PMS team does not include anybody from portage
> team - official PM team and thus this team can't represent Gentoo
> interests.

The Portage team is perfectly welcome to contribute if they wish.  zmedico is 
on the alias, although he seems to have been focussing on working on Portage 
itself.  genone, from what I've seen, seems to be indifferent at best to the 
idea of PMS.

I'm curious as to why you think the actively contributing members of the PMS 
team aren't acting in Gentoo's interests, though.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Peter Volkov]

В Вск, 15/06/2008 в 15:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:42:28 +0400
> Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > By formalizing I mean the following: call for and form PMS team. Team
> > must represent portage developers and could paludis and pkgcore. All
> > suggestions for PMS draft must go into bugzilla and after patch for
> > PMS is created PMS team members should vote on that patch. After
> > voting patch is applied or discarded. Until there are open bugs in
> > bugzilla council can not approve PMS.
> 
> How would a voting system be better than the current "if anyone doesn't
> like it, don't commit it until whatever they don't like is fixed"
> process?

Voting makes the process converging. It helps to avoid same arguments in
the next cycle of discussions. If you failed to find arguments and
convince majority - you have to live with decision which you don't agree
with.

> Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches
> from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the proportion
> of patches from 'Portage people' or 'Pkgcore people' indicates a
> problem?

No. Part of the problem is that working group on PMS does not include
developers from other PMs.

> В Вск, 15/06/2008 в 16:04 +0100, David Leverton пишет:
> zmedico is on the alias, although he seems to have been focussing on
> working on Portage itself. genone, from what I've seen, seems to be
> indifferent at best to the idea of PMS.

But without their voice I don't see how council could approve PMS. As it
was told in this thread at least some parts of PMS does not reflect the
things portage works. Thus by silence it's not possible to assume that
they agree with PMS.

> I'm curious as to why you think the actively contributing members of the PMS 
> team aren't acting in Gentoo's interests, though.

Actually I don't think so. That's why I don't want to dismiss PMS and
I'm looking how to make it "official". But as I see asking council
another time to discuss PMS does not makes it official... So we should
look for other ways to get from situation. Basically what was suggested
is to put in one team all three PM developers, but taking into account
that sometimes it's hard for them to discuss things - voting should make
this working group to proceed. And yes, without portage developers in
PMS team (I even think portage developers should have 50% of voices in
voting and council to resolve moot situations) I don't think Gentoo
could call final PMS "official". The reasoning is simple - how we can
call PMS "official" if none of Gentoo portage gurus voiced to support
it? And if portage developers are not interested in PMS I don't think
council could do something besides trying to convince them or until new
portage developer arise and fix/approve PMS... You know the rules: want
to change things happen in Gentoo - became active developer. In this
case you have to became active portage developer.

-- 
Peter.

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2292 bytes --]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:27:35 +0400
Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > How would a voting system be better than the current "if anyone
> > doesn't like it, don't commit it until whatever they don't like is
> > fixed" process?
> 
> Voting makes the process converging. It helps to avoid same arguments
> in the next cycle of discussions. If you failed to find arguments and
> convince majority - you have to live with decision which you don't
> agree with.

Please point to specific examples of discussions we've had so far
regarding patches for PMS where a consensus has not been reached
without having to resort to voting.

> > Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches
> > from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the
> > proportion of patches from 'Portage people' or 'Pkgcore people'
> > indicates a problem?
> 
> No. Part of the problem is that working group on PMS does not include
> developers from other PMs.

Every patch submitted by developers of other PMs has been accepted.
> > I'm curious as to why you think the actively contributing members
> > of the PMS team aren't acting in Gentoo's interests, though.
> 
> Actually I don't think so. That's why I don't want to dismiss PMS and
> I'm looking how to make it "official".

PMS is already an official Gentoo project.

> how we can call PMS "official" if none of Gentoo portage gurus voiced
> to support it?

The people who know Portage and ebuilds best, and who are most aware of
the implications of PMS, aren't the Portage developer. Have a read of
bug 222721 if you want a perfect example.

> And if portage developers are not interested in PMS I don't think
> council could do something besides trying to convince them or until
> new portage developer arise and fix/approve PMS... You know the
> rules: want to change things happen in Gentoo - became active
> developer. In this case you have to became active portage developer.

Most of the difficult bits of PMS have an awful lot to do with ebuilds
and very little to do with Portage. The Portage developer is more
interested in doing other things, and there's no reason to hold PMS up
until another person can be given the "Portage developer" label.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2008 bytes --]

On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:14 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> But some EAPI-0 accepting Portage versions don't accept inline
> comments. Using inline comments in the tree will break those Portage
> versions.

Yes, and EAPI=0 accepting Portage versions also didn't accept things
like package.use and use.mask in the profiles, considering that EAPI=0
doesn't have a set definition and was based upon a particular portage
version that did have the required support.  So should we ban those from
the tree, too?

Oh yeah, PMS isn't approved, anyway, so there's no policy *at all*
within Gentoo that denies a package manager from being used that doesn't
conform to your idea of how things should work.

> This one's especially an issue when you consider how long it's been
> since Gentoo has released official stage tarballs...

Wow.  Your second stab at my team in 3 days, without me even responding.

