[gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles

[gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles

[Ben de Groot]

We've been living with the 2008.0 profiles for a while now. I think the
time has come for 2009.0 profiles so we can have some updates. Also,
there are plans for an anniversary release of our LiveCD, so I think the
time is right to start working on a new set of profiles.

One reason I bring this up is that the Qt team would like to see the qt3
useflag dropped from desktop profiles, and I'm sure others have some
suggestions as well.

Traditionally, the release team has taken care of this, as the profiles
were tied to releases of install media and stage3 archives. Now that we
have the autobuilds, this relationship isn't as self-evident anymore,
which is why I address the wider dev community.

Please share your ideas on this.

Cheers,
Ben

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles

[AllenJB]

Ben de Groot wrote:
> We've been living with the 2008.0 profiles for a while now. I think the
> time has come for 2009.0 profiles so we can have some updates. Also,
> there are plans for an anniversary release of our LiveCD, so I think the
> time is right to start working on a new set of profiles.
> 
> One reason I bring this up is that the Qt team would like to see the qt3
> useflag dropped from desktop profiles, and I'm sure others have some
> suggestions as well.

Haven't the devs just been making changes directly to the profiles since
at least autobuilds came about? I'm sure I've seen some global use flag
changes relatively recently. What is the actual policy on this?

It seems kind of pointless to me to tie global use flag changes to a
release cycle when per-package use flags are now changed "on a whim"
(with EAPI-2 style default use flags)

> 
> Traditionally, the release team has taken care of this, as the profiles
> were tied to releases of install media and stage3 archives. Now that we
> have the autobuilds, this relationship isn't as self-evident anymore,
> which is why I address the wider dev community.

With the introduction of autobuilds, would it be a good idea to rename
the profiles so that they don't have the date association? This does
seem to confuse a number of new users who will appear asking where the
2009 profiles are.

What does Gentoo use versioned profiles for now that use flag changes,
in particular per-package use flags, don't seem to be linked at all.
What should they be used for?

Is this going to be another thing that isn't updated in the Handbooks?

> 
> Please share your ideas on this.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ben
> 

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles

[Zac Medico]

AllenJB wrote:
> Ben de Groot wrote:
>> We've been living with the 2008.0 profiles for a while now. I think the
>> time has come for 2009.0 profiles so we can have some updates. Also,
>> there are plans for an anniversary release of our LiveCD, so I think the
>> time is right to start working on a new set of profiles.
>>
>> One reason I bring this up is that the Qt team would like to see the qt3
>> useflag dropped from desktop profiles, and I'm sure others have some
>> suggestions as well.
> 
> Haven't the devs just been making changes directly to the profiles since
> at least autobuilds came about? I'm sure I've seen some global use flag
> changes relatively recently. What is the actual policy on this?
> 
> It seems kind of pointless to me to tie global use flag changes to a
> release cycle when per-package use flags are now changed "on a whim"
> (with EAPI-2 style default use flags)

I think a release cycle is most useful for handling incompatible
changes. This allows us to make changes in newer releases that might
break older package managers.

>> Traditionally, the release team has taken care of this, as the profiles
>> were tied to releases of install media and stage3 archives. Now that we
>> have the autobuilds, this relationship isn't as self-evident anymore,
>> which is why I address the wider dev community.
> 
> With the introduction of autobuilds, would it be a good idea to rename
> the profiles so that they don't have the date association? This does
> seem to confuse a number of new users who will appear asking where the
> 2009 profiles are.

Maybe, but you could also look at this as a documentation/training
issue.

> What does Gentoo use versioned profiles for now that use flag changes,
> in particular per-package use flags, don't seem to be linked at all.
> What should they be used for?

As said above, incompatible changes. However, it might be nice to
offer some unversioned profiles for power-users who update regularly
and aren't concerned about compatibility issues.

> Is this going to be another thing that isn't updated in the Handbooks?
> 
>> Please share your ideas on this.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ben
>>
> 


-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles

[Sebastian Pipping]

Zac Medico wrote:
>> With the introduction of autobuilds, would it be a good idea to rename
>> the profiles so that they don't have the date association? This does
>> seem to confuse a number of new users who will appear asking where the
>> 2009 profiles are.
> 
> Maybe, but you could also look at this as a documentation/training
> issue.

