[gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

[gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

[hasufell]

bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package
managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even in
the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit out of
gentoo, no matter what PM you use. Otherwise, just punt it?

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

[Alexis Ballier]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:25:43 +0200
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:

> bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package
> managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even
> in the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit
> out of gentoo, no matter what PM you use. Otherwise, just punt it?
> 

(this is pure speculation and I didn't check)

isn't it the pivot of some upgrade path  like 'update bash to 3.1,
portage to xx.xx, bash to latest, portage to latest' ?

Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

[hasufell]

On 04/02/2013 02:29 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:25:43 +0200
> hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package
>> managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even
>> in the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit
>> out of gentoo, no matter what PM you use. Otherwise, just punt it?
>>
> 
> (this is pure speculation and I didn't check)
> 
> isn't it the pivot of some upgrade path  like 'update bash to 3.1,
> portage to xx.xx, bash to latest, portage to latest' ?
> 
> Alexis.
> 

afair the upgrade path was for 1 year?

3.1 is blocked way longer

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

[Alexis Ballier]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:32:26 +0200
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 04/02/2013 02:29 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:25:43 +0200
> > hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most
> >> package managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable
> >> then or even in the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this
> >> breaks the shit out of gentoo, no matter what PM you use.
> >> Otherwise, just punt it?
> >>
> > 
> > (this is pure speculation and I didn't check)
> > 
> > isn't it the pivot of some upgrade path  like 'update bash to 3.1,
> > portage to xx.xx, bash to latest, portage to latest' ?
> > 
> > Alexis.
> > 
> 
> afair the upgrade path was for 1 year?
> 
> 3.1 is blocked way longer
> 

but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older
upgrade paths?

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older
> upgrade paths?
>

This whole discussion seems a bit academic.  Somebody pointed out that
we have a version of bash we might not need any longer.  If by some
miracle the bash maintainers weren't already aware of it, they are
now.  If they want to keep it around for some reason, who cares?

There is enough bikeshedding when it comes to treecleaning the
packages that aren't being maintained.  I don't think we need to
debate the merits of the packages that are.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

[Markos Chandras]

On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older
>> upgrade paths?
>>
>
> This whole discussion seems a bit academic.  Somebody pointed out that
> we have a version of bash we might not need any longer.  If by some
> miracle the bash maintainers weren't already aware of it, they are
> now.  If they want to keep it around for some reason, who cares?
>
> There is enough bikeshedding when it comes to treecleaning the
> packages that aren't being maintained.  I don't think we need to
> debate the merits of the packages that are.
>
> Rich
>

I couldn't agree more. It is getting really annoying having to debate
package removals every other day.

--
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

[Samuli Suominen]

On 02/04/13 15:25, hasufell wrote:
> bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package
> managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even in
> the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit out of
> gentoo, no matter what PM you use. Otherwise, just punt it?
>

you are referring to people who are assuming everything marked stable in 
portage, is stable, when in reality, only the latest stable is?

i've seen bugs like that, mostly closed as invalid by maintainers -- 
"use latest stable"
some maintainers have removed older copies, some have reverted older 
copies to ~arch

imho, going over the tree and marking older stable copies of packages 
back to ~arch is just too much work
and we should stick to the "latest stable is the stable" mantra
(i'm not sure if this is even documented anywhere? and propably should 
not be? keep it as maintainer specific decision like it's now?)

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

[Peter Stuge]

Samuli Suominen wrote:
> imho,
..
> we should stick to the "latest stable is the stable" mantra
> (i'm not sure if this is even documented anywhere? and propably
> should not be? keep it as maintainer specific decision like it's now?)

If it's the agreen-upon way then why not document it?


//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

[Alexis Ballier]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:07:16 +0100
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier
> > <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older
> >> upgrade paths?
> >>
> >
> > This whole discussion seems a bit academic.  Somebody pointed out
> > that we have a version of bash we might not need any longer.  If by
> > some miracle the bash maintainers weren't already aware of it, they
> > are now.  If they want to keep it around for some reason, who cares?
> >
> > There is enough bikeshedding when it comes to treecleaning the
> > packages that aren't being maintained.  I don't think we need to
> > debate the merits of the packages that are.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> 
> I couldn't agree more. It is getting really annoying having to debate
> package removals every other day.

