[gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Axel]

Hello,

I would like to wish you all a happy birthday, 10 years already since
first release (Gentoo 1.0)! Here is a little thing [1] we made to
celebrate it. Recipe: two layers of Génoise (for each: 6 eggs, 180g
sucre, 180g farine, vanilla sugar), between layers and on top: full
cream with beaten eggs and caramel. Add between the middle layers on
top of the cream: raspberry. ENJOY ;)

[1]: http://imgur.com/iMjLi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Samuli Suominen]

On 03/30/2012 04:00 PM, Axel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to wish you all a happy birthday, 10 years already since
> first release (Gentoo 1.0)! Here is a little thing [1] we made to
> celebrate it. Recipe: two layers of Génoise (for each: 6 eggs, 180g
> sucre, 180g farine, vanilla sugar), between layers and on top: full
> cream with beaten eggs and caramel. Add between the middle layers on
> top of the cream: raspberry. ENJOY ;)
>
> [1]: http://imgur.com/iMjLi
>

Back to year 2009?

http://www.gentoo.org/news/20091004-gentoo-10-years.xml

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[James Broadhead]

On 30 March 2012 14:25, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 03/30/2012 04:00 PM, Axel wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to wish you all a happy birthday, 10 years already since
>> first release (Gentoo 1.0)! Here is a little thing [1] we made to
>> celebrate it. Recipe: two layers of Génoise (for each: 6 eggs, 180g
>> sucre, 180g farine, vanilla sugar), between layers and on top: full
>> cream with beaten eggs and caramel. Add between the middle layers on
>> top of the cream: raspberry. ENJOY ;)
>>
>> [1]: http://imgur.com/iMjLi
> Back to year 2009?
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/news/20091004-gentoo-10-years.xml

Even though we already celebrated it, maybe 10-years-since-1.0 is a
better event to celebrate.

Remember when Gentoo had version numbers? (even though they got stuck
at 1.4 for ages?)  D'awww

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Joshua Kinard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 587 bytes --]

On 03/30/2012 10:44, James Broadhead wrote:

> 
> Remember when Gentoo had version numbers? (even though they got stuck
> at 1.4 for ages?)  D'awww


Maybe it's time for Gentoo-2.0?

At that glacial pace, we should catch up to Firefox's versioning shortly
before the heat death of the Universe.

-- 
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
kumba@gentoo.org
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us.  And
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between."

--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 834 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Richard Yao]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 307 bytes --]

On 03/30/12 17:15, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> Maybe it's time for Gentoo-2.0?

I think we should wait for Portage 2.2 to be stabilized before we
declare Gentoo 2.0. @preserved-libs is enough of an advance that I think
claiming 2.0 would be merited, if only for the attention it would draw
at Phoronix.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Matt Turner]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Richard Yao <ryao@cs.stonybrook.edu> wrote:
> On 03/30/12 17:15, Joshua Kinard wrote:
>> Maybe it's time for Gentoo-2.0?
>
> I think we should wait for Portage 2.2 to be stabilized before we
> declare Gentoo 2.0. @preserved-libs is enough of an advance that I think
> claiming 2.0 would be merited, if only for the attention it would draw
> at Phoronix.

We don't want that kind of attention.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 498 bytes --]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:55:27 -0400
Richard Yao <ryao@cs.stonybrook.edu> wrote:
> I think we should wait for Portage 2.2 to be stabilized before we
> declare Gentoo 2.0. @preserved-libs is enough of an advance that I
> think claiming 2.0 would be merited, if only for the attention it
> would draw at Phoronix.

Do you really want to be advertising an awful hack that doesn't really
work, is conceptually unsound and that breaks all kinds of things in
subtle ways?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Sven Vermeulen]

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 08:56:22AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Do you really want to be advertising an awful hack that doesn't really
> work, is conceptually unsound and that breaks all kinds of things in
> subtle ways?