I should probably be blushing if it weren't for the fact that I really
don't give a damn about you or anything that you say.

Quite honestly, the same goes for pretty much anybody who works with
you.  You are a poisonous person to Gentoo and I sincerely wish that
some day people around here will grow a pair and realize that your
incessant self-absorbed bullshit simply isn't something we really want
around here.  I mean, we've already thrown out you and three of your
cronies because your attitude sucks and you're all a pain in the ass to
work with.  What exactly do we need to do here?  Ban you all?

I find it massively amusing that most of the traffic on this list over
the past 3 days has come from people that have been *FORCIBLY* removed
from the Gentoo project.

Oh yeah, don't bother responding to me.  I've decided to put you and all
of your little cohorts into my killfile so I no longer have to read your
constant barrage of bullshit.

Seriously, you're a complete fucking waste.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 591 bytes --]

On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:22 +0100, David Leverton wrote:
> > PS: An example of something in PMS that is different from Portage:
> > inline comments are disallowed. The only reason I can think for
> doing
> > this is to not make Paludis change it's behaviour.
> 
> Fortunately you don't have to think, you can just read Ciaran's
> explanation.

Yes, because we all should stop thinking for ourselves and let Ciaran
tell us what to think.  After all, we all want to be like the cool
Paludis developers.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 668 bytes --]

On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:22 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> David Leverton wrote:
> > On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> >> Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
> >> comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.
> > 
> > There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason applies 
> > to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS doesn't allow 
> > them.  There's no evil conspiracy here, just pure logic.
> 
> Care to share the logic and wise reasoning ?

[ "${IDEA_ORIGIN}" != "Ciaran" ] && die

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 476 bytes --]

On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:23 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Did you check whether Portage that's included in current Gentoo
> releases supports inline comments in profiles?

Yeah, the version in 2008.0_beta2 surely does.  Perhaps you meant
something else?  Well, either that, or you're just posting more of your
bullshit where you obscure or otherwise lie about the facts to suit
yourself.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1256 bytes --]

On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:27 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Well, then it should be updated to match current Portage behaviour.
> > PMS is not supposed to document "How portage worked at one point of
> > time" or "The intersection of the capabilities of Portage and
> > Paludis". It should follow the current portage's behaviour as closely
> > as possible.
> 
> Do you really want to make it impossible to install Gentoo using the
> most recent official release? Because that's what will happen if we do
> what you're suggesting...

Considering that the "most recent official release" is 2008.0_beta2, I
don't see where you have a point, at all.

Sure, you're going to mention something about being labeled a beta, to
which my response will be that you're simply backpedaling and changing
the facts to suit your needs.  After all, looking at /releases on the
mirrors, I see a nice and shiny 2008.0_beta2 on all of the
officially-supported arches.

Isn't it about time that you gave up on your little mission to
consistently undermine the hard work put in by a community of
volunteers?

Of course not... You need to stroke your ego some more.  Pfft...

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 938 bytes --]

On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:44 +0000, Duncan wrote:
> Ciaran's right on this one.  It may have been a bug in portage, now 
> fixed, but at least until a stable current release media set, a working 
> PMS can't change the EAPI-0 definition to fail with portage on the old 
> release media, however stale it might be.  If a current release happens 
> before PMS EAPI-0 finalization, this could possibly be subject to debate, 
> but until then, it just doesn't work, however much we might wish it could.

No, he isn't.  For one, we're talking make.conf, not the profiles.
Second, there's a newer official (and stable) media set.  Sorry if you
don't like the "beta" moniker, which applies to the media set.  After
all, does a package suddenly become less stable because it is included
in a tarball that has "beta" in the *FILE NAME* ?  I don't think so.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1240 bytes --]

On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 15:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches
> from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the proportion
> of patches from 'Portage people' or 'Pkgcore people' indicates a
> problem?

Nope.   What I see as a problem is that the primary author and current
de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was forcibly
removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to be written
for, and has ostracized (at least) one of the package manager's
development team with his constant not-so-subtle attacks.  Quite
frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over the specification that
defines the most important single feature of Gentoo and remove the
non-Gentoo developers from its development.  No offense, but you're not
a Gentoo developer any longer and you shouldn't have a say in how *we*
manage ourselves.  You're more than welcome to contribute code, fork, or
whatever the hell you want.  This is open source, after all, but that
doesn't mean you should be allowed to hold the position of power over
Gentoo that you've been granted.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 845 bytes --]

On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 16:04 +0100, David Leverton wrote:
> On Sunday 15 June 2008 15:42:28 Peter Volkov wrote:
> > For example, currently, PMS team does not include anybody from portage
> > team - official PM team and thus this team can't represent Gentoo
> > interests.
> 
> The Portage team is perfectly welcome to contribute if they wish.  zmedico is 
> on the alias, although he seems to have been focussing on working on Portage 
> itself.  genone, from what I've seen, seems to be indifferent at best to the 
> idea of PMS.
> 
> I'm curious as to why you think the actively contributing members of the PMS 
> team aren't acting in Gentoo's interests, though.

