[gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols

[gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols

[Eric Polino]

Would it be possible to have all the protocols for net-im/pidgin
turned on by default.  We often get people coming to #pidgin looking
for help as to why they can't get MSN or some other protocol working.
It most often is because they haven't enabled the given protocol USE
flag.

There is nothing gained in turning a protocol off.  At the very most
you might save on 100K of memory, and a small amount of compile time
(pidgin takes a good while to compile, so this is a small percentage).
 On the other hand, by having them off by default, people often lose a
lot of time figuring out why they are missing some protocol.  Finding
out which ones they want, setting up package.use...  The wanted gain
is lost in research and setup time.  I would understand if they were
huge aspects of the application that took up tons of HD space, tons of
RAM and took a while to compile, but they aren't.

I have two suggestions for solutions.  The protocol flags could be
removed and would make them on all the time.  Or if the overzealous
user insists on having some off, there could be negative flags such as
nomsn, noaim, etc.

I am busy with a GSoC project right now, but I can offer a diff for an
ebuild that would provide this functionality once I find time to.

Thanks,
Eric

-- 
http://aluink.blogspot.com

-- 
"...indexable arrays, which may be thought of as functions whose
domains are isomorphic to contiguous subsets of the integers."
--Haskell 98 Library Report
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols

[Caleb Cushing]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1826 bytes --]

another option could just be to enable the protocols in the ebuild by
default (or does that have to be done globally in profile?) and force users
to turn them off if they don't want them.

On 7/19/07, Eric Polino <aluink@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Would it be possible to have all the protocols for net-im/pidgin
> turned on by default.  We often get people coming to #pidgin looking
> for help as to why they can't get MSN or some other protocol working.
> It most often is because they haven't enabled the given protocol USE
> flag.
>
> There is nothing gained in turning a protocol off.  At the very most
> you might save on 100K of memory, and a small amount of compile time
> (pidgin takes a good while to compile, so this is a small percentage).
> On the other hand, by having them off by default, people often lose a
> lot of time figuring out why they are missing some protocol.  Finding
> out which ones they want, setting up package.use...  The wanted gain
> is lost in research and setup time.  I would understand if they were
> huge aspects of the application that took up tons of HD space, tons of
> RAM and took a while to compile, but they aren't.
>
> I have two suggestions for solutions.  The protocol flags could be
> removed and would make them on all the time.  Or if the overzealous
> user insists on having some off, there could be negative flags such as
> nomsn, noaim, etc.
>
> I am busy with a GSoC project right now, but I can offer a diff for an
> ebuild that would provide this functionality once I find time to.
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
> --
> http://aluink.blogspot.com
>
> --
> "...indexable arrays, which may be thought of as functions whose
> domains are isomorphic to contiguous subsets of the integers."
> --Haskell 98 Library Report
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


-- 
Caleb Cushing

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2348 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols

[Eric Polino]

On 7/19/07, Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com> wrote:
> another option could just be to enable the protocols in the ebuild by
> default (or does that have to be done globally in profile?) and force users
> to turn them off if they don't want them.

Yeah that would have to be done in the profile.  We could have
extended use flags added that are on by default in the profile.
Though I would think this to be overkill for this problem.

>  On 7/19/07, Eric Polino <aluink@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Would it be possible to have all the protocols for net-im/pidgin
> > turned on by default.  We often get people coming to #pidgin looking
> > for help as to why they can't get MSN or some other protocol working.
> > It most often is because they haven't enabled the given protocol USE
> > flag.
> >
> > There is nothing gained in turning a protocol off.  At the very most
> > you might save on 100K of memory, and a small amount of compile time
> > (pidgin takes a good while to compile, so this is a small percentage).
> > On the other hand, by having them off by default, people often lose a
> > lot of time figuring out why they are missing some protocol.  Finding
> > out which ones they want, setting up package.use...  The wanted gain
> > is lost in research and setup time.  I would understand if they were
> > huge aspects of the application that took up tons of HD space, tons of
> > RAM and took a while to compile, but they aren't.
> >
> > I have two suggestions for solutions.  The protocol flags could be
> > removed and would make them on all the time.  Or if the overzealous
> > user insists on having some off, there could be negative flags such as
> > nomsn, noaim, etc.
> >
> > I am busy with a GSoC project right now, but I can offer a diff for an
> > ebuild that would provide this functionality once I find time to.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Eric
> >
> > --
> > http://aluink.blogspot.com
> >
> > --
> > "...indexable arrays, which may be thought of as functions whose
> > domains are isomorphic to contiguous subsets of the integers."
> > --Haskell 98 Library Report
> > --
> > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Caleb Cushing


-- 
http://aluink.blogspot.com

-- 
"...indexable arrays, which may be thought of as functions whose
domains are isomorphic to contiguous subsets of the integers."
--Haskell 98 Library Report
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols

[Luca Barbato]

Eric Polino wrote:
> Would it be possible to have all the protocols for net-im/pidgin
> turned on by default.  We often get people coming to #pidgin looking
> for help as to why they can't get MSN or some other protocol working.
> It most often is because they haven't enabled the given protocol USE
> flag.

looks like it's another case for IUSE defaults

make sense leaving a big glowing ewarn about it anyway, no point in
getting pidgin people pissed of at us again because of our users.

lu - that will haunt #pidgin now and then asking for the updated y! protocol

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 738 bytes --]

Luca Barbato kirjoitti:
> Eric Polino wrote:
>> Would it be possible to have all the protocols for net-im/pidgin
>> turned on by default.  We often get people coming to #pidgin looking
>> for help as to why they can't get MSN or some other protocol working.
>> It most often is because they haven't enabled the given protocol USE
>> flag.
> 
> looks like it's another case for IUSE defaults
> 
> make sense leaving a big glowing ewarn about it anyway, no point in
> getting pidgin people pissed of at us again because of our users.
> 
> lu - that will haunt #pidgin now and then asking for the updated y! protocol
> 

Or just do it via package.use in profiles until IUSE defaults are
implemented.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 794 bytes --]

Petteri Räty napsal(a):
> Or just do it via package.use in profiles until IUSE defaults are
> implemented.
> 
> Regards,
> Petteri

As noted before, they are implemented, just not allowed in the tree.
Plus, what vapier said, this info belongs to the ebuilds, not to profiles.

