[gentoo-dev] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[gentoo-dev] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 843 bytes --]

All,

This message is an announcement and a reminder.

OpenRc-0.12 will be introduced to the portage tree in the next few days.

If you are using ~arch OpenRc, the standard disclaimer applies: remember
that you might be subject to breakage.

I do not know of any breakage personally. It does work on my system, and
I know of others who are using OpenRc from git successfully. Some are
OpenRc team members, and at least one is a Gentoo user.

If you are not comfortable with the possibility of breakage, I recommend
that you make sure you do not upgrade right away.

If, on the other hand, you are comfortable with that possibility and you
are willing to help us test and get rid of bugs before we go stable,
feel free to run ~arch.

In other words, this is the standard Gentoo disclaimer, so consider
yourself warned.

Thanks much,


William


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

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1255 bytes --]

On 15:36 Fri 02 Aug     , William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
> 
> This message is an announcement and a reminder.
> 
> OpenRc-0.12 will be introduced to the portage tree in the next few days.
> 
> If you are using ~arch OpenRc, the standard disclaimer applies: remember
> that you might be subject to breakage.
> 
> I do not know of any breakage personally. It does work on my system, and
> I know of others who are using OpenRc from git successfully. Some are
> OpenRc team members, and at least one is a Gentoo user.
> 
> If you are not comfortable with the possibility of breakage, I recommend
> that you make sure you do not upgrade right away.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you are comfortable with that possibility and you
> are willing to help us test and get rid of bugs before we go stable,
> feel free to run ~arch.
> 
> In other words, this is the standard Gentoo disclaimer, so consider
> yourself warned.

Man, in terms of how to phrase things, this is way wrong.

If you're comfortable with your stuff breaking really? No. If you want 
to help improve Gentoo.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux <http://dberkholz.com>
Analyst, RedMonk <http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/>

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1527 bytes --]

On Aug 3, 2013 10:06 AM, "Donnie Berkholz" <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On 15:36 Fri 02 Aug     , William Hubbs wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > This message is an announcement and a reminder.
> >
> > OpenRc-0.12 will be introduced to the portage tree in the next few days.
> >
> > If you are using ~arch OpenRc, the standard disclaimer applies: remember
> > that you might be subject to breakage.
> >
> > I do not know of any breakage personally. It does work on my system, and
> > I know of others who are using OpenRc from git successfully. Some are
> > OpenRc team members, and at least one is a Gentoo user.
> >
> > If you are not comfortable with the possibility of breakage, I recommend
> > that you make sure you do not upgrade right away.
> >
> > If, on the other hand, you are comfortable with that possibility and you
> > are willing to help us test and get rid of bugs before we go stable,
> > feel free to run ~arch.
> >
> > In other words, this is the standard Gentoo disclaimer, so consider
> > yourself warned.
>
> Man, in terms of how to phrase things, this is way wrong.
>
> If you're comfortable with your stuff breaking really? No. If you want
> to help improve Gentoo.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Donnie
>
> Donnie Berkholz
> Council Member / Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux <http://dberkholz.com>
> Analyst, RedMonk <http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/>

I am not comfortable with this either. If you think the new openrc will
likely break things please mask it for a few days. Do not expect all users
to read the mailing list.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2059 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Douglas Freed]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2782 bytes --]

On Aug 3, 2013 6:04 AM, "Markos Chandras" <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Aug 3, 2013 10:06 AM, "Donnie Berkholz" <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 15:36 Fri 02 Aug     , William Hubbs wrote:
> > > All,
> > >
> > > This message is an announcement and a reminder.
> > >
> > > OpenRc-0.12 will be introduced to the portage tree in the next few
days.
> > >
> > > If you are using ~arch OpenRc, the standard disclaimer applies:
remember
> > > that you might be subject to breakage.
> > >
> > > I do not know of any breakage personally. It does work on my system,
and
> > > I know of others who are using OpenRc from git successfully. Some are
> > > OpenRc team members, and at least one is a Gentoo user.
> > >
> > > If you are not comfortable with the possibility of breakage, I
recommend
> > > that you make sure you do not upgrade right away.
> > >
> > > If, on the other hand, you are comfortable with that possibility and
you
> > > are willing to help us test and get rid of bugs before we go stable,
> > > feel free to run ~arch.
> > >
> > > In other words, this is the standard Gentoo disclaimer, so consider
> > > yourself warned.
> >
> > Man, in terms of how to phrase things, this is way wrong.
> >
> > If you're comfortable with your stuff breaking really? No. If you want
> > to help improve Gentoo.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Donnie
> >
> > Donnie Berkholz
> > Council Member / Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux <http://dberkholz.com>
> > Analyst, RedMonk <http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/>
>
> I am not comfortable with this either. If you think the new openrc will
likely break things please mask it for a few days. Do not expect all users
to read the mailing list.