Maybe because they were booted from Gentoo for not acting in Gentoo's
best interest?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Mauricio Lima Pilla]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1577 bytes --]

Chris++

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org>
wrote:

> On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 15:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches
> > from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the proportion
> > of patches from 'Portage people' or 'Pkgcore people' indicates a
> > problem?
>
> Nope.   What I see as a problem is that the primary author and current
> de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was forcibly
> removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to be written
> for, and has ostracized (at least) one of the package manager's
> development team with his constant not-so-subtle attacks.  Quite
> frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over the specification that
> defines the most important single feature of Gentoo and remove the
> non-Gentoo developers from its development.  No offense, but you're not
> a Gentoo developer any longer and you shouldn't have a say in how *we*
> manage ourselves.  You're more than welcome to contribute code, fork, or
> whatever the hell you want.  This is open source, after all, but that
> doesn't mean you should be allowed to hold the position of power over
> Gentoo that you've been granted.
>
> --
> Chris Gianelloni
> Release Engineering Strategic Lead
> Games Developer
>



-- 
Mauricio Lima Pilla
Polytechnic Center - UCPEL

pilla@ucpel.tche.br, mauricio.pilla@gmail.com
http://g3pd.ucpel.tche.br/~pilla
key 0x37705BE0

"I'm just very selective about the reality I choose to accept."
-- Calvin

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2175 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[George Prowse]

++

It's about time someone said this and I honestly think that lots of 
developers will be thinking the same.

In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda and 
force it on both the developers and the users so maybe it would be best 
for all if paludis and it's developers were to concentrate on making 
paludis for a different distro. Trollix may be a good place to start...

Mauricio Lima Pilla wrote:
> Chris++
> 
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org 
> <mailto:wolf31o2@gentoo.org>> wrote:
> 
>     On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 15:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>      > Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches
>      > from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the
>     proportion
>      > of patches from 'Portage people' or 'Pkgcore people' indicates a
>      > problem?
> 
>     Nope.   What I see as a problem is that the primary author and current
>     de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was forcibly
>     removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to be written
>     for, and has ostracized (at least) one of the package manager's
>     development team with his constant not-so-subtle attacks.  Quite
>     frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over the specification that
>     defines the most important single feature of Gentoo and remove the
>     non-Gentoo developers from its development.  No offense, but you're not
>     a Gentoo developer any longer and you shouldn't have a say in how *we*
>     manage ourselves.  You're more than welcome to contribute code, fork, or
>     whatever the hell you want.  This is open source, after all, but that
>     doesn't mean you should be allowed to hold the position of power over
>     Gentoo that you've been granted.
> 
>     --
>     Chris Gianelloni
>     Release Engineering Strategic Lead
>     Games Developer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mauricio Lima Pilla
> Polytechnic Center - UCPEL
> 
> pilla@ucpel.tche.br <mailto:pilla@ucpel.tche.br>, 
> mauricio.pilla@gmail.com <mailto:mauricio.pilla@gmail.com>
> http://g3pd.ucpel.tche.br/~pilla
> key 0x37705BE0
> 
> "I'm just very selective about the reality I choose to accept."
> -- Calvin

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[David Leverton]

On Thursday 19 June 2008 04:09:26 George Prowse wrote:
> In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda

Lies and FUD.

> maybe it would be best for all if paludis and it's developers were to
> concentrate on making paludis for a different distro. Trollix may be a
> good place to start... 

Oh look, speaking of agendas....
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[David Leverton]

On Thursday 19 June 2008 01:23:33 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Considering that the "most recent official release" is 2008.0_beta2, I
> don't see where you have a point, at all.

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/#doc_chap5

"The latest release of Gentoo Linux is:

"Gentoo Linux 2007.0 for Alpha, AMD64, HPPA, IA64, MIPS, PPC, S390, SH, SPARC, 
and x86 architectures. "

2007.0 is also the first version listed at 
http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/where.xml

The point is to avoid breaking Portage versions that users might reasonably be 
using, even if only briefly.  Do you really expect /all/ users doing a new 
installation to choose the scary beta instead of the nice safe release?  
Perhaps we all know that the beta is better because it's so much more up to 
date.  Maybe it's even just as stable, if not more so (I wouldn't know, I 
haven't tried it).  But as long as it's labelled "beta", at least some people 
are going to avoid it in favour of 2007.0, and breaking the tree for those 
people such that they can't upgrade is unacceptable.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Luca Barbato]

David Leverton wrote:
> On Thursday 19 June 2008 01:23:33 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> Considering that the "most recent official release" is 2008.0_beta2, I
>> don't see where you have a point, at all.
> 
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/#doc_chap5
> 
> "The latest release of Gentoo Linux is:
> 
> "Gentoo Linux 2007.0 for Alpha, AMD64, HPPA, IA64, MIPS, PPC, S390, SH, SPARC, 
> and x86 architectures. "
> 
> 2007.0 is also the first version listed at 
> http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/where.xml
> 

Good point, doc team please update those places.

> The point is to avoid breaking Portage versions that users might reasonably be 
> using, even if only briefly.  Do you really expect /all/ users doing a new 
> installation to choose the scary beta instead of the nice safe release?  

What about those who do not update since 1.0? how could they survive the 
havoc?

Well I do have my opinion about this:

http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero/glep/migrationpath.rst

IFF we would like to be _that_ helpful for such minority of users. 
Otherwise isn't that hard update portage in safe mode anyway.