Wrt pidgin - seriously, what's the big issue here? Users can't use
emerge -pv output and determine what they want, or? Will we bloat the
profiles everytime someone forgets to enable a flag and goes complain
upstream about a 'missing' feature?


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols

[Petteri Räty]

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

Jakub Moc kirjoitti:
> Petteri Räty napsal(a):
>> Or just do it via package.use in profiles until IUSE defaults are
>> implemented.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Petteri
> 
> As noted before, they are implemented, just not allowed in the tree.
> Plus, what vapier said, this info belongs to the ebuilds, not to profiles.
> 
> Wrt pidgin - seriously, what's the big issue here? Users can't use
> emerge -pv output and determine what they want, or? Will we bloat the
> profiles everytime someone forgets to enable a flag and goes complain
> upstream about a 'missing' feature?
> 

The policy is to have sane defaults for emerge <application>. OK good
that they are implemented. Let's say then until EAPI-1 is approved instead.

Regards,
Petteri



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 334 bytes --]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:19:11 +0200
Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org> wrote:
> As noted before, they are implemented, just not allowed in the tree.
> Plus, what vapier said, this info belongs to the ebuilds, not to
> profiles.

What, it belongs in multiple ebuild files, rather than a single profile
file?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 547 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:19:11 +0200
> Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> As noted before, they are implemented, just not allowed in the tree.
>> Plus, what vapier said, this info belongs to the ebuilds, not to
>> profiles.
> 
> What, it belongs in multiple ebuild files, rather than a single profile
> file?
> 

Let's not get into this debate in this thread. There was a thread that
was discussing this a while ago so all the argumentation about the
general case belongs there.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1292 bytes --]

On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 12:19 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Petteri Räty napsal(a):
> > Or just do it via package.use in profiles until IUSE defaults are
> > implemented.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Petteri
> 
> As noted before, they are implemented, just not allowed in the tree.
> Plus, what vapier said, this info belongs to the ebuilds, not to profiles.
> 
> Wrt pidgin - seriously, what's the big issue here? Users can't use
> emerge -pv output and determine what they want, or? Will we bloat the
> profiles everytime someone forgets to enable a flag and goes complain
> upstream about a 'missing' feature?

Unfortunately, that is the state we're currently in with regards to our
profiles and the tree.  I know I would *love* to see us start using IUSE
defaults as soon as possible in the tree.  It really would keep the
profiles from bloating out too much with ebuild-specific USE flags and
such.  Also, we (releng) have a current policy of not really allowing
local USE in the profiles unless we absolutely have to do so.  I mean in
USE in make.defaults, not in package.use, which is perfectly acceptable.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

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

2007-07-19 18:52:59 Chris Gianelloni napisał(a):
> On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 12:19 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > Petteri Räty napsal(a):
> > > Or just do it via package.use in profiles until IUSE defaults are
> > > implemented.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Petteri
> >
> > As noted before, they are implemented, just not allowed in the tree.
> > Plus, what vapier said, this info belongs to the ebuilds, not to
> > profiles.
> >
> > Wrt pidgin - seriously, what's the big issue here? Users can't use
> > emerge -pv output and determine what they want, or? Will we bloat the
> > profiles everytime someone forgets to enable a flag and goes complain
> > upstream about a 'missing' feature?
>
> Unfortunately, that is the state we're currently in with regards to our
> profiles and the tree.  I know I would *love* to see us start using IUSE
> defaults as soon as possible in the tree.

So just start using IUSE defaults! There's no problem with doing it at once 
since it can be considered as a part of EAPI=0.

- -- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGn5rN/axNJ4Xo/ZERAkQkAJ9W0+c4+sSVNWTIgZQsavHMQsbKvgCfTdVq
F2sZo6zkymYT4/A30k/c/Wg=
=VZZf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols

[Charlie Shepherd]

On 19/07/07, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, that is the state we're currently in with regards to our
> > profiles and the tree.  I know I would *love* to see us start using IUSE
> > defaults as soon as possible in the tree.
>
> So just start using IUSE defaults! There's no problem with doing it at once
> since it can be considered as a part of EAPI=0.

Uhh, no it can't. That's the point of EAPI. Ebuilds with different
EAPIs are incompatible, so if you start shoving '+'s in IUSE without
setting EAPI to 1, all the pm's should explode rather noisily. (Unless
you're talking about using package.use in profiles/, which iirc can be
used with EAPI 0 ebuilds).


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 294 bytes --]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:08:20 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:
> So just start using IUSE defaults! There's no problem with doing it
> at once since it can be considered as a part of EAPI=0.