Isn't that something all major distributions do? ;-)

	Sven

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Alex Alexander]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 784 bytes --]

On Mar 31, 2012 11:00 AM, "Ciaran McCreesh" <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:55:27 -0400
> Richard Yao <ryao@cs.stonybrook.edu> wrote:
> > I think we should wait for Portage 2.2 to be stabilized before we
> > declare Gentoo 2.0. @preserved-libs is enough of an advance that I
> > think claiming 2.0 would be merited, if only for the attention it
> > would draw at Phoronix.
>
> Do you really want to be advertising an awful hack that doesn't really
> work, is conceptually unsound and that breaks all kinds of things in
> subtle ways?
>
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh

@preserved-libs works very well and is awesome. hack or not. IMO it should
be in stable already. I've been using it on stable production boxes for
years without any issues :)

Alex | wired

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1039 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

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

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:44:03 +0300
Alex Alexander <alex.alexander@gmail.com> wrote:
> @preserved-libs works very well and is awesome. hack or not. IMO it
> should be in stable already. I've been using it on stable production
> boxes for years without any issues :)

...and here we see the problem. You think that "I haven't noticed it
break" means "it works".

The problem with preserved-libs (and emerge --jobs, for that matter) is
that the design is "I can think of a few ways where it might break, so
I'll hard-code in special cases to handle those, but in general I
can't think of what other problems there are so it's fine". That's a
bad way of doing things.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Brian Harring]

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:52:53AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:44:03 +0300
> Alex Alexander <alex.alexander@gmail.com> wrote:
> > @preserved-libs works very well and is awesome. hack or not. IMO it
> > should be in stable already. I've been using it on stable production
> > boxes for years without any issues :)
> 
> ...and here we see the problem. You think that "I haven't noticed it
> break" means "it works".
> 
> The problem with preserved-libs (and emerge --jobs, for that matter) is
> that the design is "I can think of a few ways where it might break, so
> I'll hard-code in special cases to handle those, but in general I
> can't think of what other problems there are so it's fine". That's a
> bad way of doing things.

Then don't use it.  Reality is, gentoo does.

If you don't like that fact, I suggest you stick to exherbo.

Related, why the hell are you still even around here?

You literally send more mail to our dev ml then to exherbos. 

I wouldn't care if it weren't the fact your gentoo dev posts 
generally consist of "xyz is stupid, as is the people behind it" 
whether it be portage, udev, council, etc, take your pick.

~harring (being rather tired of the broken record).

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Patrick Lauer]

On 03/31/12 17:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:44:03 +0300
> Alex Alexander <alex.alexander@gmail.com> wrote:
>> @preserved-libs works very well and is awesome. hack or not. IMO it
>> should be in stable already. I've been using it on stable production
>> boxes for years without any issues :)
> 
> ...and here we see the problem. You think that "I haven't noticed it
> break" means "it works".
> 
> The problem with preserved-libs (and emerge --jobs, for that matter) is
> that the design is "I can think of a few ways where it might break, so
> I'll hard-code in special cases to handle those, but in general I
> can't think of what other problems there are so it's fine". That's a
> bad way of doing things.
> 
Good enough is the worst enemy of perfect.

While we have s 98% solution that doesn't handle all corner cases you
have a theoretical construct in your brain that might in theory cover
100% of all cases, but it's in your brain where I can't use it, so ...
I'll take the pragmatic approach and use what works.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Samuli Suominen]

On 03/31/2012 01:06 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:52:53AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:44:03 +0300
>> Alex Alexander<alex.alexander@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> @preserved-libs works very well and is awesome. hack or not. IMO it
>>> should be in stable already. I've been using it on stable production
>>> boxes for years without any issues :)
>>
>> ...and here we see the problem. You think that "I haven't noticed it
>> break" means "it works".
>>
>> The problem with preserved-libs (and emerge --jobs, for that matter) is
>> that the design is "I can think of a few ways where it might break, so
>> I'll hard-code in special cases to handle those, but in general I
>> can't think of what other problems there are so it's fine". That's a
>> bad way of doing things.
>
> Then don't use it.  Reality is, gentoo does.
>
> If you don't like that fact, I suggest you stick to exherbo.
>
> Related, why the hell are you still even around here?
>
> You literally send more mail to our dev ml then to exherbos.
>
> I wouldn't care if it weren't the fact your gentoo dev posts
> generally consist of "xyz is stupid, as is the people behind it"
> whether it be portage, udev, council, etc, take your pick.
>
> ~harring (being rather tired of the broken record).
>

separate gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-dev-public@ MLs so we would have a place 
where to discuss about improving Gentoo with people who also want to 
improve it

(or hand me powers to remove people from ML :-)

- Samuli

[gentoo-dev] Re: Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Duncan]

Ciaran McCreesh posted on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:52:53 +0100 as excerpted:

> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:44:03 +0300 Alex Alexander
> <alex.alexander@gmail.com> wrote:
>> @preserved-libs works very well and is awesome. hack or not. IMO it
>> should be in stable already. I've been using it on stable production
>> boxes for years without any issues :)
> 
> ...and here we see the problem. You think that "I haven't noticed it
> break" means "it works".