Trying to make HUGE MONSTERS of little corner case is the favorite sport 
of Ciaranm and crew, be it a "beta" tag, an obscure feature some 
developers may like for tracking live sources (and the user should not 
use), possible fut{ure,ile} changes in the ebuild format.

lu - putting in perspective

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Luca Barbato]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:22 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> David Leverton wrote:
>>> On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>>>> Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
>>>> comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.
>>> There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason applies 
>>> to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS doesn't allow 
>>> them.  There's no evil conspiracy here, just pure logic.
>> Care to share the logic and wise reasoning ?
> 
> [ "${IDEA_ORIGIN}" != "Ciaran" ] && die

I tend to agree.

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Luca Barbato]

David Leverton wrote:
> On Thursday 19 June 2008 04:09:26 George Prowse wrote:
>> In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda
> 
> Lies and FUD.

No

>> maybe it would be best for all if paludis and it's developers were to
>> concentrate on making paludis for a different distro. Trollix may be a
>> good place to start... 
> 
> Oh look, speaking of agendas....

...are you issuing a press release for exherbo?

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

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

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 8:39 AM, George Prowse  wrote:
> ++
>
> It's about time someone said this and I honestly think that lots of
> developers will be thinking the same.

++

I'm not a developer, but I'm a Gentoo Summer of Code student[0] so
maybe my experience counts for something:

I approached this package manager mess with a completely open mind. I
did not see any reason why someone would behave the way people were
saying the Paludis folk did. I used to idle on both #pkgcore and
#paludis, and occasionally contributed in both channels[1][2]. The
result however, was a personal verification[3] of what people had been
telling me all along.

Ciaran deliberately steers threads in a completely non-productive
direction[4] for reasons completely beyond me[5]. If I didn't know better
I'd think he had been hired by someone to constantly plant seeds of
disharmony and chaos within Gentoo.

However, one thing is for certain. There is no doubt that his tactics
waste everyone's time and energy.

~Nirbheek Chauhan who is quite depressed to see all this.

0. http://tinyurl.com/4plr7c
1. http://pastebin.osuosl.org/8455
2. http://pastebin.osuosl.org/8456
3. http://pastebin.osuosl.org/7939
4. Ciaran's reply (http://tinyurl.com/5sldtc) to Brian's mail
(http://tinyurl.com/5zuf7y) and my reply to it
(http://tinyurl.com/5l4ddk)
5. http://tinyurl.com/6b5sfb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://getfiregpg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkhaErIACgkQb1z91vbKYbYIewCeO5eYks9Ep1WsqwcGXWMrB2xR
XzEAoKdhmPCeixSoDOoK/8fJ+aWm4apc
=KcMj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[David Leverton]

On Thursday 19 June 2008 08:41:34 Luca Barbato wrote:
> > The point is to avoid breaking Portage versions that users might
> > reasonably be using, even if only briefly.  Do you really expect /all/
> > users doing a new installation to choose the scary beta instead of the
> > nice safe release?
>
> What about those who do not update since 1.0? how could they survive the
> havoc?

Is avoiding a beta version of something moderately important (like, say, 
installation media) really equivalent to not updating for over five years?

> Trying to make HUGE MONSTERS of little corner case is the favorite sport
> of Ciaranm and crew, be it a "beta" tag, an obscure feature some
> developers may like for tracking live sources (and the user should not
> use), possible fut{ure,ile} changes in the ebuild format.

Please take the ad hominems elsewhere. 
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[David Leverton]

On Thursday 19 June 2008 08:44:41 Luca Barbato wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:22 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> >> Care to share the logic and wise reasoning ?
> >
> > [ "${IDEA_ORIGIN}" != "Ciaran" ] && die
>
> I tend to agree.

The reason has already been explained multiple times, kindly stop with the 
personal attacks and silly conspiracy theories.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[David Leverton]

On Thursday 19 June 2008 08:46:02 Luca Barbato wrote:
> David Leverton wrote:
> > On Thursday 19 June 2008 04:09:26 George Prowse wrote:
> >> In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda
> >
> > Lies and FUD.
>
> No

Yes.

> ...are you issuing a press release for exherbo?

What the hell does Exherbo have to do with anything?
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Duncan]

Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> posted
1213839792.4449.7.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org, excerpted below, on  Wed, 18
Jun 2008 18:43:12 -0700:

> Quite frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo
> take control over the specification that defines the most important
> single feature of Gentoo and remove the non-Gentoo developers from its
> development.

Leaving the history aside (I posted my personal feelings a week or so 
ago, no need to rehash), we have a serious practical problem with any 
proposal to take direct control of PMS and boot the main current 
contributors.

The problem is -- like him or not, and like the problem or not, Ciaran is 
the ONE person who pushed and pushed on PMS, ultimately got the thing 
going, and continues to be the prime mover behind it.

Now, part of that may be the result of the caustic style, no argument 
there.  However, the fact is, he's and the other paludis folks are 
putting in the hard time that has to be put in to get the thing done.  
Nobody else is, either on their repository or on the Gentoo controlled 
one.  In fact, last I knew, the Gentoo one tended not to be up to date 
and was often going weeks between any action at all (tho talk was of 
moving the active one to Gentoo hosting, don't know if it ever happened 
or not).