No, IUSE defaults are EAPI 1.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols

[Eric Polino]

Alright, well I appreciate all the thought and discussion that
exploded about this problem.  The pidgin team appreciates it.  Though
I'm sorry to say I'm not up to speed with all this Gentoo talk.  I
gather that when IUSE defaults come out, the ability to specify
default USE flags on a per package basis will be available in the
ebuild, but other than that I'm somewhat lost as to what was just
talked about.  Can someone break it down for a simple user/would like
to be maintainer someday, so that I can have a better cleaner answer
to bring back to the pidgin team.

Thanks again,
Eric

On 7/19/07, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:08:20 +0200
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So just start using IUSE defaults! There's no problem with doing it
> > at once since it can be considered as a part of EAPI=0.
>
> No, IUSE defaults are EAPI 1.
>
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh
>
>
>


-- 
http://aluink.blogspot.com

-- 
"...indexable arrays, which may be thought of as functions whose
domains are isomorphic to contiguous subsets of the integers."
--Haskell 98 Library Report
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols

[Jim Ramsay]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1360 bytes --]

Eric Polino wrote:
> Alright, well I appreciate all the thought and discussion that
> exploded about this problem.  The pidgin team appreciates it.  Though
> I'm sorry to say I'm not up to speed with all this Gentoo talk.  I
> gather that when IUSE defaults come out, the ability to specify
> default USE flags on a per package basis will be available in the
> ebuild, but other than that I'm somewhat lost as to what was just
> talked about.  Can someone break it down for a simple user/would like
> to be maintainer someday, so that I can have a better cleaner answer
> to bring back to the pidgin team.

I believe the short answer is:

- Yes, we /could/ do this now in the profile.
- Once IUSE defaults are allowed, we can then do it in a different
(perhaps better?) way.

The question remaining yet that I've seen no answer for yet:

Will we do it now in the profile?

Or will we instead just have a big notice in the ebuild that says "You
may be missing protocols because of your USE flags, please
check your USE flags and maybe re-emerge pidgin again if you forgot
some protocol you really wanted"

At least that's how I read this thread.

I'm all for doing it now in the profile, but it's not my package.
Perhaps someone from the net-im herd can make this decision?

-- 
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm)

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 860 bytes --]

On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 16:02 -0600, Jim Ramsay wrote:
> I'm all for doing it now in the profile, but it's not my package.
> Perhaps someone from the net-im herd can make this decision?

Well, as someone who spends a lot of time working on/with profiles, I
say go for it.  Since these changes would only affect the one package
and wouldn't pull in any "strange" dependencies on people, we should
probably do it as high in the profile structure as possible (base?
default-linux?) so it hits the most users.

I'd like to hear from net-im, as they're ultimately responsible, but I
don't really see the harm in doing it, so we probably should as it will
reduce headaches for our users.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols

[Olivier Crête]

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

On Thu, 2007-19-07 at 15:22 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 16:02 -0600, Jim Ramsay wrote:
> > I'm all for doing it now in the profile, but it's not my package.
> > Perhaps someone from the net-im herd can make this decision?
> 
> Well, as someone who spends a lot of time working on/with profiles, I
> say go for it.  Since these changes would only affect the one package
> and wouldn't pull in any "strange" dependencies on people, we should
> probably do it as high in the profile structure as possible (base?
> default-linux?) so it hits the most users.
> 
> I'd like to hear from net-im, as they're ultimately responsible, but I
> don't really see the harm in doing it, so we probably should as it will
> reduce headaches for our users.

Talking with my net-im hat, I'd say go for it.. Except for silc and
zephyr (which may or may not work very well) and should probably stay
off.

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1317 bytes --]

On Fri, 2007-20-07 at 00:57 +0100, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-19-07 at 15:22 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 16:02 -0600, Jim Ramsay wrote:
> > > I'm all for doing it now in the profile, but it's not my package.
> > > Perhaps someone from the net-im herd can make this decision?
> > 
> > Well, as someone who spends a lot of time working on/with profiles, I
> > say go for it.  Since these changes would only affect the one package
> > and wouldn't pull in any "strange" dependencies on people, we should
> > probably do it as high in the profile structure as possible (base?
> > default-linux?) so it hits the most users.
> > 
> > I'd like to hear from net-im, as they're ultimately responsible, but I
> > don't really see the harm in doing it, so we probably should as it will
> > reduce headaches for our users.
> 
> Talking with my net-im hat, I'd say go for it.. Except for silc and
> zephyr (which may or may not work very well) and should probably stay
> off.

Again with my net-im hat, I've removed the MSN use flag from
net-im/pidgin-2.0.2 (the latest version). The other protocols are rarely
used and have nasty dependencies and will stay as use flags. I consider
this discussion closed.

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols

[joshua jackson]

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

Jakub Moc wrote:
> Petteri Räty napsal(a):
>> Or just do it via package.use in profiles until IUSE defaults are
>> implemented.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Petteri
>
> As noted before, they are implemented, just not allowed in the tree.
> Plus, what vapier said, this info belongs to the ebuilds, not to profiles.
>
> Wrt pidgin - seriously, what's the big issue here? Users can't use
> emerge -pv output and determine what they want, or? Will we bloat the
> profiles everytime someone forgets to enable a flag and goes complain
> upstream about a 'missing' feature?
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> !DSPAM:469f3b40137571336712104!
Honestly..this is not something to get picky over jakub. Upstream was
nice and actually came and politely asked us to change the defaults to
what most people would consider sane (all protocols by default). As I
think most people emerging pidgin..would like to use any protocol by
default..not go..hey I don't have yahoo, I should check my use flags.
Which obviously hasn't happened as users pop up in #pidgin to ask why
the heck there isn't a yahoo account available.