I personally expect this of ~arch, and am pleasantly surprised every time I
update and it still works.  As WilliamH mentioned, he's not seen breakage
himself, but as with anything undergoing active development, as they say,
"sh*t happens".  People have all sorts of setups (including myself, using a
preup function to rename interfaces when using oldnet), and while they try
to test everything they can, they can't reproduce every possible scenario.
If you're running ~arch, you should assume it might break, and be prepared
for that as a possibility.  That's why we call it testing, and Debian does
this in a similar manner and testing there tends to break in cute ways when
they release the freeze after a release, when everything waiting in sid for
months suddenly is now in testing.  If you know something common will
break, or repairing breakage would be a significant PITA, then yes, it
should enter the tree masked (see GCC for example), otherwise, imo,
entering the tree ~arch is fine.

-Doug

PS: I'll probably install openrc-9999 on one of my systems today, just to
see if anything breaks :)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3612 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2013 10:06 AM, "Donnie Berkholz" <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 15:36 Fri 02 Aug     , William Hubbs wrote:
>> > I do not know of any breakage personally. It does work on my system, and
>> > I know of others who are using OpenRc from git successfully. Some are
>> > OpenRc team members, and at least one is a Gentoo user.
>>
>> Man, in terms of how to phrase things, this is way wrong.
>>
>> If you're comfortable with your stuff breaking really? No. If you want
>> to help improve Gentoo.
>>
> I am not comfortable with this either. If you think the new openrc will
> likely break things please mask it for a few days. Do not expect all users
> to read the mailing list.

I think the only real issue is the wording here.

He said that several are running it successfully.  I think that this
means that is sufficiently stable to add to ~arch unmasked.  Adding it
masked won't really accomplish anything unless there is a call for
volunteer testers anyway.  (By all means williamh should do so if he
feels it is prudent.)

~arch is UNSTABLE - from time to time things are expected to break.
We shouldn't be committing known breakage, but since ~arch is where
things are tested it is more likely that inadvertent problems will
sneak in.  Openrc is one of those things that is inconvenient to have
break, so the heads-up is a good idea, and perhaps some individuals
will prefer to delay updating this particular package.  The fact that
everybody will pick a different wait time also staggers the rollout so
we don't have 50,000 broken systems on day 1.

I don't expect all users to read the mailing list, but users who are
interested in testing our experimental packages probably should do so.
 If users aren't interested in testing our experimental packages, they
shouldn't be running unstable keywords - certainly not for openrc.

And yes, I fully expect a few people to chime in and point out that
they find ~arch less buggy than stable because more devs run it.  The
fact remains that accepting ~arch means that you're willing to deal
with bleeding-edge packages that have not been tested.  That is a fine
and noble thing, and maybe it works out better for you 99 times out of
100.  However, 1 time out of 100 it might be openrc that bugs out on
you.  You should always be prepared for this (and really - it isn't
that hard to run quickpkg before doing big upgrades and have a rescue
CD lying around).

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Alan McKinnon]

On 03/08/2013 13:43, Rich Freeman wrote:

[snip]

> I think the only real issue is the wording here.

[snip]


Agreed. Reading William's post, he's really just expressed in his own
words what ~arch is all about: we accept the possibility of breakage.

Everything after the first two sentences is redundant - perhaps the
protest is more about that and the unfamiliar wording than anything else.

I read it as an announcement of a new major version, and nothing more
than that.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2167 bytes --]