Whatever our disagreements or dislikes for each other, the practical 
situation is that Ciaran and friends are doing what no one else took time 
to do, and, were we to forcibly remove them from their current activity 
on it, I'd put the chances at over 70% it'd end up stagnating pretty 
fast.  That's the problem with scrapping and starting over, too, except 
even more so.  I'd put the chances of a redo project ever reaching even 
/this/ far at less than 20%.  

So, while we might not particularly like the persons doing it, if we 
consider it worthwhile and useful to have done, we pretty much gotta work 
with them, because they /are/ doing it -- no one else was or is, nor, 
practically speaking, do I see anybody else having the discipline, time 
and talent to stick to it and get it done, right, regardless of likes or 
dislikes.

Now, it may indeed be that having a working and adopted PMS or alike 
document isn't worth the trouble.  It's the council, backed by individual 
devs, that ultimately decides such things.  However, I believe it's 
worthwhile to face the facts, and know that if we /do/ nix this, we're 
probably nixing the entire idea for some years at least.  Whether it's 
worth it or not I can't say, but that's what we're talking, in terms of 
cost, one way or the other.  We either take this, like or not who doing 
it, or we don't, and we lose all the benefits, for now and perhaps 
forever, but also lose the poison.  Honestly, I'm glad I'm not one of 
those having to make that decision.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Roy Marples]

On Thursday 19 June 2008 02:43:12 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Nope.   What I see as a problem is that the primary author and current
> de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was forcibly
> removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to be written
> for, and has ostracized (at least) one of the package manager's
> development team with his constant not-so-subtle attacks.  Quite
> frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over the specification that
> defines the most important single feature of Gentoo and remove the
> non-Gentoo developers from its development.  No offense, but you're not
> a Gentoo developer any longer and you shouldn't have a say in how *we*
> manage ourselves.  You're more than welcome to contribute code, fork, or
> whatever the hell you want.  This is open source, after all, but that
> doesn't mean you should be allowed to hold the position of power over
> Gentoo that you've been granted.

I would like to see Gentoo grow some balls and start banning people from -dev 
and other media used. I don't mean temporary bans, I mean for life.

Yes, it's not nice. Yes, Gentoo should be open for all and encourage 
participation from all. However, some people have demonstrated time and time 
again over quite a number of years that they wont change no matter what. 
These people are posionous [1].

Whilst growing this set of balls, consider scrapping PMS I've yet to see any 
tangiable gain (from a user perspective) but plently of loss (developers, 
hair, temper).

I'm leaving this list as I want no part in this any longer, so I won't read 
any replies.

Thanks

Roy

[1] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Patrick Börjesson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1189 bytes --]

On 2008-06-19 04:09, George Prowse uttered these thoughts:
> In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda and force 
> it on both the developers and the users so maybe it would be best for all 
> if paludis and it's developers were to concentrate on making paludis for a 
> different distro. Trollix may be a good place to start...

I'm pretty sure "they" have no leverage what so ever to force the Gentoo
community into ANYTHING, so kindly lay off the exaggerations. If you're
not happy with the way that PMS is developed, fork it. It's open source.
That's the way open source development works; if you're not happy with
something, fix it (iow, do the damn work yourself instead of complaining). 

I'm not a proponent for any side here, but i'm getting mighty fucking
irritated of the personal attacks. I know it's impossible for some
people, and it's probably an unreachable ideal, but could everyone just
think a couple of extra seconds about the technical aspects instead of
just lashing out because someone indirectly calls you an idiot when you
mess up. 

-- 
()  The ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against HTML Email
/\  and proprietary formats.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Patrick Börjesson
<psychotical@lavabit.com> wrote:
> On 2008-06-19 04:09, George Prowse uttered these thoughts:
>> In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda and force
>> it on both the developers and the users so maybe it would be best for all
>> if paludis and it's developers were to concentrate on making paludis for a
>> different distro. Trollix may be a good place to start...
>
> I'm pretty sure "they" have no leverage what so ever to force the Gentoo
> community into ANYTHING, so kindly lay off the exaggerations.

The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of
time and energy since people will *always* reply to them. Even if half
the community decides (out of the half that hasn't unsubscribed or
left because of them) not to reply to them, someone from the other
half will reply, and the thread will again spiral downwards.

I recommend seeing (at least) the first 5-10 mins of
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645 (posted
by Roy Maples in this same thread)

> If you're
> not happy with the way that PMS is developed, fork it. It's open source.
> That's the way open source development works; if you're not happy with
> something, fix it (iow, do the damn work yourself instead of complaining).

I completely agree. They should stop pushing it in everyone's faces.
We all know PMS exists. When the developer community thinks it's
ready, council will approve it.

>
> I'm not a proponent for any side here, but i'm getting mighty fucking
> irritated of the personal attacks. I know it's impossible for some
> people, and it's probably an unreachable ideal, but could everyone just
> think a couple of extra seconds about the technical aspects instead of
> just lashing out because someone indirectly calls you an idiot when you
> mess up.

The problem, of course, comes up when one side likes to mix technical
replies with personal attacks[1][2][3][4][...].