My vote is for getting rid of the date association, too.  The "where is
2009" aspect also is a strong point to me.

Does sticking to dates have any real benefits?



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles

[Michael Hammer]

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

Sebastian Pipping schrieb:
> Does sticking to dates have any real benefits?

YES - you don't have to think about another versioning scheme ;) It's
nice to see how people are switching to ${year}.${month} and after a
while discussing if it isn't better to switch back to an numerous
versioning. That's a kind of endless recursion ... isn't it?

mueli

- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hammer    |    <mueli@gentoo.org>     |     Graz, AT
Gentoo Developer (Kerberos)  |  http://www.michael-hammer.at
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkqXhVUACgkQPsRu3xul8N5AfQCggl72KPEiszQ4GdayfMppN/0O
lvEAn1sXkhaNLr0yU2GEv/BlT1cZwzm7
=kpJt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles

[Samuli Suominen]

Michael Hammer wrote:
> Sebastian Pipping schrieb:
>> Does sticking to dates have any real benefits?
> 
> YES - you don't have to think about another versioning scheme ;) It's
> nice to see how people are switching to ${year}.${month} and after a
> while discussing if it isn't better to switch back to an numerous
> versioning. That's a kind of endless recursion ... isn't it?

You do realize all this discussion is now pointless as 10.0 profiles are
in place already? :-p

"Bounce it back and forth for an year and get nothing done(tm)"

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles

[Sebastian Pipping]

Samuli Suominen wrote:
> You do realize all this discussion is now pointless as 10.0 profiles are
> in place already? :-p

So what do we do?



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles

[Josh Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 264 bytes --]

Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> You do realize all this discussion is now pointless as 10.0 profiles are
>> in place already? :-p
> 
> So what do we do?
> 
> 
> 
> Sebastian
> 

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles

[Sebastian Pipping]

Josh Saddler wrote:
>> So what do we do?
> 
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml

Please give more precise content pointers or summarize what you want to
point out.



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 575 bytes --]

On Friday 28 August 2009 04:09:01 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Michael Hammer wrote:
> > Sebastian Pipping schrieb:
> >> Does sticking to dates have any real benefits?
> >
> > YES - you don't have to think about another versioning scheme ;) It's
> > nice to see how people are switching to ${year}.${month} and after a
> > while discussing if it isn't better to switch back to an numerous
> > versioning. That's a kind of endless recursion ... isn't it?
>
> You do realize all this discussion is now pointless as 10.0 profiles are
> in place already? :-p

10.0 is retarded
-mike

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles

[Sebastian Pipping]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 10.0 is retarded

How would you like the problem to be addressed?



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 238 bytes --]

On Friday 28 August 2009 16:27:18 Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > 10.0 is retarded
>
> How would you like the problem to be addressed?

we already have a simple logical version system.  2009.0 is the next step.
-mike

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles

[Alex Alexander]

On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 00:23, Mike Frysinger<vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Friday 28 August 2009 16:27:18 Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > 10.0 is retarded
>>
>> How would you like the problem to be addressed?
>
> we already have a simple logical version system.  2009.0 is the next step.
> -mike

Years do not make a good versioning scheme, if one release gets out
late you're automatically considered outdated by users.

I think 10.0 is cool :)

-- 
Alex || wired
Gentoo Dev
www.linuxized.com

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 645 bytes --]

On Friday 28 August 2009 20:05:12 Alex Alexander wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 00:23, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 28 August 2009 16:27:18 Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> >> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > 10.0 is retarded
> >>
> >> How would you like the problem to be addressed?
> >
> > we already have a simple logical version system.  2009.0 is the next
> > step.
>
> Years do not make a good versioning scheme, if one release gets out
> late you're automatically considered outdated by users.

then help the release team to get more tested releases, otherwise reality is 
we are releasing out of date install media
-mike