Please take your time to read again. There is no bikeshedding nor
debate in:
- X is not needed anymore because of reasons R
- maybe it's needed for case Y
- case Y is not supported
- it doesn't hurt to support it

I am very well aware that 'case Y' may not even be possible because of
tons of other problems and was only pointing out that 'reasons R' were
incomplete.

It is getting really annoying to have non-technical comments pop in
purely technical discussions ;)

Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

[Markos Chandras]

On 2 April 2013 14:34, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:07:16 +0100
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier
>> > <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> >> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older
>> >> upgrade paths?
>> >>
>> >
>> > This whole discussion seems a bit academic.  Somebody pointed out
>> > that we have a version of bash we might not need any longer.  If by
>> > some miracle the bash maintainers weren't already aware of it, they
>> > are now.  If they want to keep it around for some reason, who cares?
>> >
>> > There is enough bikeshedding when it comes to treecleaning the
>> > packages that aren't being maintained.  I don't think we need to
>> > debate the merits of the packages that are.
>> >
>> > Rich
>> >
>>
>> I couldn't agree more. It is getting really annoying having to debate
>> package removals every other day.
>
> Please take your time to read again. There is no bikeshedding nor
> debate in:
> - X is not needed anymore because of reasons R
> - maybe it's needed for case Y
> - case Y is not supported
> - it doesn't hurt to support it
>
> I am very well aware that 'case Y' may not even be possible because of
> tons of other problems and was only pointing out that 'reasons R' were
> incomplete.
>
> It is getting really annoying to have non-technical comments pop in
> purely technical discussions ;)
>
> Alexis.
>

Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important
question "why old X is in the tree when new X is stable".
Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers instead of opening
a public debate on this? I guess no, because
bikeshedding in the mailing list is so much better.

--
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 200 bytes --]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:01:08 +0100
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> bikeshedding

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

[Alexis Ballier]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:01:08 +0100
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important
> question "why old X is in the tree when new X is stable".

Nobody besides that part of the thread is arguing about anything like
that. If you are upset about the endless debates on treecleaning,
then I'm sorry for you but I was not part of any of them and didn't
even read them. I believe you are interpreting what I wrote under this
perspective: I seriously don't care if bash 3.1 goes away, it's been a
while since I've not had it installed on any box. You seem to be
thinking the contrary.

> Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers instead of opening
> a public debate on this? I guess no, because
> bikeshedding in the mailing list is so much better.

Did you even check if my first reply to this thread was not complete
BS ? I didn't.

Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

[Markos Chandras]

On 2 April 2013 15:21, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Did you even check if my first reply to this thread was not complete
> BS ? I didn't.
>
> Alexis.
>

Apologies. My reply was below yours because it was the last one in the
thread. It was not referred to you but to the endless
"oh lets keep it, oh lets remove it" discussion that it is about happen soon ;)

--
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 920 bytes --]

You know guys, I just joined this list so I could get an inside look at how
gentoo development is supposed to work, and hopefully find a few role
models so I know what to do to get the ball rolling on becoming a developer
myself.

I never expected to walk into this sort of tit for tat mud slinging fest.

Carry on or whatever but sheesh...


On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 2 April 2013 15:21, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > Did you even check if my first reply to this thread was not complete
> > BS ? I didn't.
> >
> > Alexis.
> >
>
> Apologies. My reply was below yours because it was the last one in the
> thread. It was not referred to you but to the endless
> "oh lets keep it, oh lets remove it" discussion that it is about happen
> soon ;)
>
> --
> Regards,
> Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1556 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

[hasufell]

On 04/02/2013 04:01 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important
> question "why old X is in the tree when new X is stable".
> Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers instead of opening
> a public debate on this? I guess no, because
> bikeshedding in the mailing list is so much better.
> 

I am sorry about that. In fact I was about to file a bug, but then
decided to take it up here and CC base-system. That was probably a mistake.