1. http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_23e836c773616f0e816f3c421900e1f1.xml
2. http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_3bb49516dc83b9f4d8f80a4e67fa7a84.xml
3,4,... Many many more. I don't intend to waste time searching for them.

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[David Leverton]

On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:02:13 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of
> time and energy since people will *always* reply to them.

Replies?  On a mailing list?  Whatever is the world coming to?

> I completely agree. They should stop pushing it in everyone's faces.
> We all know PMS exists. When the developer community thinks it's
> ready, council will approve it.

Who's "pushing it in everyone's faces"?
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM, David Leverton
<levertond@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:02:13 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of
>> time and energy since people will *always* reply to them.
>
> Replies?  On a mailing list?  Whatever is the world coming to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextomy

>
>> I completely agree. They should stop pushing it in everyone's faces.
>> We all know PMS exists. When the developer community thinks it's
>> ready, council will approve it.
>
> Who's "pushing it in everyone's faces"?

Oh great, then I don't expect any more threads about PMS from the authors :)

/me marks this reply for further reference

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Richard Brown]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 14:19, Nirbheek Chauhan
<nirbheek.chauhan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM, David Leverton
> <levertond@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:02:13 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>>> The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of
>>> time and energy since people will *always* reply to them.
>>
>> Replies?  On a mailing list?  Whatever is the world coming to?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextomy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot
-- 
Richard Brown
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[David Leverton]

On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:19:32 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM, David Leverton
>
> <levertond@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:02:13 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> >> The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of
> >> time and energy since people will *always* reply to them.
> >
> > Replies?  On a mailing list?  Whatever is the world coming to?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextomy

I really don't see what context in your original post could change the meaning 
from "oh noes, too many posts, it must be a flamewar!!!!11!"  If you'd like 
to clarify, I'd appreciate that very much.

> > Who's "pushing it in everyone's faces"?
>
> Oh great, then I don't expect any more threads about PMS from the authors
> :)

Posting threads about PMS is not the same as "pushing it in everyone's faces".  
This is the appropriate list to discuss PMS issues, as far as I'm aware.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:56 PM, David Leverton
<levertond@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:19:32 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM, David Leverton
>> > On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:02:13 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> >> The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of
>> >> time and energy since people will *always* reply to them.
>> >
>> > Replies?  On a mailing list?  Whatever is the world coming to?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextomy
>
> I really don't see what context in your original post could change the meaning
> from "oh noes, too many posts, it must be a flamewar!!!!11!"  If you'd like
> to clarify, I'd appreciate that very much.

I meant

"oh noes, too many posts with the same 3 people replying everywhere
and spreading their minority irrelevant opinion as though it really
mattered! What a gargantuan waste of time and energy!!!!11!~"

I mean, you guys don't have *any* control over how Gentoo works
anymore. No one wants you all around. More than enough people have
wasted their time and energy on you. Far more people have stopped
coming onto #gentoo-dev. People who contribute far more than you guys
have unsubscribed from the gentoo-dev ML. You guys have made even more
people *leave the project*.

Stop.

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Arun Raghavan]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Richard Brown <rbrown@exherbo.org> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

This is the second time in 8 days that you are doing this. Please stop
filling our inboxes with this puerile trolling.

Devrel team: I do appreciate that the Gentoo Way has been to keep the
communication channels as open as possible, but a line must be drawn
*somewhere*.
-- 
Arun Raghavan
(http://nemesis.accosted.net)
v2sw5Chw4+5ln4pr6$OFck2ma4+9u8w3+1!m?l7+9GSCKi056
e6+9i4b8/9HTAen4+5g4/8APa2Xs8r1/2p5-8 hackerkey.com
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[David Leverton]

On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:52:01 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> "oh noes, too many posts with the same 3 people replying everywhere
> and spreading their minority irrelevant opinion as though it really
> mattered! What a gargantuan waste of time and energy!!!!11!~"

If you disagree with people's opinions, then you should try to convince them 
otherwise, not say "minority, STFU".

> I mean, you guys don't have *any* control over how Gentoo works
> anymore. No one wants you all around. More than enough people have
> wasted their time and energy on you. Far more people have stopped
> coming onto #gentoo-dev. People who contribute far more than you guys
> have unsubscribed from the gentoo-dev ML. You guys have made even more
> people *leave the project*.

If people can't tell the difference between flaming and disagreeing, that's 
their problem.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Patrick Börjesson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3926 bytes --]

On 2008-06-19 18:32, Nirbheek Chauhan uttered these thoughts:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Patrick Börjesson
> <psychotical@lavabit.com> wrote:
> > On 2008-06-19 04:09, George Prowse uttered these thoughts:
> >> In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda and force
> >> it on both the developers and the users so maybe it would be best for all
> >> if paludis and it's developers were to concentrate on making paludis for a
> >> different distro. Trollix may be a good place to start...
> >
> > I'm pretty sure "they" have no leverage what so ever to force the Gentoo
> > community into ANYTHING, so kindly lay off the exaggerations.
> 
> The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of
> time and energy since people will *always* reply to them. Even if half
> the community decides (out of the half that hasn't unsubscribed or
> left because of them) not to reply to them, someone from the other
> half will reply, and the thread will again spiral downwards.