This should be a nothing change to do. Its also working with upstream
and maintaining some good relationships here..and or help improve them
in general. That should in fact you know...be part of our goals....to
improve communications between Gentoo and other projects.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGoN572ZWR0Jhg/EsRAgc6AJ0VsBkFjPd2oeL3rf5omoNApx7UfwCfaw2T
1MaeNz8c3tGAnJ4bDQ/J9as=
=hmCp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Improving developer/user communication (was Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Marijn Schouten (hkBst)]

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

joshua jackson wrote:
> Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Petteri Rýty napsal(a):
>>> Or just do it via package.use in profiles until IUSE defaults are
>>> implemented.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Petteri
>> As noted before, they are implemented, just not allowed in the tree.
>> Plus, what vapier said, this info belongs to the ebuilds, not to profiles.
> 
>> Wrt pidgin - seriously, what's the big issue here? Users can't use
>> emerge -pv output and determine what they want, or? Will we bloat the
>> profiles everytime someone forgets to enable a flag and goes complain
>> upstream about a 'missing' feature?
> 
> 
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>> !DSPAM:469f3b40137571336712104!
> Honestly..this is not something to get picky over jakub. Upstream was
> nice and actually came and politely asked us to change the defaults to
> what most people would consider sane (all protocols by default). As I
> think most people emerging pidgin..would like to use any protocol by
> default..not go..hey I don't have yahoo, I should check my use flags.
> Which obviously hasn't happened as users pop up in #pidgin to ask why
> the heck there isn't a yahoo account available.
> 
> This should be a nothing change to do. Its also working with upstream
> and maintaining some good relationships here..and or help improve them
> in general. That should in fact you know...be part of our goals....to
> improve communications between Gentoo and other projects.

Perhaps we also need to make it more clear where users can ask such
Gentoo-specific questions about specific packages, so they don't need to go
and annoy upstream. Associate an irc-channel with each package. Most packages
have a herd associated with them which can belong to a project which could
have an irc-channel where the relevant developers could be found and which can
put common problems in its topic. Fallback for when no appropriate irc-channel
can be found would be #gentoo. Currently it is usually difficult to find such
irc-channels or to know if there is none and that your only option is #gentoo
or #$upstream. It would also make it easier for users to start helping
developers and eventually become developers themselves, since they won't need
to search for a point of entry anymore.

Marijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGn5Jxp/VmCx0OL2wRAoJlAKCzuF92/4rDf/Cty2uOMDC1mZXdBwCdEj/y
cOnwaXHjD8aDvJQ+XShHQ7E=
=dfna
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Steve Long]

Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> Perhaps we also need to make it more clear where users can ask such
> Gentoo-specific questions about specific packages, so they don't need to
> go and annoy upstream. Associate an irc-channel with each package. Most
> packages have a herd associated with them which can belong to a project
> which could have an irc-channel where the relevant developers could be
> found and which can put common problems in its topic. Fallback for when no
> appropriate irc-channel can be found would be #gentoo. Currently it is
> usually difficult to find such irc-channels or to know if there is none
> and that your only option is #gentoo or #$upstream. It would also make it
> easier for users to start helping developers and eventually become
> developers themselves, since they won't need to search for a point of
> entry anymore.
> 
I think it's a great idea to have an irc-channel associated with each herd/
package. Certainly it took me a while to find #gentoo-desktop which is
busier than #gentoo-kde.

The fallback should be #gentoo-dev-help however, wrt to questions about
changing ebuilds, imo.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[George Prowse]

Steve Long wrote:
> Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
>> Perhaps we also need to make it more clear where users can ask such
>> Gentoo-specific questions about specific packages, so they don't need to
>> go and annoy upstream. Associate an irc-channel with each package. Most
>> packages have a herd associated with them which can belong to a project
>> which could have an irc-channel where the relevant developers could be
>> found and which can put common problems in its topic. Fallback for when no
>> appropriate irc-channel can be found would be #gentoo. Currently it is
>> usually difficult to find such irc-channels or to know if there is none
>> and that your only option is #gentoo or #$upstream. It would also make it
>> easier for users to start helping developers and eventually become
>> developers themselves, since they won't need to search for a point of
>> entry anymore.
>>
> I think it's a great idea to have an irc-channel associated with each herd/
> package. Certainly it took me a while to find #gentoo-desktop which is
> busier than #gentoo-kde.
> 
> The fallback should be #gentoo-dev-help however, wrt to questions about
> changing ebuilds, imo.
> 
> 
If you want to know how to get a better relationship with users... ask them!
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 290 bytes --]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:02:46 +0100
George Prowse <cokehabit@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you want to know how to get a better relationship with users...
> ask them!

Any user who will see and respond to a question is unrepresentative
of the user base in general.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[George Prowse]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:02:46 +0100
> George Prowse <cokehabit@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If you want to know how to get a better relationship with users...
>> ask them!
> 
> Any user who will see and respond to a question is unrepresentative
> of the user base in general.
> 
that is why the pronoun "them" is a plural...
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1304 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:02:46 +0100
> George Prowse <cokehabit@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> If you want to know how to get a better relationship with users...
>> ask them!
>>     
>
> Any user who will see and respond to a question is unrepresentative
> of the user base in general.
>
>   

So if ten users reply then, are all ten individually wrong too?  You
have to start somewhere.  This is some of what users are complaining
about is users not being able to connect with the devs, other higher ups
and have a little say over where Gentoo is going or maybe has been so
far..   Also note, he didn't say to ask just one, he said "them" which
means more than one person and quite possibly all that wish to reply.  I
just decided to grow a pair today and speak up.