Thanks to everyone for the comments... or not.

Re: [gentoo-dev] bash-3.1 stable

[Ben Kohler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 987 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:39 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 04/02/2013 04:01 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important
> > question "why old X is in the tree when new X is stable".
> > Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers instead of opening
> > a public debate on this? I guess no, because
> > bikeshedding in the mailing list is so much better.
> >
>
> I am sorry about that. In fact I was about to file a bug, but then
> decided to take it up here and CC base-system. That was probably a mistake.
>
> Thanks to everyone for the comments... or not.
>
> People who are not interested in this topic should ignore the thread, it's
not necessary to reply with the word "bikeshedding" every time you see a
thread that you consider mundane or trivial.  I was looking forward to
hearing some insights on why bash-3.1 is still around, when I get sick of
hearing about it, I'll stop following the thread.

-Ben

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1456 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: bash-3.1 stable

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 527 bytes --]

On Tuesday 02 April 2013 08:25:43 hasufell wrote:
> bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package
> managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even in
> the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit out of
> gentoo, no matter what PM you use. Otherwise, just punt it?

having older versions available are useful for debugging and can easily be 
tested with `ebuild ... install`.  i have no interest in removing any of the 
older versions of bash.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: bash-3.1 stable

[Duncan]

Raymond Jennings posted on Tue, 02 Apr 2013 07:35:26 -0700 as excerpted:

> You know guys, I just joined this list so I could get an inside look at
> how gentoo development is supposed to work, and hopefully find a few
> role models so I know what to do to get the ball rolling on becoming a
> developer myself.
> 
> I never expected to walk into this sort of tit for tat mud slinging
> fest.
> 
> Carry on or whatever but sheesh...

LOL.  Agreed.

Tho in practice, if you're here long you do develop a rather thick hide.  
Nothing NEAR what it was a few years ago, tho.  Before it gets anywhere 
near that, there's warnings, these days.  AFAIK there has been no need to 
go beyond that for awhile, tho I'd /not/ be in a position to know, except 
for what's public here, which really /is/ better than it used to be, 
something I'm sure everyone here appreciates, especially the folks who 
were around back then to know how bad it /was/!

-- 
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] OT: was Re: bash-3.1 stable

[Gregory M. Turner]

On 4/2/2013 10:54 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Tho in practice, if you're here long you do develop a rather thick hide.
> Nothing NEAR what it was a few years ago, tho.  Before it gets anywhere
> near that, there's warnings, these days.

Kinda just what happens, when you put a bunch of unpaid, sleep-deprived, 
anal-retentive engineers in a virtual project room and set them all 
about trying to create stuff by tearing apart each others' work products 
and rebuilding them to be "better".

Open source seems to arrive at consensus by means of a process something 
like:

  whiny trolling ->
   unfettered troll-feeding ->
    hyperbolic butt-hurt ->
     (optional) finger-pointing and self-pity ->
      reluctant compromise ->
       write code -> (repeat)

Think of the above as the Open-Source equivalent of the Rational Unified 
Process :)

-gmt

Re: [gentoo-dev] OT: was Re: bash-3.1 stable

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:51:28 -0700
"Gregory M. Turner" <gmt@malth.us> wrote:

> Open source seems to arrive at consensus by means of a process
> something like:
> 
>   whiny trolling ->

Could you please take the obvious trolling elsewhere, thanks? Hint:
if you think you need to put "OT:" in the Subject line, you probably
shouldn't send it in the first place.


      jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] OT: was Re: bash-3.1 stable

[Peter Stuge]

Jeroen,

Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:51:28 -0700 "Gregory M. Turner" <gmt@malth.us> wrote:
> 
> > Open source seems to arrive at consensus by means of a process
> > something like:
> > 
> >   whiny trolling ->
> 
> Could you please take the obvious trolling elsewhere

Consider that it wasn't trolling, but merely insightful truth, until
you replied and called it trolling.


//Peter