So how is that the Paludis guys fault? If you don't even expect "your
guys" (ie. official Gentoo Developers) to handle a conversation over a
mailinglist in a decent manner, how can you expect that from anyone
else?

> I recommend seeing (at least) the first 5-10 mins of
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645 (posted
> by Roy Maples in this same thread)

Oh, I watched the entire thing, thank you. And from it i came to the
conclusion that the Paludis folk aren't the ones being more poisonous.
Sure, Ciaran can be an asshat at times, but he also brings up valid
points most of the time (and by most i mean extremely close to always). 

The closest point of the "Identification" part of that presentation that
I could find applying to Ciaran would be "Attempts to deliberately rile
people", which doesn't even apply since he's personally insulting
single individuals when he does it, and not the entire community.

> > If you're
> > not happy with the way that PMS is developed, fork it. It's open source.
> > That's the way open source development works; if you're not happy with
> > something, fix it (iow, do the damn work yourself instead of complaining).
> 
> I completely agree. They should stop pushing it in everyone's faces.
> We all know PMS exists. When the developer community thinks it's
> ready, council will approve it.

How exactly are they pushing it in everyone's faces? Actually, there's
not much mension of PMS at all from the people actually working on PMS,
but rather mension of EAPI. And that's when it's actually relevant. 
And EAPI _was_ deemed relevant quite a while back if i remember right
(can't link to a specific discussion). 

And how exactly is "the developer community" going get to the point when
they "think it's ready" without any discussion about it?

> > I'm not a proponent for any side here, but i'm getting mighty fucking
> > irritated of the personal attacks. I know it's impossible for some
> > people, and it's probably an unreachable ideal, but could everyone just
> > think a couple of extra seconds about the technical aspects instead of
> > just lashing out because someone indirectly calls you an idiot when you
> > mess up.
> 
> The problem, of course, comes up when one side likes to mix technical
> replies with personal attacks[1][2][3][4][...].
> 
> 
> 1. http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_23e836c773616f0e816f3c421900e1f1.xml
> 2. http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_3bb49516dc83b9f4d8f80a4e67fa7a84.xml
> 3,4,... Many many more. I don't intend to waste time searching for them.

So you expect one side of the interraction (Ciaran in this case) to just
sit silently and accept the insults, while he on the other hand can't
say shit? Double standards anyone?

-- 
()  The ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against HTML Email
/\  and proprietary formats.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:06:21 +0100
David Leverton <levertond@googlemail.com> wrote:

> The reason has already been explained multiple times, kindly stop
> with the personal attacks and silly conspiracy theories.

In this case the attacks seem to be targeting a person who has been
attacking an entire ~300 person project for a few years now. I honestly
don't see how you are contributing to this project in general, or in
particular how you intend to contribute to this project by protecting
ciaranm against this project.


     JeR


PS: I wanted to respond to many more of your comments, but then I
always thought: who is this man anyway and does he perhaps contribute
to Gentoo in some obscure way? Now I tend to think you don't.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Robert Bridge]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:11:11 +0100
Roy Marples <roy@marples.name> wrote:

> On Thursday 19 June 2008 02:43:12 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Nope.   What I see as a problem is that the primary author and
> > current de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was
> > forcibly removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to
> > be written for, and has ostracized (at least) one of the package
> > manager's development team with his constant not-so-subtle
> > attacks.  Quite frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over
> > the specification that defines the most important single feature of
> > Gentoo and remove the non-Gentoo developers from its development.
> > No offense, but you're not a Gentoo developer any longer and you
> > shouldn't have a say in how *we* manage ourselves.  You're more
> > than welcome to contribute code, fork, or whatever the hell you
> > want.  This is open source, after all, but that doesn't mean you
> > should be allowed to hold the position of power over Gentoo that
> > you've been granted.
> 
> I would like to see Gentoo grow some balls and start banning people
> from -dev and other media used. I don't mean temporary bans, I mean
> for life.
> 
> Yes, it's not nice. Yes, Gentoo should be open for all and encourage 
> participation from all. However, some people have demonstrated time
> and time again over quite a number of years that they wont change no
> matter what. These people are posionous [1].

Slightly ironic for me to suggest this, but...

It is the gentoo-dev mailing list, restrict posting to gentoo devs
(i.e. only people with a @gentoo.org email address) would make a lot of
sense.

Rob.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Ferris McCormick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2162 bytes --]


On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 18:28 +0100, Robert Bridge wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:11:11 +0100
> Roy Marples <roy@marples.name> wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday 19 June 2008 02:43:12 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > Nope.   What I see as a problem is that the primary author and
> > > current de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was
> > > forcibly removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to
> > > be written for, and has ostracized (at least) one of the package
> > > manager's development team with his constant not-so-subtle
> > > attacks.  Quite frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over
> > > the specification that defines the most important single feature of
> > > Gentoo and remove the non-Gentoo developers from its development.
> > > No offense, but you're not a Gentoo developer any longer and you
> > > shouldn't have a say in how *we* manage ourselves.  You're more
> > > than welcome to contribute code, fork, or whatever the hell you
> > > want.  This is open source, after all, but that doesn't mean you
> > > should be allowed to hold the position of power over Gentoo that
> > > you've been granted.
> > 
> > I would like to see Gentoo grow some balls and start banning people
> > from -dev and other media used. I don't mean temporary bans, I mean
> > for life.
> > 
> > Yes, it's not nice. Yes, Gentoo should be open for all and encourage 
> > participation from all. However, some people have demonstrated time
> > and time again over quite a number of years that they wont change no
> > matter what. These people are posionous [1].
> 
> Slightly ironic for me to suggest this, but...
> 
> It is the gentoo-dev mailing list, restrict posting to gentoo devs
> (i.e. only people with a @gentoo.org email address) would make a lot of
> sense.
> 