I wish ALL users would vote in a poll on the forums as to what we the
users want and what direction we want Gentoo to go in.  Given the
current climate, which is improving by the way, I'm not expecting that
to happen anytime soon.  I doubt anyone is brave enough to start one or
that enough would participate either.  It's no different than elections
here in the US, people gripe but most of the gripers don't vote.

If this poll ever does happen, please post a link.  I'd be glad to
participate.

Dale

:-)  :-)  :-)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1868 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication

[Seemant Kulleen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 257 bytes --]

On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 15:45 -0500, Dale wrote:
>   I just decided to grow a pair today and speak up.

That right there is the most important thing you could have done. I hope
more users and devs decide to speak up about things.

Thanks,

Seemant


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1707 bytes --]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:45:46 -0500
Dale <dalek1967@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Any user who will see and respond to a question is unrepresentative
> > of the user base in general.
> 
> So if ten users reply then, are all ten individually wrong too?

Not my point. My point is that most Gentoo users would either not see
the question or not respond. Those that both see the question and take
time to respond are highly atypical.

> I wish ALL users would vote in a poll on the forums

That wouldn't tell you what all users want though. It would tell you
what forum users who take the time to respond to a poll want. Again,
not a representative sample. And that's the issue at hand -- Gentoo has
an extremely hard time delivering information to most users. Getting
information back is even trickier. The set of people who respond is
heavily skewed towards better-informed users who have time to seek out
and participate in that kind of questioning.

> as to what we the users want and what direction we want Gentoo to go
> in.

I want guaranteed total stability, instantly available updates,
guaranteed backwards compatibility, the ability to install any package
from source using my configuration of choice in under fifteen seconds
and a herd of nubile bisexual redheads. Can Gentoo deliver that?

> It's no different than elections here in the US, people gripe but
> most of the gripers don't vote.

Do you really think it would make any difference if they did? All it
would do is lend credibility to the process, and provide people with
the argument "well you voted so you agree to accept the decision of
the majority".

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Seemant Kulleen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 666 bytes --]

On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 21:59 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> The set of people who respond is
> heavily skewed towards better-informed users who have time to seek out
> and participate in that kind of questioning.

Fair point, but the more better-informed users we have, the better it is
for everyone in general.


> I want guaranteed total stability, instantly available updates,
> guaranteed backwards compatibility, the ability to install any package
> from source using my configuration of choice in under fifteen seconds
> and a herd of nubile bisexual redheads. Can Gentoo deliver that?

We can do 4 out of 6, haven't you seen the commit logs?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[George Prowse]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:45:46 -0500
> Dale <dalek1967@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> Any user who will see and respond to a question is unrepresentative
>>> of the user base in general.
>> So if ten users reply then, are all ten individually wrong too?
> 
> Not my point. My point is that most Gentoo users would either not see
> the question or not respond. Those that both see the question and take
> time to respond are highly atypical.

If you were clever enough and wanted the largest amount of answers you 
would put the questions around ever communication channel gentoo has, 
you would then get the opinions of the majority of users.
> 
>> I wish ALL users would vote in a poll on the forums
> 
> That wouldn't tell you what all users want though. It would tell you
> what forum users who take the time to respond to a poll want. Again,
> not a representative sample. And that's the issue at hand -- Gentoo has
> an extremely hard time delivering information to most users. Getting
> information back is even trickier. The set of people who respond is
> heavily skewed towards better-informed users who have time to seek out
> and participate in that kind of questioning.

Ahhhhh, now I see! The fact that we would get answers from some users is 
the reason why it shouldn't be done
> 
>> as to what we the users want and what direction we want Gentoo to go
>> in.
> 
> I want guaranteed total stability, instantly available updates,
> guaranteed backwards compatibility, the ability to install any package
> from source using my configuration of choice in under fifteen seconds
> and a herd of nubile bisexual redheads. Can Gentoo deliver that?

Irrelevant conclusion
> 
>> It's no different than elections here in the US, people gripe but
>> most of the gripers don't vote.
> 
> Do you really think it would make any difference if they did? All it
> would do is lend credibility to the process, and provide people with
> the argument "well you voted so you agree to accept the decision of
> the majority".
> 
It would make a difference in the relations between users and developers.

Being a user yourself, why are you so against yourself having a say?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3057 bytes --]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:22:19 +0100
George Prowse <cokehabit@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not my point. My point is that most Gentoo users would either not
> > see the question or not respond. Those that both see the question
> > and take time to respond are highly atypical.
> 
> If you were clever enough and wanted the largest amount of answers
> you would put the questions around ever communication channel gentoo
> has, you would then get the opinions of the majority of users.

No, you'd still be way off. You'd still only get the opinions of users
who actively monitor Gentoo communication channels. It's well
established from the fallout of previous changes that no matter how
widely something is communicated, most people won't see it until their
system breaks and they try to find out why.

> >> I wish ALL users would vote in a poll on the forums
> > 
> > That wouldn't tell you what all users want though. It would tell you
> > what forum users who take the time to respond to a poll want. Again,
> > not a representative sample. And that's the issue at hand -- Gentoo
> > has an extremely hard time delivering information to most users.
> > Getting information back is even trickier. The set of people who
> > respond is heavily skewed towards better-informed users who have
> > time to seek out and participate in that kind of questioning.
> 
> Ahhhhh, now I see! The fact that we would get answers from some users
> is the reason why it shouldn't be done

No no. The fact that some people would use those answers to make design
decisions is why it shouldn't be done.