Funny how familiar that argument looks... aka...

A separate /usr is already broken, you just don't know it yet.


Or was drawing attention to that your intent and I just missed the 
invisible <sarcasm> tags. =:^)

-- 
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Alex Alexander]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1080 bytes --]

On Mar 31, 2012 12:57 PM, "Ciaran McCreesh" <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:44:03 +0300
> Alex Alexander <alex.alexander@gmail.com> wrote:
> > @preserved-libs works very well and is awesome. hack or not. IMO it
> > should be in stable already. I've been using it on stable production
> > boxes for years without any issues :)
>
> ...and here we see the problem. You think that "I haven't noticed it
> break" means "it works".
>
> The problem with preserved-libs (and emerge --jobs, for that matter) is
> that the design is "I can think of a few ways where it might break, so
> I'll hard-code in special cases to handle those, but in general I
> can't think of what other problems there are so it's fine". That's a
> bad way of doing things.
>
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh

No. I didn't say I think it works, I said I have proof it works.

You can argue about the implementation details all you want and it'll still
work.

If you can make it better then, by all means, send a patch. Otherwise stop
spreading false FUD, please.

Thanks :)

Alex | wired

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1434 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> (or hand me powers to remove people from ML :-)
>

That sounds like a great idea.  We could create a code of conduct, and
then designate individuals to enforce it.  Maybe we should call them
proctors:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/coc.xml

What could go wrong?

Seriously though, this debate like many others recently probably
shouldn't be viewed as for-Gentoo and against-Gentoo.  Lots of people
care about Gentoo, we just don't always agree on what is best.  In
this case the issue is pragmatism vs idealism, and both have their
place.

What is important is that we go ahead and share our views, debate
points within reason, don't obsess over getting in the last word, and
then work together to support the decisions that get made.

My two cents in this debate is that I'm willing to accept Ciaran's
suggestion that Portage 2.2's approach has its limitations, but it is
the best thing we have implemented now, and thus I'll take the 98%
solution over the 20% solution (which is what we get if all we do is
argue over how to get to 100%(.  If somebody wants to write the code
to get us from 98->100%, I'm sure we'll all be for it.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 442 bytes --]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 15:08:29 +0300
Alex Alexander <alex.alexander@gmail.com> wrote:
> No. I didn't say I think it works, I said I have proof it works.

Well that's interesting, because there are plenty of examples where it
doesn't work, and all that it takes to disprove a theory is a single
counterexample. So I think you're misunderstanding what constitutes
proof here -- "some evidence" certainly isn't it.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1748 bytes --]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 03:06:36 -0700
Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The problem with preserved-libs (and emerge --jobs, for that
> > matter) is that the design is "I can think of a few ways where it
> > might break, so I'll hard-code in special cases to handle those,
> > but in general I can't think of what other problems there are so
> > it's fine". That's a bad way of doing things.
> 
> Then don't use it.  Reality is, gentoo does.
> 
> If you don't like that fact, I suggest you stick to exherbo.
> 
> Related, why the hell are you still even around here?

Because unlike you, I believe Gentoo can and should get it right. If
users want a desktoppy distribution where stuff sort of works most of
the time but no-one really understands why, and where you reinstall
every six months, then Ubuntu already does a far better job of that.
Gentoo can deliver something better.

It's not even more work. It just requires a small change in thought
process from "code first and ask questions later" to "think first and
then code". That, together with incrementally fixing existing bad
design decisions, could bring Gentoo back towards being an extremely
attractive alternative distribution.

> I wouldn't care if it weren't the fact your gentoo dev posts 
> generally consist of "xyz is stupid, as is the people behind it" 
> whether it be portage, udev, council, etc, take your pick.