Not really.  It's there for general discussion of development matters,
not developer matters.  Some of the most interesting posts are from
non-developers.   gentoo-core is restricted.

> Rob.

Regards,
Ferris
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[David Leverton]

On Thursday 19 June 2008 18:06:17 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> In this case the attacks seem to be targeting a person who has been
> attacking an entire ~300 person project for a few years now.

Is it considered acceptable to attack someone as long as the attacker thinks 
they deserve it?

> I honestly don't see how you are contributing to this project in general,

Well, I'm no vapier, but I have filed the occasional bug, submitted the 
occasional patch, that sort of thing.

> or in particular how you intend to contribute to this project by protecting
> ciaranm against this project.

21:28 < dberkholz@> jmbsvicetto: bheekling did an outstanding job of stepping 
in on that thread and one or two others. he's setting a great role model for 
what the rest of us should do
21:30 <jmbsvicett > let me read the mails again.
21:30 <Ford_Prefe > I guess peer-directed intolerance for bad behaviour is 
really the ideal solution for this
21:30 <jmbsvicett > skim*
21:33 <jmbsvicett > dberkholz: hmm, I can't find any mesage from bheekling on 
the -dev ml. Different name on the from address?
21:33 <Ford_Prefe > 
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_4211dc4054de30f2ff52f6f8a2e2466e.xml 
might be it
21:33 <      rane > Nirbheek
21:34 < dberkholz@> yeah, that's him.
21:34 <Ford_Prefe > (name is right, this might be the thread dberkholz is 
referring to)
21:34 <      rane > or sth like that
21:34 <      rane > no idea if it's his real name
21:34 <jmbsvicett > thanks
21:34 < dberkholz@> the specific post i had in mind was a wikipedia reference 
to flames and personal attacks
21:35 <      rane > yeah, this new idea of people telling others they are 
behaving like jerks
21:35 <      rane > it looks like it worked
21:35 <Ford_Prefe > Indeed
21:40 <      rane > silent majority stepping in and kicking ass
21:40 <      rane > a great idea indeed
21:47 <Ford_Prefe > Maybe we can have a won't-tolerate-bad-behaviour 
pledge. :P

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

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

Arun Raghavan wrote:
| On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Richard Brown <rbrown@exherbo.org> wrote:
|> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot
|
| This is the second time in 8 days that you are doing this. Please stop
| filling our inboxes with this puerile trolling.
|
| Devrel team: I do appreciate that the Gentoo Way has been to keep the
| communication channels as open as possible, but a line must be drawn
| *somewhere*.

Hello.

The userrel team has decided to request a 5 day ban to the -dev ml for
rbrown for his repeated misbehaviour, as noticed above, and that' now in
place.

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / SPARC / KDE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkhaxXkACgkQcAWygvVEyAITtACbBf2V4PVlQFIRCDyw7Kq6M61L
F1kAniSQm9B2Q35fwWec0ERe38dnR0l3
=zj14
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 387 bytes --]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:45:45 +0000
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The userrel team has decided to request a 5 day ban to the -dev ml for
> rbrown for his repeated misbehaviour, as noticed above, and that' now
> in place.

It's good to see the userrel team is active. Will you be looking at bug
228321 sometime soon please?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 727 bytes --]

Luca Barbato wrote:
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/#doc_chap5
>>
>> "The latest release of Gentoo Linux is:
>>
>> "Gentoo Linux 2007.0 for Alpha, AMD64, HPPA, IA64, MIPS, PPC, S390, 
>> SH, SPARC, and x86 architectures. "
> Good point, doc team please update those places.

The GDP has zero control over /proj/en/releng (well, in fact any 
developer can commit to that area, but you generally aren't supposed to 
change a project's web page without their approval). This document is 
maintained by releng.

Additionally, if you really expect any action from us (the GDP), please 
file a bug. We don't read every thread on the -dev ML.

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 402 bytes --]

Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> PS: I wanted to respond to many more of your comments, but then I
> always thought: who is this man anyway and does he perhaps contribute
> to Gentoo in some obscure way? Now I tend to think you don't.

David seems to be a PMS contributor [1].

Cheers,
-jkt

[1] http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Luca Barbato]

Jan Kundrát wrote:
> The GDP has zero control over /proj/en/releng (well, in fact any 
> developer can commit to that area, but you generally aren't supposed to 
> change a project's web page without their approval). This document is 
> maintained by releng.

Ok

> Additionally, if you really expect any action from us (the GDP), please 
> file a bug. We don't read every thread on the -dev ML.

I bugged the releng =)

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list