> >> as to what we the users want and what direction we want Gentoo to
> >> go in.
> > 
> > I want guaranteed total stability, instantly available updates,
> > guaranteed backwards compatibility, the ability to install any
> > package from source using my configuration of choice in under
> > fifteen seconds and a herd of nubile bisexual redheads. Can Gentoo
> > deliver that?
> 
> Irrelevant conclusion

Not at all. What users *want* is something that can't be done. Most
users don't have the technical knowledge to realise that what they want
is impossible. Asking users will thus merely get a long list of
impossible goals.

> >> It's no different than elections here in the US, people gripe but
> >> most of the gripers don't vote.
> > 
> > Do you really think it would make any difference if they did? All it
> > would do is lend credibility to the process, and provide people with
> > the argument "well you voted so you agree to accept the decision of
> > the majority".
>
> It would make a difference in the relations between users and
> developers.

Yes, lots of users would be extremely annoyed when they're told "sorry,
we're not going to deliver all those things you asked for".

> Being a user yourself, why are you so against yourself having a say?

I have a say, as does anyone else who feels like contributing. Were
things moved to a poll, no-one would have a say at all.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Steev Klimaszewski]

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

<snip everything>
not technical, take it to -project.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGn9rz1c+EtXTHkJcRAqEiAJ91+dcEu2/q6F1K/QTkqaHgWJUl0QCeMh6u
3PfRN7OZ8rNFwiXEr//dg7I=
=vuLo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[George Prowse]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:22:19 +0100
> George Prowse <cokehabit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Not my point. My point is that most Gentoo users would either not
>>> see the question or not respond. Those that both see the question
>>> and take time to respond are highly atypical.
>> If you were clever enough and wanted the largest amount of answers
>> you would put the questions around ever communication channel gentoo
>> has, you would then get the opinions of the majority of users.
> 
> No, you'd still be way off. You'd still only get the opinions of users
> who actively monitor Gentoo communication channels. It's well
> established from the fallout of previous changes that no matter how
> widely something is communicated, most people won't see it until their
> system breaks and they try to find out why.

So you think nothing should be done because some people don't interact 
in the Gentoo communication channels?
> 
>>>> I wish ALL users would vote in a poll on the forums
>>> That wouldn't tell you what all users want though. It would tell you
>>> what forum users who take the time to respond to a poll want. Again,
>>> not a representative sample. And that's the issue at hand -- Gentoo
>>> has an extremely hard time delivering information to most users.
>>> Getting information back is even trickier. The set of people who
>>> respond is heavily skewed towards better-informed users who have
>>> time to seek out and participate in that kind of questioning.
>> Ahhhhh, now I see! The fact that we would get answers from some users
>> is the reason why it shouldn't be done
> 
> No no. The fact that some people would use those answers to make design
> decisions is why it shouldn't be done.

So those people that would reply would make wrong 
suggestions/answers/whatever..

Thats a pretty bold comment when one of the main Off The Wall posters 
codes rocket propulsion software for the British Government.
> 
>>>> as to what we the users want and what direction we want Gentoo to
>>>> go in.
>>> I want guaranteed total stability, instantly available updates,
>>> guaranteed backwards compatibility, the ability to install any
>>> package from source using my configuration of choice in under
>>> fifteen seconds and a herd of nubile bisexual redheads. Can Gentoo
>>> deliver that?
>> Irrelevant conclusion
> 
> Not at all. What users *want* is something that can't be done. Most
> users don't have the technical knowledge to realise that what they want
> is impossible. Asking users will thus merely get a long list of
> impossible goals.

People at Gentoo tend to know what they would like, if they suggest 
something that is unobtainable and are given reasons why, 2 things would 
happen:

1. They would have a greater respect for the developers for actually trying.
2. They would have knowlege to be able to suggest an alternative.
> 
>>>> It's no different than elections here in the US, people gripe but
>>>> most of the gripers don't vote.
>>> Do you really think it would make any difference if they did? All it
>>> would do is lend credibility to the process, and provide people with
>>> the argument "well you voted so you agree to accept the decision of
>>> the majority".
>> It would make a difference in the relations between users and
>> developers.
> 
> Yes, lots of users would be extremely annoyed when they're told "sorry,
> we're not going to deliver all those things you asked for".
> 
>> Being a user yourself, why are you so against yourself having a say?
> 
> I have a say, as does anyone else who feels like contributing. Were
> things moved to a poll, no-one would have a say at all.
> 
That doesn't stop you having your say by contributing...
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Mike Doty]

[snip]

get this shit off the dev list and somewhere more appropriate.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[George Prowse]

Mike Doty wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> get this shit off the dev list and somewhere more appropriate.

I have a question for in here. Now this is (rightly) going to -project, 
are any devs actually going to comment on the discussion?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Roy Marples]

On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 23:11 +0100, George Prowse wrote:
> Mike Doty wrote:
> > [snip]
> > 
> > get this shit off the dev list and somewhere more appropriate.
> 
> I have a question for in here. Now this is (rightly) going to -project, 
> are any devs actually going to comment on the discussion?

The ones that are actually interested in this will.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Richard Freeman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1769 bytes --]

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

Roy Marples wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 23:11 +0100, George Prowse wrote:
>> Mike Doty wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> get this shit off the dev list and somewhere more appropriate.
>> I have a question for in here. Now this is (rightly) going to -project, 
>> are any devs actually going to comment on the discussion?
> 
> The ones that are actually interested in this will.
> 

I don't want to start a long discussion here, and if you reply to this
please do so on -project.  I would post this there only but I think I'll
miss my target audience - which is devs who aren't interested in
- -project material and want -dev to be a technical list.