On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 01:03:58PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2013 10:06 AM, "Donnie Berkholz" <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 15:36 Fri 02 Aug     , William Hubbs wrote:
> > > All,
> > >
> > > This message is an announcement and a reminder.
> > >
> > > OpenRc-0.12 will be introduced to the portage tree in the next few days.
> > >
> > > If you are using ~arch OpenRc, the standard disclaimer applies: remember
> > > that you might be subject to breakage.
> > >
> > > I do not know of any breakage personally. It does work on my system, and
> > > I know of others who are using OpenRc from git successfully. Some are
> > > OpenRc team members, and at least one is a Gentoo user.
> > >
> > > If you are not comfortable with the possibility of breakage, I recommend
> > > that you make sure you do not upgrade right away.
> > >
> > > If, on the other hand, you are comfortable with that possibility and you
> > > are willing to help us test and get rid of bugs before we go stable,
> > > feel free to run ~arch.
> > >
> > > In other words, this is the standard Gentoo disclaimer, so consider
> > > yourself warned.
> >
> > Man, in terms of how to phrase things, this is way wrong.
> >
> > If you're comfortable with your stuff breaking really? No. If you want
> > to help improve Gentoo.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Donnie
> >
> > Donnie Berkholz
> > Council Member / Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux <http://dberkholz.com>
> > Analyst, RedMonk <http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/>
> 
> I am not comfortable with this either. If you think the new openrc will
> likely break things please mask it for a few days. Do not expect all users
> to read the mailing list.

Ok all, I would like to appologise for the harsh wording.

Markos, to answer your question, there are folks on the team, and at
least one user, using OpenRc from git without issues, so as far as I
know there shouldn't be any breakage.

I guess I was a little more harsh than I should have been, because I
know there are users out here who want ~arch to be rock solid, and I
have caught flack before from some of that crowd.

William


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 897 bytes --]

On 2013.08.03 16:28, William Hubbs wrote:
[snip]

> 
> Ok all, I would like to appologise for the harsh wording.
> 
> Markos, to answer your question, there are folks on the team, and at
> least one user, using OpenRc from git without issues, so as far as I
> know there shouldn't be any breakage.
> 
> I guess I was a little more harsh than I should have been, because I
> know there are users out here who want ~arch to be rock solid, and I
> have caught flack before from some of that crowd.
> 
> William
> 
> 


~arch is not rock solid and isn't supposed to be.  I do like Williams 
approach to posting a warning about the upcoming change so I cam manage 
it for myself, if I'm feeling nervous.

Any notification of key packages changing like this is appreciated.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Duncan]

William Hubbs posted on Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:28:59 -0500 as excerpted:

> Markos, to answer your question, there are folks on the team, and at
> least one user, using OpenRc from git without issues, so as far as I
> know there shouldn't be any breakage.

<waves hand>

The other day in the process of filing a new openrc-9999 bug, I did a 
search.  In several years it's only my bugs, altho IIRC there were a 
couple from others back when Roy was upstream.  I guess pretty much 
everyone else running it, at least that would bother filing bugs, is on 
the dev team.  So I'd welcome some company. =:^)

I run openrc-9999 because I guess my configuration's unusual enough to 
trigger bugs once in awhile, and from experience once I do, it's a lot 
easier to track 'em down if I've only a couple commits to check since my 
last update.  Plus the fact that I can (and religiously do) run the 
unpack to trigger a git pull, then run git whatchanged, BEFORE doing the 
actual update.  So if there's a problem, I either spot it right away 
before I actually build and install the update, or at minimum, I have a 
very good idea where it is once I hit it, because I have a good idea what 
changed and why.

Running the ~arch release version, OTOH, doesn't appear to significantly 
reduce the incidence of bugs compared to live-git, but there's a much 
bigger pile of changes in a release, and far less information about what 
they actually are, so I'm bug-tracing pretty much blind and that's no fun 
at all!

So openrc-9999 ends up being the perfect fit, here. =:^)

-- 
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] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 676 bytes --]

On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 04:44:52PM +0000, Duncan wrote:
> Running the ~arch release version, OTOH, doesn't appear to significantly 
> reduce the incidence of bugs compared to live-git, but there's a much 
> bigger pile of changes in a release, and far less information about what 
> they actually are, so I'm bug-tracing pretty much blind and that's no fun 
> at all!

Actually I would say that running 9999 is more seceptible to breakage
than ~arch. We try to fix things in git before we do a ~arch release.

Your help is definitely appreciated, Duncan, and it would be good if
there were more out there who were willing to run 9999 and help us out.

William


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Sven Vermeulen]

On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 04:44:52PM +0000, Duncan wrote:
> I run openrc-9999 because I guess my configuration's unusual enough to 
> trigger bugs once in awhile, and from experience once I do, it's a lot 
> easier to track 'em down if I've only a couple commits to check since my 
> last update.  Plus the fact that I can (and religiously do) run the 
> unpack to trigger a git pull, then run git whatchanged, BEFORE doing the 
> actual update.  So if there's a problem, I either spot it right away 
> before I actually build and install the update, or at minimum, I have a 
> very good idea where it is once I hit it, because I have a good idea what 
> changed and why.