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: 2009.0 profiles

[Duncan]

Mike Frysinger posted on Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:56:33 -0400 as excerpted:

> On Friday 28 August 2009 20:05:12 Alex Alexander wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 00:23, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > On Friday 28 August 2009 16:27:18 Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>> >> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> > 10.0 is retarded
>> >>
>> >> How would you like the problem to be addressed?
>> >
>> > we already have a simple logical version system.  2009.0 is the next
>> > step.
>>
>> Years do not make a good versioning scheme, if one release gets out
>> late you're automatically considered outdated by users.
> 
> then help the release team to get more tested releases, otherwise
> reality is we are releasing out of date install media

But as we all know, releases != profiles.  If there's no reason to update 
the profiles besides the fact that the name incorporates a year, and they 
look out of date, why do so?

For that reason, getting away from year for the profiles is a reasonable 
idea, now that Gentoo seems to be mature enough that we don't need a new 
profile multiple times a year.

OTOH, having the year in there, as long as people don't get fixated on 
it, can be useful as an indication of when the profile was born, just not 
necessarily that it's outdated.  If it weren't for the outdated 
appearance, therefore, year would be fine.

Whatever, bikeshedding from my perspective, and this one I don't /care/ 
what the color/name is.  But since we already have 10.0 profiles in-tree, 
just run with them, as it's more work to worry about changing them now, 
than it's worth.  (And, I might add, I'm glad they're in, as the /last/ 
thing we need is to be stalemated debating it for a year or two, as it 
/is/ bikeshedding.)

-- 
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: 2009.0 profiles

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2568 bytes --]

On Saturday 29 August 2009 05:42:45 Duncan wrote:
> Mike Frysinger posted on Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:56:33 -0400 as excerpted:
> > On Friday 28 August 2009 20:05:12 Alex Alexander wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 00:23, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > On Friday 28 August 2009 16:27:18 Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> >> >> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> >> > 10.0 is retarded
> >> >>
> >> >> How would you like the problem to be addressed?
> >> >
> >> > we already have a simple logical version system.  2009.0 is the next
> >> > step.
> >>
> >> Years do not make a good versioning scheme, if one release gets out
> >> late you're automatically considered outdated by users.
> >
> > then help the release team to get more tested releases, otherwise
> > reality is we are releasing out of date install media
> 
> But as we all know, releases != profiles.  If there's no reason to update
> the profiles besides the fact that the name incorporates a year, and they
> look out of date, why do so?
>
> For that reason, getting away from year for the profiles is a reasonable
> idea, now that Gentoo seems to be mature enough that we don't need a new
> profile multiple times a year.
> 
> OTOH, having the year in there, as long as people don't get fixated on
> it, can be useful as an indication of when the profile was born, just not
> necessarily that it's outdated.  If it weren't for the outdated
> appearance, therefore, year would be fine.

except that profiles and releases have always been tied (for good reason).  
profile default changes are made as part of the release process.  if we want 
to change a USE flag default, we dont (shouldnt) be doing it to live profiles.  
it is part of the natural version bumping.  releng has always been managing 
new profiles since we started the process years ago and there's no reason to 
change now.

> Whatever, bikeshedding from my perspective, and this one I don't /care/
> what the color/name is.  But since we already have 10.0 profiles in-tree,
> just run with them, as it's more work to worry about changing them now,
> than it's worth.  (And, I might add, I'm glad they're in, as the /last/
> thing we need is to be stalemated debating it for a year or two, as it
> /is/ bikeshedding.)

date based profiles isnt bikeshedding, it's logical.  and if your only 
complaint is that it doesnt matter, then there is absolutely no reason to go 
changing from what we've been doing for years with no complaints.  picking 
random numbers out of your ass (like 10.0) is confusing.
-mike

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: 2009.0 profiles

[George Prowse]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> ...

Why not tie the the thing that makes Gentoo unique and one of the major 
reasons why users use it to the version numbers - Portage.