If you are a dev who wants to see only technical commentary on this list
please do yourself a favor and DON'T reply on this list to non-technical
issues.  If somebody feels like they get 2 replies on -project and 50
replies on -dev (even if it is just telling them to buzz off) they're
going to post on -dev as the perceived impact is higher.

Just ignore stuff like this on -dev, and post replies on -project.

And for those among you who aren't devs and would like to be able to
participate on -dev in realtime without moderation, participating in
these sorts of discussions on -dev isn't the way to accomplish your
goals.  Let's give -project a chance, shall we...

And again, I apologize for cross-posting this on dev.  Please feel free
to tell me to buzz off, but for everybody else's sake do so by private
email...  :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGoL11G4/rWKZmVWkRAlOvAJ4kG3bZdIiRZaYH8xdECcTpDfcSzwCZARS1
2bwGlp9/RNP/Ar0G8Sb5JWU=
=6rOM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 4101 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Dale]

George Prowse wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:45:46 -0500
>> Dale <dalek1967@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>>> Any user who will see and respond to a question is unrepresentative
>>>> of the user base in general.
>>> So if ten users reply then, are all ten individually wrong too?
>>
>> Not my point. My point is that most Gentoo users would either not see
>> the question or not respond. Those that both see the question and take
>> time to respond are highly atypical.
>
> If you were clever enough and wanted the largest amount of answers you
> would put the questions around ever communication channel gentoo has,
> you would then get the opinions of the majority of users.

That is why I asked for a link to be placed here in the mailing list.  I
don't go to the forums very often, unless I have a problem and am trying
to find a fix before asking on Gentoo user.  If you or someone placed a
link here then more people would be represented.  There will never be a
poll that all Gentoo users will vote in and for those that don't vote,
they just have to deal with the leaders that others pick.  That is the
price for not voting for someone else.
> < SNIP >
>>
>>> as to what we the users want and what direction we want Gentoo to go
>>> in.
>>
>> I want guaranteed total stability, instantly available updates,
>> guaranteed backwards compatibility, the ability to install any package
>> from source using my configuration of choice in under fifteen seconds
>> and a herd of nubile bisexual redheads. Can Gentoo deliver that?
>
> Irrelevant conclusion

I agree but it is a good suggestion.  I am recently single.  ;-)  Can I
file a bug for a new lady friend?  It can't be any worse than the liar I
just got rid of.
>>
>>> It's no different than elections here in the US, people gripe but
>>> most of the gripers don't vote.
>>
>> Do you really think it would make any difference if they did? All it
>> would do is lend credibility to the process, and provide people with
>> the argument "well you voted so you agree to accept the decision of
>> the majority".
>>
> It would make a difference in the relations between users and developers.
>
> Being a user yourself, why are you so against yourself having a say?

Actually, sometimes the minority is sometimes right.  I have seen posts
from you, Ciaran, that I completely agree with even when everybody else,
or most everybody else, thinks you are wrong.  A lot of the time I see
your point but really don't have the knowledge of the subject to agree
or disagree publicly.  So, sometimes it's not the number that matters. 
I think it is having a LARGE number of people participating that matters
and a good group of people to weigh all the options and find the best
solution.  Look at how the proctors thing turned out.  How many people,
I seem to recall you being against it too Ciaran, were against that and
it turned out they were right.  Proctors are gone, the COC is somewhere
and they are trying to find a better answer.

Now the new deal is meeting the same resistance just like the proctors
and I suspect it will fail too.  Gentoo needs to listen to the people. 
Some people need to grow thicker skin and not take offense so easily and
some need to know when not to say anything and just let a subject drop. 
Something needs to improve and since I am not in the loop, I really have
no idea what that change needs to be.  I just know that taking the users
out of it is not the way to go.  It makes Mandrake look like a better
option then and I'm sure a lot of others will find their solution elsewhere.

My $0.02 worth.

Dale

:-)  :-)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1036 bytes --]

On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 16:51 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Now the new deal is meeting the same resistance just like the proctors
> and I suspect it will fail too.  Gentoo needs to listen to the people. 

No.

Gentoo needs to make intelligent decisions, whether it comes from a
single individual or an army doesn't matter.  A good idea is a good
idea.

The main thing that we need to do is keep admitting when we're wrong.
If we're wrong, admit it and fix it.  It really is that simple.  Nobody
expects us to be perfect, but we should still strive for it.  At the
same time, I think sometimes taking action, even the wrong one, is
better than sitting around postulating endlessly.  I would much rather
see something done, found to be wrong, reverted, and replaced over time
than nothing be done at all because nobody can agree 100% on the "right"
way to do it.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Thomas Scharl]

George Prowse schrieb:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:45:46 -0500
>> Dale <dalek1967@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>>> Any user who will see and respond to a question is unrepresentative
>>>> of the user base in general.
>>> So if ten users reply then, are all ten individually wrong too?
>>
>> Not my point. My point is that most Gentoo users would either not see
>> the question or not respond. Those that both see the question and take
>> time to respond are highly atypical.
> 
> If you were clever enough and wanted the largest amount of answers you 
> would put the questions around ever communication channel gentoo has, 
> you would then get the opinions of the majority of users.
No
In best case you get answers from a larger part of that part of the user 
community that a) actively follow those information channels, b) want to 
contribute answers and probably c) have enough technical skill to 
express what they want to say in a useful way (not like 'bla doesn't 
work, fix that') and some will stay silent because they are to shy or alike.
Even if you manage to get approx 10-20% of valid answer rate over all 
channels this still is far from beeing representative.
A relevant part of the user base is surely completely 'invisible'- no 
matter which channels we use to publicate infos/polls/etc to.