Care to elaborate a small bit on this? Is this a hook through bashrc that
you use? I'm running a few -9999 myself (not openrc though) and am
interested in doing something similar...

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 11:28 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Ok all, I would like to appologise for the harsh wording.

Your wording wasn't harsh - it just wasn't ideal.  If only imperfect
marketing was our worst problem around here...

Rich

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Duncan]

Sven Vermeulen posted on Sat, 03 Aug 2013 18:51:02 +0000 as excerpted:

> On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 04:44:52PM +0000, Duncan wrote:
>> I run openrc-9999 because I guess my configuration's unusual enough to
>> trigger bugs once in awhile, and from experience once I do, it's a lot
>> easier to track 'em down if I've only a couple commits to check since
>> my last update.  Plus the fact that I can (and religiously do) run the
>> unpack to trigger a git pull, then run git whatchanged, BEFORE doing
>> the actual update.  So if there's a problem, I either spot it right
>> away before I actually build and install the update, or at minimum, I
>> have a very good idea where it is once I hit it, because I have a good
>> idea what changed and why.
> 
> Care to elaborate a small bit on this? I'm running a few -9999 myself
> (not openrc though) and am interested in doing something similar...

Not a bashrc hack.  Basically, since live packages are never pulled in to 
an update @world (tho @live-rebuild works), I /was/ updating each one 
individually anyway, before I switched to live-branch kde.  With live-
branch kde I now do @live-rebuild, but I have the helper scripts already 
setup for the packages I really care about.

It works like this.  There's a single script called pgit (portage-git), 
with symlinks for individual packages.  Each package has a bunch of 
symlinks to pgit named like openrc.f (for the fetch/unpack), openrc.c 
(for the changelog aka whatchanged), openrc.r to ebuild clean the package 
if there were no updates, openrc.b with additional parameters for 
bisecting, etc.

Pgit then checks how it was called, separating the name into a package 
and an action, and acting accordingly.  At the moment I have hard-coded 
per-package values for some things in pgit itself, tho I setup default 
values for many things and only have to change them when they're not 
default, and at some point intend to setup a config file with the per-
package stuff in it.

Pgit also works in a slightly different mode for git-based overlays.  I 
have the mozilla, x11, and kde overlays installed, with pgit symlinks 
that can do kde.c, etc, as well.  (My sync script runs emerge --sync and 
layman -S plus updates the esearch database, etc, so I don't have pgit 
setup to do individual repo fetches, that's only for packages.  
Similarly, I don't really have overlays setup for bisecting, etc, either.)


So it's not fancy and would require some work to make it general purpose, 
but it works for me, and I'm gradually generalizing it and adding 
features as I go.  But it might be a start for someone looking to create 
a more general purpose version, anyway, and it's well commented and easy 
to modify for specific overlay and package hard-coding (I setup the hard-
coded values in a case statement based on the split-off package name).

If you're interested I can mail them privately, or perhaps post them 
somewhere and post a link to them, if others are interested as well.

-- 
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] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Duncan]

William Hubbs posted on Sat, 03 Aug 2013 11:57:20 -0500 as excerpted:

> On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 04:44:52PM +0000, Duncan wrote:
>> Running the ~arch release version, OTOH, doesn't appear to
>> significantly reduce the incidence of bugs compared to live-git, but
>> there's a much bigger pile of changes in a release, and far less
>> information about what they actually are, so I'm bug-tracing pretty
>> much blind and that's no fun at all!
> 
> Actually I would say that running 9999 is more seceptible to breakage
> than ~arch. We try to fix things in git before we do a ~arch release.

For most folks, probably.  But I seem to have a few unusual things like 
strange fstab entries that have triggered occasional bugs, etc.  Those 
sorts of things apparently don't get tested by others, at least not 
before release to the wide world of ~arch, so they'd be there whether I 
waited for ~arch or not.  And as I said I deal with less updates at once 
and get finer detail on the changelogs doing the git things, including 
individual commit diffs if the whatchanged looks interesting enough to 
check them or if I do end up with a problem.

-- 
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] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1273 bytes --]

On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 10:28:59 -0500
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Markos, to answer your question, there are folks on the team, and at
> least one user, using OpenRc from git without issues, so as far as I
> know there shouldn't be any breakage.

A few team developers is not a large enough test base for an important
package that is to be installed and ran on _hundreds to thousands_ of
user systems; I think you could reword future warnings to invite people
to unmask and test this important package version bump, and then state
it will be unmasked in X days if nothing bad gets reported.