No, what I actually say is *why* things don't work, and if it hasn't
already been explained, I say how to fix it. But the first step towards
getting something fixed is admitting that there's a problem, and you've
always been awfully reluctant to do that until the damage has already
been done.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 657 bytes --]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:00:00 +0800
Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Good enough is the worst enemy of perfect.
> 
> While we have s 98% solution that doesn't handle all corner cases you
> have a theoretical construct in your brain that might in theory cover
> 100% of all cases, but it's in your brain where I can't use it, so ...
> I'll take the pragmatic approach and use what works.

If you have a ten components, each of which 98% work, your overall
system is 80% reliable. If you have twenty such components, it's down
to 66% reliable. You're rapidly entering "when it breaks, reinstall"
territory here.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Patrick Lauer]

On 03/31/12 23:01, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:00:00 +0800
> Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Good enough is the worst enemy of perfect.
>>
>> While we have s 98% solution that doesn't handle all corner cases you
>> have a theoretical construct in your brain that might in theory cover
>> 100% of all cases, but it's in your brain where I can't use it, so ...
>> I'll take the pragmatic approach and use what works.
> 
> If you have a ten components, each of which 98% work, your overall
> system is 80% reliable. If you have twenty such components, it's down
> to 66% reliable. You're rapidly entering "when it breaks, reinstall"
> territory here.
> 
Which is still more than 0%.

I demand better trolls, this is getting boring.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 531 bytes --]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 23:07:04 +0800
Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > If you have a ten components, each of which 98% work, your overall
> > system is 80% reliable. If you have twenty such components, it's
> > down to 66% reliable. You're rapidly entering "when it breaks,
> > reinstall" territory here.
> > 
> Which is still more than 0%.
> 
> I demand better trolls, this is getting boring.

So you think Gentoo should advertise as "the chances of it working are
greater than 0%"?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 963 bytes --]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 23:30:07 +0800
Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > So you think Gentoo should advertise as "the chances of it working
> > are greater than 0%"?
> 
> I said better ... not repetitive trolls.
> 
> If you cared about making things better you'd spend more time writing
> patches and less time trying to pick fights on public mailinglists :)
> 
> But I guess small minds, small pleasures ...

What Gentoo needs is less immediate writing of patches and more careful
thinking about how a complex mess of sort-of working, poorly
interacting features can be unified into a smaller number of correct,
coherent concepts. Right now most of the patches are fixing screwups in
earlier patches that were caused by implementing the wrong thing (and
often introducing new problems along the way).

The fact that you have code that does something does not automatically
imply that doing it is a good idea.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Alex Alexander]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 758 bytes --]

On Mar 31, 2012 5:57 PM, "Ciaran McCreesh" <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 15:08:29 +0300
> Alex Alexander <alex.alexander@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No. I didn't say I think it works, I said I have proof it works.
>
> Well that's interesting, because there are plenty of examples where it
> doesn't work, and all that it takes to disprove a theory is a single
> counterexample. So I think you're misunderstanding what constitutes
> proof here -- "some evidence" certainly isn't it.
>
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh

Boring. You conveniently ignored the other part of my message.

I'll repeat it: no matter how much you argue, it'll still work fine for me.

That said, I think we can end this conversation now :)

Gentoo \o/

Alex | wired

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1041 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Patrick Lauer]

On 03/31/12 23:38, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 23:30:07 +0800
> Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> So you think Gentoo should advertise as "the chances of it working
>>> are greater than 0%"?
>>
>> I said better ... not repetitive trolls.
>>
>> If you cared about making things better you'd spend more time writing
>> patches and less time trying to pick fights on public mailinglists :)
>>
>> But I guess small minds, small pleasures ...
> 
> What Gentoo needs is less immediate writing of patches and more careful
> thinking about how a complex mess of sort-of working, poorly
> interacting features can be unified into a smaller number of correct,
> coherent concepts. Right now most of the patches are fixing screwups in
> earlier patches that were caused by implementing the wrong thing (and
> often introducing new problems along the way).
> 
> The fact that you have code that does something does not automatically
> imply that doing it is a good idea.
> 