We had 1.2, then 1.4 then 2004.0 and if i'm not mistaken portage is at 
2.1 currently. Tie it in and we have 2.2 (currently masked) next. Add 
release candidates along the way and everyone is happy. But i'm sure 
there is a million reasons why this is wrong... Bring on the wrath.

George

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: 2009.0 profiles

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 856 bytes --]

On Friday 11 September 2009 19:48:03 George Prowse wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > ...
> 
> Why not tie the the thing that makes Gentoo unique and one of the major
> reasons why users use it to the version numbers - Portage.
> 
> We had 1.2, then 1.4 then 2004.0 and if i'm not mistaken portage is at
> 2.1 currently. Tie it in and we have 2.2 (currently masked) next. Add
> release candidates along the way and everyone is happy. But i'm sure
> there is a million reasons why this is wrong... Bring on the wrath.

these two things simply dont make sense to tie together.  profiles control the 
default configuration for your system (USE flags / build flags / etc...) while 
portage is a package manager.  version changes in the package manager dont 
directly relate in any way to the default configuration the user has selected.
-mike

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: 2009.0 profiles

[Jeremy Olexa]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 29 August 2009 05:42:45 Duncan wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger posted on Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:56:33 -0400 as excerpted:
>>> On Friday 28 August 2009 20:05:12 Alex Alexander wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 00:23, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>> On Friday 28 August 2009 16:27:18 Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>>>> 10.0 is retarded
>>>>>> How would you like the problem to be addressed?
>>>>> we already have a simple logical version system.  2009.0 is the next
>>>>> step.
>>>> Years do not make a good versioning scheme, if one release gets out
>>>> late you're automatically considered outdated by users.
>>> then help the release team to get more tested releases, otherwise
>>> reality is we are releasing out of date install media
>> But as we all know, releases != profiles.  If there's no reason to update
>> the profiles besides the fact that the name incorporates a year, and they
>> look out of date, why do so?
>>
>> For that reason, getting away from year for the profiles is a reasonable
>> idea, now that Gentoo seems to be mature enough that we don't need a new
>> profile multiple times a year.
>>
>> OTOH, having the year in there, as long as people don't get fixated on
>> it, can be useful as an indication of when the profile was born, just not
>> necessarily that it's outdated.  If it weren't for the outdated
>> appearance, therefore, year would be fine.
> 
> except that profiles and releases have always been tied (for good reason).  
> profile default changes are made as part of the release process.  if we want 
> to change a USE flag default, we dont (shouldnt) be doing it to live profiles.  
> it is part of the natural version bumping.  releng has always been managing 
> new profiles since we started the process years ago and there's no reason to 
> change now.

Well, besides the fact that releng is not interested in making new 
profiles...

> 
>> Whatever, bikeshedding from my perspective, and this one I don't /care/
>> what the color/name is.  But since we already have 10.0 profiles in-tree,
>> just run with them, as it's more work to worry about changing them now,
>> than it's worth.  (And, I might add, I'm glad they're in, as the /last/
>> thing we need is to be stalemated debating it for a year or two, as it
>> /is/ bikeshedding.)
> 
> date based profiles isnt bikeshedding, it's logical.  and if your only 
> complaint is that it doesnt matter, then there is absolutely no reason to go 
> changing from what we've been doing for years with no complaints.  picking 
> random numbers out of your ass (like 10.0) is confusing.

10 year anniversary of Gentoo. It's not random, nor is it confusing. IMO.

> -mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009, Alex Alexander wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 00:23, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> we already have a simple logical version system.  2009.0 is the
>> next step.

> Years do not make a good versioning scheme, if one release gets out
> late you're automatically considered outdated by users.

You don't make it less outdated by obscuring the version system.

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles

[George Prowse]

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

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 28 August 2009 16:27:18 Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> 10.0 is retarded
>> How would you like the problem to be addressed?
>
> we already have a simple logical version system.  2009.0 is the
> next step. -mike
I think 2.0 sounds good
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkqYeagACgkQCt8MOSeAf9rNXQCePeRtsqNeh7vIhuplYx0Q57nx
NdcAn3lHv8mqSxPy3MtHZkUBMnX+lsyc
=rl+C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----