You might get away this time, but what if hell breaks loose next time?

Besides that, as stated by others, such announcements are appreciated.

Thank you for the heads-up!

> I guess I was a little more harsh than I should have been, because I
> know there are users out here who want ~arch to be rock solid, and I
> have caught flack before from some of that crowd.

Exactly, ~arch isn't the new stable; it isn't the new masked either.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 10:28:59 -0500
> William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Markos, to answer your question, there are folks on the team, and at
>> least one user, using OpenRc from git without issues, so as far as I
>> know there shouldn't be any breakage.
>
> A few team developers is not a large enough test base for an important
> package that is to be installed and ran on _hundreds to thousands_ of
> user systems; I think you could reword future warnings to invite people
> to unmask and test this important package version bump, and then state
> it will be unmasked in X days if nothing bad gets reported.

If a maintainer thinks that such a testing period is warranted they're
welcome to call for it.  However, I certainly wouldn't make it a
requirement for putting a package into ~arch - even a system package.
If hundreds to thousands of users are running ~arch, then that means
that we have hundreds to thousands of users who don't mind their
systems occasionally not booting after an upgrade.

Besides, who does an emerge -u world without first checking to see
what will be updated?  If I see openrc on the list I certainly don't
run the upgrade over ssh while I'm on vacation, and I always make a
binary package with config before doing so.

~arch is for testing.  That's what you sign up for if you run it.  You
ARE the volunteer.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4474 bytes --]

On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 08:00:51 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 10:28:59 -0500
> > William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Markos, to answer your question, there are folks on the team, and
> >> at least one user, using OpenRc from git without issues, so as far
> >> as I know there shouldn't be any breakage.
> >
> > A few team developers is not a large enough test base for an
> > important package that is to be installed and ran on _hundreds to
> > thousands_ of user systems; I think you could reword future
> > warnings to invite people to unmask and test this important package
> > version bump, and then state it will be unmasked in X days if
> > nothing bad gets reported.
> 
> If a maintainer thinks that such a testing period is warranted they're
> welcome to call for it.

--- TL;DR, clarifying intention ---

True, I'm merely outlining the possibility for them to consider.

> However, I certainly wouldn't make it a requirement for putting a
> package into ~arch - even a system package.

This should indeed be no requirement, there isn't really a group of
packages you could simply label "must be tested as masked"; taking this
thread an example you could say 0.11.x -> 0.12 could use testing
whereas 0.12.0 -> 0.12.1 or a future 0.14.x -> 0.15 might/will need not.

It kind of depends on the details of the change log; but when a
maintainer announces that things might break and only a very small
amount of people tested it, it is worth a concern and consideration.

--- Reasoning, feel free to ignore ---

> If hundreds to thousands of users are running ~arch, then that means
> that we have hundreds to thousands of users who don't mind their
> systems occasionally not booting after an upgrade.

Still, why do we need to break hundreds to thousands of users with
something that is easily avoided by first letting some more people test
it before releasing it to the masses.

Let's say you release it to the masses; there appears to be something
heavily broken disallowing a wide enough share of people to not be able
to boot their system, then you apply the package mask after the fact.
You just got a lot of people to install something that is broken and
gets masked just the day after release causing a downgrade again;
something that could have been added as masked right away, because
really, the maintainer didn't know if it was ready for wide testing.

In terms of machine and man power, there's still a huge considerable
difference between breaking the system of a few users and some hundreds
users; if you can avoid the latter, why not do it?

"Broken" is free for interpretation; while most people don't mind that
their system does not boot after the upgrade, the story gets somewhat
different if their system got in an inconsistent state where a simple
downgrade doesn't appear to work.

Please note that some people run ~ because they can't mix non-~ and ~,
because they need to run GNOME 3, because they find the stable gap too
big or are bothered by packages that don't get stabilized on time.

Anyhow, discussing the borders is bike shedding; it's just a suggestion.

> Besides, who does an emerge -u world without first checking to see
> what will be updated?  If I see openrc on the list I certainly don't
> run the upgrade over ssh while I'm on vacation, and I always make a
> binary package with config before doing so.

Some people do, but that's not what this is about.

> ~arch is for testing.  That's what you sign up for if you run it.  You
> ARE the volunteer.

When a maintainer says "might be broken", it means that the maintainer
doesn't know whether the package belongs to ~ or package.mask; so, that
also means not enough testing has been done to consider adding it to ~.