... and now we train not sending private messages to public mailing
lists again, mmmhkay? After so many years you still accidentally do such
things on purpose. Not cool.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2172 bytes --]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:39:21 +0300
Alex Alexander <alex.alexander@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2012 5:57 PM, "Ciaran McCreesh"
> <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 15:08:29 +0300
> > Alex Alexander <alex.alexander@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > No. I didn't say I think it works, I said I have proof it works.
> >
> > Well that's interesting, because there are plenty of examples where
> > it doesn't work, and all that it takes to disprove a theory is a
> > single counterexample. So I think you're misunderstanding what
> > constitutes proof here -- "some evidence" certainly isn't it.
> 
> Boring. You conveniently ignored the other part of my message.

I was hoping you'd understand how your claim of proof was utterly
unfounded. What you have is limited evidence of a very specific
situation, which is a whole other thing.

> I'll repeat it: no matter how much you argue, it'll still work fine
> for me.

And I'll spell it out. On the scale of "it works", you have a series of
levels:

1. It compiles.

2. I tried it and I didn't see any breakages.

3. I tried it, and I checked carefully that nothing was broken.

4. I tried it on a wide range of valid inputs, and I checked carefully
that nothing was broken.

5. I tried it on a wide range of valid inputs, including inputs designed
to test edge cases, and I checked carefully that nothing was broken.

6. I tried it on a wide range of valid and invalid inputs, and I
checked carefully that nothing was broken, and that the invalid inputs
were handled correctly.

7. I carefully considered all the equivalence classes of inputs, and
tested each.

8. I carefully considered all the equivalence classes of inputs, and
can explain why each is handled correctly.

9. I can prove that it works.

You're offering evidence of number 2, or possibly 3. Gentoo is a large
system containing many interacting components, that is expected to keep
working for long periods in many different unpleasant situations. We
need to be at at least number 7 here, and ideally number 8. For preserve
libs, the feature fails at number 4.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[David Leverton]

On 30 March 2012 14:25, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Back to year 2009?
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/news/20091004-gentoo-10-years.xml

That never stopped anyone before....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_X-2

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Zac Medico]

On 03/31/2012 04:49 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh posted on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:52:53 +0100 as excerpted:
> 
>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:44:03 +0300 Alex Alexander
>> <alex.alexander@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> @preserved-libs works very well and is awesome. hack or not. IMO it
>>> should be in stable already. I've been using it on stable production
>>> boxes for years without any issues :)
>>
>> ...and here we see the problem. You think that "I haven't noticed it
>> break" means "it works".
> 
> Funny how familiar that argument looks... aka...
> 
> A separate /usr is already broken, you just don't know it yet.

For separate /usr, there's a relatively simple solution, which is to
mount /usr with an initramfs. For preserve-libs, there is no such a
simple solution. Much like separate-/usr-without-initramfs,
preserve-libs does not work correctly unless lots of different pieces of
software behave cooperatively.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 15:59:00 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > I wouldn't care if it weren't the fact your gentoo dev posts 
> > generally consist of "xyz is stupid, as is the people behind it" 
> > whether it be portage, udev, council, etc, take your pick.
> 
> No, what I actually say is *why* things don't work, and if it hasn't
> already been explained, I say how to fix it.

No, that's what you see from the inside. We, outside your head, the
others, see it precisely as Brian worded it. Some people apparently
tolerate or even appreciate your general (online) attitude towards
humans, but most do not.


     jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 03/31/2012 10:52 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:44:03 +0300 Alex Alexander
> <alex.alexander@gmail.com> wrote:
>> @preserved-libs works very well and is awesome. hack or not. IMO
>> it should be in stable already. I've been using it on stable
>> production boxes for years without any issues :)
> 
> ...and here we see the problem. You think that "I haven't noticed
> it break" means "it works".
> 
> The problem with preserved-libs (and emerge --jobs, for that
> matter) is that the design is "I can think of a few ways where it
> might break, so I'll hard-code in special cases to handle those,
> but in general I can't think of what other problems there are so
> it's fine". That's a bad way of doing things.
> 
You are right, it does not work as good as it should but it's still
better than nothing ;) In any case, I am glad portage developers did
not backport this feature to 2.1.X portage releases as it is quite
fragile at the moment.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=XsdD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] Re: Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Steven J Long]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> No, what I actually say is *why* things don't work, and if it hasn't
> already been explained, I say how to fix it.
Oh? Where on Earth did you do that in this thread? All you've said so far is 
that preserve-libs is "an awful hack that doesn't really work, is 
conceptually unsound and that breaks all kinds of things in subtle ways." No 
reasoning given whatsoever. Nor any indication of how to fix anything.