It's at the maintainer's decision to go ahead or not; there's nobody
going to stop the maintainer from adding it to ~. But there are people
that going to complain (users), take action (QA), ... when hell does
break loose because of careless maintenance; putting something in
package.mask for some days doesn't hurt people, big breakage does.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> It's at the maintainer's decision to go ahead or not; there's nobody
> going to stop the maintainer from adding it to ~. But there are people
> that going to complain (users), take action (QA), ... when hell does
> break loose because of careless maintenance; putting something in
> package.mask for some days doesn't hurt people, big breakage does.

We're basically on the same page, so I won't respond to most of your email.

However, in general I'm not a big fan of putting heads on pikes when
their only sin was a failure to be lucky.  Careless maintainers should
be corrected.  However, if we're accepting the right level of risk
then occasional problems in ~arch should be expected.  They should be
rare, but when individual problems come up we need to be careful
before we assign blame to the maintainer.  If they were generally
accepting the right level of risk and they're just the guy who drew
the short straw this time, we should simply move on.  If we're not
happy with the overall level of risk then that is something that
requires a change distro-wide.  Whether we're at the right level of
risk is best measured distro-wide.

I have to say that QA on Gentoo is FAR better than it ever has been in
the past.  I can't remember the last time I had widespread breakage as
the result of an upgrade.  I think the biggest thing that slipped
through recently that I took notice of was a pre-mature stabilization
of apache-2.4 (for a day or so before being reverted).  It worked just
fine, but required substantial config changes and lacked appropriate
news/docs/etc.

I'm not inviting a reduction in QA.  However, right now I don't think
we need to crack the whip on it either.  Let's hold the line, but for
the most part maintainers can use discretion.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1659 bytes --]

On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 09:55:05 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> We're basically on the same page, so I won't respond to most of your
> email.

Same.

> I have to say that QA on Gentoo is FAR better than it ever has been in
> the past.

It is definitely very good; the only thing that currently bothers me,
is not in terms of breakage but rather in terms of news and docs / wiki.

There are some cases here and there where some headaches, rant and such
could be prevented with a simple news item explaining how to deal with
a particular change in the Portage tree and explaining why the
particular change happened; currently I feel the news items are used to
sparingly, but that's a thing on its own. I'll try to catch these
occurences in the future and attempt to bring them to the mailing list
to show what I mean; but well, they're usually not so big problems.

As for big breakage, it hasn't happened lately; I just don't want to see
it again. I believe there's going to become a day it happens, because
people just don't care because it hasn't happened for some time; at
which point it would have been easier to prevent than to cover up.

> I'm not inviting a reduction in QA.  However, right now I don't think
> we need to crack the whip on it either.  Let's hold the line, but for
> the most part maintainers can use discretion.

Yeah, no change required; maybe my advice ends up being useless, or not.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Peter Stuge]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 187 bytes --]

Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > Besides, who does an emerge -u world without first checking to see
> > what will be updated?
> 
> Some people do

They deserve a broken system.


//Peter

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 428 bytes --]

Dnia 2013-08-07, o godz. 21:02:30
Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> napisał(a):

> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > Besides, who does an emerge -u world without first checking to see
> > > what will be updated?
> > 
> > Some people do
> 
> They deserve a broken system.

Please keep your comments to yourself and do not add them to the volume
of this list. Thanks. And please don't reply.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Peter Stuge]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 80 bytes --]

Tom Wijsman wrote:
> what if hell breaks loose next time?

We fix it.


//Peter

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 574 bytes --]

On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 21:01:06 +0200
Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:

> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > Some people do, but that's not what this is about.
>
> They deserve a broken system.

Some people do, but that's not what this is about.

> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > what if hell breaks loose next time?
> 
> We fix it.

Fixes are not a reason to not mask it.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-user] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Markos Chandras]

On 14 August 2013 16:43, Keith Dart <keith@dartworks.biz> wrote:
> Re , William Hubbs said:
>> All,
>>
>> This message is an announcement and a reminder.
>>
>> OpenRc-0.12 will be introduced to the portage tree in the next few
>> days.
>>
>> If you are using ~arch OpenRc, the standard disclaimer applies:
>> remember that you might be subject to breakage.
>
> I just got around to upgrading to it. When I did my /etc/conf.d/net
> file disappeared, and my network interface would not come up. There is
> not even a sample net file any more.  I had to manually add it back,
> using a syntax I found on the wiki site.
>
>

The package is now masked (openrc-0.12) because quite a few people
lost their net configs

So yep, ~arch being *this* broken is not so nice

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-user] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Fabio Erculiani]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 14 August 2013 16:43, Keith Dart <keith@dartworks.biz> wrote:
>> Re , William Hubbs said:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> This message is an announcement and a reminder.
>>>
>>> OpenRc-0.12 will be introduced to the portage tree in the next few
>>> days.
>>>
>>> If you are using ~arch OpenRc, the standard disclaimer applies:
>>> remember that you might be subject to breakage.
>>
>> I just got around to upgrading to it. When I did my /etc/conf.d/net
>> file disappeared, and my network interface would not come up. There is
>> not even a sample net file any more.  I had to manually add it back,
>> using a syntax I found on the wiki site.
>>
>>
>
> The package is now masked (openrc-0.12) because quite a few people
> lost their net configs

I wonder if this has to do with bug #462674 which was about to
generate a disaster on one of my old servers as well. Thankfully, the
net config was stored in a local git repo and I just had to reset the
its state to HEAD.

Now I need to go sacrifice a cow to Linus to demonstrate my gratitude.

>
> So yep, ~arch being *this* broken is not so nice
>
> --
> Regards,
> Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
>



-- 
Fabio Erculiani

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-user] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The package is now masked (openrc-0.12) because quite a few people
> lost their net configs
>
> So yep, ~arch being *this* broken is not so nice

And hence the value of having a group of volunteer guinea pigs
(anybody running ~arch) is demonstrated.  That said, masking big
changes and calling for volunteers among the volunteers doesn't hurt.

Seems like we need to be more careful with code that runs outside the
sandbox.  Config protection is nice, but it is useless when code runs
outside the sandbox.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-user] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Todd Goodman]

* Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> [130816 10:43]:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > The package is now masked (openrc-0.12) because quite a few people
> > lost their net configs
> >
> > So yep, ~arch being *this* broken is not so nice
> 
> And hence the value of having a group of volunteer guinea pigs
> (anybody running ~arch) is demonstrated.  That said, masking big
> changes and calling for volunteers among the volunteers doesn't hurt.
> 
> Seems like we need to be more careful with code that runs outside the
> sandbox.  Config protection is nice, but it is useless when code runs
> outside the sandbox.
> 
> Rich

As one of those volunteer guinea pigs it all worked fine with the four
~x86 and three ~amd64 machines I've upgraded to openrc-0.12:0.

They vary in when they were installed from 2005 up to a couple months
ago and are generally updated daily.

All ~x86 are "servers" (though most have X, KDE, and Gnome installed,
they're only accessed remotely.)

Two of the ~amd64 machines are "desktops" (though they both run services
as "servers.")

If I can help narrow anything down further I'm happy to help.  Or to
test anything.

Todd

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-user] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 16/08/13 10:57 AM, Todd Goodman wrote:
> * Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> [130816 10:43]:
>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Markos Chandras
>> <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> The package is now masked (openrc-0.12) because quite a few
>>> people lost their net configs
>>> 
>>> So yep, ~arch being *this* broken is not so nice
>> 
>> And hence the value of having a group of volunteer guinea pigs 
>> (anybody running ~arch) is demonstrated.  That said, masking big 
>> changes and calling for volunteers among the volunteers doesn't
>> hurt.
>> 
>> Seems like we need to be more careful with code that runs outside
>> the sandbox.  Config protection is nice, but it is useless when
>> code runs outside the sandbox.
>> 
>> Rich
> 
> As one of those volunteer guinea pigs it all worked fine with the
> four ~x86 and three ~amd64 machines I've upgraded to
> openrc-0.12:0.
> 
> They vary in when they were installed from 2005 up to a couple
> months ago and are generally updated daily.
> 
> All ~x86 are "servers" (though most have X, KDE, and Gnome
> installed, they're only accessed remotely.)
> 
> Two of the ~amd64 machines are "desktops" (though they both run
> services as "servers.")
> 
> If I can help narrow anything down further I'm happy to help.  Or
> to test anything.
> 

For everyone's information -- The conf.d/net removal on upgrade is a
packaging issue, which could not have been tested prior to
openrc-0.12.ebuild hitting the tree.  There are details in
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481336 if anyone's interested
in why it's happening.