I wouldn't mind your snobbish attitude so much, if you did actually present 
full and cogent reasoning, the *first* time you "present" an issue. But you 
never do, you simply state cryptically that things are broken, and if anyone 
queries you, you usually state that the reason others don't see it, is 
because they are stupid. (That's what your arguments boil down to.)

> But the first step towards
> getting something fixed is admitting that there's a problem, and you've
> always been awfully reluctant to do that until the damage has already
> been done.
>
Yes, it is hard to admit one has problems; how are things going with your 
human interaction problems? (They don't seem to be going that well, given 
your continued attitude.) I mean, you have admitted to yourself that you do 
have issues in that area, haven't you? After the last 8 or 9 years of being 
told you do, including by people who call you a friend, you *must* have 
taken that on-board as a problem _you_ need to address by now, surely? 
Especially after all the damage that's been caused.

-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 17:04:11 +0100
Steven J Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:

> Yes, it is hard to admit one has problems; how are things going with
> your human interaction problems? (They don't seem to be going that
> well, given your continued attitude.) I mean, you have admitted to
> yourself that you do have issues in that area, haven't you? After the
> last 8 or 9 years of being told you do, including by people who call
> you a friend, you *must* have taken that on-board as a problem _you_
> need to address by now, surely? Especially after all the damage
> that's been caused.

Arguing along those lines, I guess April 7 2006 would be an excellent
date to remember in celebration, so we ought to get cracking on the
cakes and decorations.


     jer


[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114944#c235

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 834 bytes --]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 17:04:11 +0100
Steven J Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > No, what I actually say is *why* things don't work, and if it hasn't
> > already been explained, I say how to fix it.
> Oh? Where on Earth did you do that in this thread? All you've said so
> far is that preserve-libs is "an awful hack that doesn't really work,
> is conceptually unsound and that breaks all kinds of things in subtle
> ways." No reasoning given whatsoever. Nor any indication of how to
> fix anything.

preserve-libs has been discussed to death previously and elsewhere. The
changes needed to implement it correctly were included in the original
EAPI 3, but were dropped due to lack of Portage implementation. There's
no need to repeat the whole discussion here.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 555 bytes --]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:25:58 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:
> No, that's what you see from the inside. We, outside your head, the
> others, see it precisely as Brian worded it. Some people apparently
> tolerate or even appreciate your general (online) attitude towards
> humans, but most do not.

You're trying awfully hard to turn this from a discussion about a
feature into a discussion about people. Please don't try to confuse the
two -- attacking the messenger just prolongs getting a fix implemented.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Happy 10th birthday (in advance)

[Steven J Long]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 17:04:11 +0100
> Steven J Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > No, what I actually say is *why* things don't work, and if it hasn't
>> > already been explained, I say how to fix it.
>> Oh? Where on Earth did you do that in this thread? All you've said so
>> far is that preserve-libs is "an awful hack that doesn't really work,
>> is conceptually unsound and that breaks all kinds of things in subtle
>> ways." No reasoning given whatsoever. Nor any indication of how to
>> fix anything.
> 
> preserve-libs has been discussed to death previously and elsewhere. The
> changes needed to implement it correctly were included in the original
> EAPI 3, but were dropped due to lack of Portage implementation.

The usual protocol when you're making assertions like that, if it's already 
been discussed, is to provide a url or two to prior discussion. Or at least 
state which feature(set) it is you think which does that.

After lots of reading, and recent discussion, you appear to believe that 
SLOT operators are the "conceptually sound" method of choice that doesn't 
"break things in subtle ways". Is that correct?

> There's no need to repeat the whole discussion here.

No, just provide evidence and reasoning for any assertions you make, 
especially when you are criticising someone else's work. You don't have to 
repeat yourself: just link to the issues, if you can't summarise them 
yourself.

-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)