I've fixed the 0.12.ebuild in the tree now.  It's a hack but it seems
to be the best possible solution.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlIOT+QACgkQ2ugaI38ACPB5cAD+KZaB/IOhTOQB90L5JEwPnBcO
eJzbFHOqtxeJAQ/i6pgBAKukByT2wFolArwBoNxjo6e+D+uVEw+Rct2KPL3cXM7t
=NhhK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-user] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
> For everyone's information -- The conf.d/net removal on upgrade is a
> packaging issue, which could not have been tested prior to
> openrc-0.12.ebuild hitting the tree.  There are details in
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481336 if anyone's interested
> in why it's happening.
>
> I've fixed the 0.12.ebuild in the tree now.  It's a hack but it seems
> to be the best possible solution.

Thanks for the update.  From the other report it seems unlikely that
calling for volunteers would have turned up much.

That's just the nature of ~arch - if you get an openrc update you're
among the first.  Gentoo users should know what they're doing
regardless, and ~arch users doubly-so.

Also, it really isn't Gentoo-specific, but putting /etc in a git repo
is a really good practice, and I'm wondering if it should go in the
handbook as a result.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-user] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Walter Dnes]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:46:34PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote

> Also, it really isn't Gentoo-specific, but putting /etc in a git repo
> is a really good practice, and I'm wondering if it should go in the
> handbook as a result.

  For regular users, who won't be up to developer standards, maybe the
wording should be a more generic "make a backup copy of" /etc.  I also
recommend backing up /var/lib, which contains iptables rules, alsa
state, portage "world", and other goodies.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-user] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Dale]

Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:46:34PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote
>
>> Also, it really isn't Gentoo-specific, but putting /etc in a git repo
>> is a really good practice, and I'm wondering if it should go in the
>> handbook as a result.
>   For regular users, who won't be up to developer standards, maybe the
> wording should be a more generic "make a backup copy of" /etc.  I also
> recommend backing up /var/lib, which contains iptables rules, alsa
> state, portage "world", and other goodies.
>

When I reboot and everything works, I make a new backup of /etc.  Going
to add /var/lib to that to now. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-user] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Doug Goldstein]

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

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > For everyone's information -- The conf.d/net removal on upgrade is a
> > packaging issue, which could not have been tested prior to
> > openrc-0.12.ebuild hitting the tree.  There are details in
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481336 if anyone's interested
> > in why it's happening.
> >
> > I've fixed the 0.12.ebuild in the tree now.  It's a hack but it seems
> > to be the best possible solution.
>
> Thanks for the update.  From the other report it seems unlikely that
> calling for volunteers would have turned up much.
>
> That's just the nature of ~arch - if you get an openrc update you're
> among the first.  Gentoo users should know what they're doing
> regardless, and ~arch users doubly-so.
>
> Also, it really isn't Gentoo-specific, but putting /etc in a git repo
> is a really good practice, and I'm wondering if it should go in the
> handbook as a result.
>
> Rich
>
>
sys-apps/etckeeper is what you want. Works great. It even has portage
integration. Though I'd recommend going with the ~arch version instead of
stable for that portion.

-- 
Doug Goldstein

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1914 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-user] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Dale]

Doug Goldstein wrote:
>
> sys-apps/etckeeper is what you want. Works great. It even has portage
> integration. Though I'd recommend going with the ~arch version instead
> of stable for that portion.
>
> -- 
> Doug Goldstein

I think this is something dispatch-conf does too.  I use that but still
make a backup myself, just in case.  Generally, a successful reboot is a
good sign that the configs are working. 

Going to look into this but the home page doesn't really show me much, yet.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-user] OpenRc-0.12 is coming soon

[Doug Goldstein]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1095 bytes --]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> Doug Goldstein wrote:
> >
> > sys-apps/etckeeper is what you want. Works great. It even has portage
> > integration. Though I'd recommend going with the ~arch version instead
> > of stable for that portion.
> >
> > --
> > Doug Goldstein
>
> I think this is something dispatch-conf does too.  I use that but still
> make a backup myself, just in case.  Generally, a successful reboot is a
> good sign that the configs are working.
>
> Going to look into this but the home page doesn't really show me much, yet.
>
>
>
You'll want USE=cron enabled so that you get the benefits of etckeeper
taking a note of someone or something changing a config and not committing
it. Additionally without USE=cron, when you emerge the next package
etckeeper will think that the most recent package you emerged changed a
file that it didn't if you manually changed a file.

Once that's done just do:
# etckeeper init -d /etc
# bzcat /usr/share/doc/etckeeper-1.7/examples/bashrc.bz2 >>
/etc/portage/bashrc

And you're set.

-- 
Doug Goldstein

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1714 bytes --]