Anyways this is more of philosophical/social issue to discuss about than 
a technical one.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[George Prowse]

Thomas Scharl wrote:
> George Prowse schrieb:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:45:46 -0500
>>> Dale <dalek1967@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>>>> Any user who will see and respond to a question is unrepresentative
>>>>> of the user base in general.
>>>> So if ten users reply then, are all ten individually wrong too?
>>>
>>> Not my point. My point is that most Gentoo users would either not see
>>> the question or not respond. Those that both see the question and take
>>> time to respond are highly atypical.
>>
>> If you were clever enough and wanted the largest amount of answers you 
>> would put the questions around ever communication channel gentoo has, 
>> you would then get the opinions of the majority of users.
> No
> In best case you get answers from a larger part of that part of the user 
> community that a) actively follow those information channels, b) want to 
> contribute answers and probably c) have enough technical skill to 
> express what they want to say in a useful way (not like 'bla doesn't 
> work, fix that') and some will stay silent because they are to shy or 
> alike.
> Even if you manage to get approx 10-20% of valid answer rate over all 
> channels this still is far from beeing representative.
> A relevant part of the user base is surely completely 'invisible'- no 
> matter which channels we use to publicate infos/polls/etc to.
> 
> Anyways this is more of philosophical/social issue to discuss about than 
> a technical one.

a) The people who don't actively follow the communication channels 
wouldn't know what was going on so they would never notice! Duhhhh...

b) If people don't want to contribute in them then it is up to them. 
People can't complain if they are given the option.

c) You don't need lots of technical skills to help. To be honest, that 
is immaterial anyway, there is a huge wealth of knowlege in the forums 
community (that is unused by Gentoo) and there are always people who 
would explain something in plain language.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1376 bytes --]

On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 18:54 +0200, Thomas Scharl wrote:
> Anyways this is more of philosophical/social issue to discuss about than 
> a technical one.

One thing that I had been considering bringing up and getting help with
is some scripts/whatever to get users to do things they might not know
they can do during installation.  For example, let's say we've got a
little script, called sub_to_gwn, which takes a single argument, an
email address.  At the end of the Installer, we can ask "Would you like
to subscribe to the Gentoo Weekly Newsletter?" and subscribe people that
say yes.  We could do the same thing for a stats client, or any other
projects that we deemed would be useful.  The idea here is to present
some of these things that we would like the users to be doing to provide
us feedback (and disseminate information) to the user when they're
installing.  Of course, we'd also add the scripts into the
documentation, so people can simply run them w/o the Installer, so we're
not tying this stuff to Installer-only installs.

Anyway, some things I think we could/should do are:
- GWN
- gentoo-announce
- gentoo-stats (or whatever we have now, if anything)

Anything else?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stats

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 471 bytes --]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:48:12 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Anyway, some things I think we could/should do are:
> - GWN
> - gentoo-announce
> - gentoo-stats (or whatever we have now, if anything)

Smolt, which is Fedora's new hardware-profiling program, is actively
porting to other distributions. We could probably join in the fun there
pretty easily, since it seems our own stats are on hiatus.

Anyone interested?

Thanks,
Donnie

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stats

[Robert Buchholz]

On Friday, 20. July 2007 23:56, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Smolt, which is Fedora's new hardware-profiling program, is actively
> porting to other distributions. We could probably join in the fun
> there pretty easily, since it seems our own stats are on hiatus.
>
> Anyone interested?

Damn, always late. :-)

As pointed out in the other mail I talked to Mike McGrath and he 
promised support from the upstream/server side.
They also plan to enable submission distribution specific information 
which we could use to save "selected profile" or so.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stats

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1104 bytes --]

On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 14:56 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:48:12 -0700
> Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Anyway, some things I think we could/should do are:
> > - GWN
> > - gentoo-announce
> > - gentoo-stats (or whatever we have now, if anything)
> 
> Smolt, which is Fedora's new hardware-profiling program, is actively
> porting to other distributions. We could probably join in the fun there
> pretty easily, since it seems our own stats are on hiatus.
> 
> Anyone interested?

I could have sworn genone was working on something stats-related.  We
should see where he's at before trying to pick up something new, but if
smolt (or anything else) is better, I say we go for it.  My point is
that I'd like to start doing some of these things, if not by 2007.1 then
by 2008.0, which will help make things simpler for our users and also
give us more feedback on our user base.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stats

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 791 bytes --]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:29:10 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I could have sworn genone was working on something stats-related.

He was. I asked him about it a while ago and that's where I got the
"hiatus" bit.

00:30 <@dberkholz> genone__: anything ever happen with the stats app?
01:09 <@genone> dberkholz: got to the test stage, then got frustrated
with a few aspects that didn't work, worked on other things, and then
infra wanted the testserver back. 
01:11 <@dberkholz> genone: so what's the status now? 
01:12 <@genone> dberkholz, right now it's dormant 
01:12 <@dberkholz> genone: a good candidate for that projects page? =)
01:13 <@genone> dberkholz, I don't have a problem if anyone wants to
take it, if that's your question

Thanks,
Donnie

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Robert Buchholz]

On Friday, 20. July 2007 23:48, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 18:54 +0200, Thomas Scharl wrote:
> > Anyways this is more of philosophical/social issue to discuss about
> > than a technical one.
>
> One thing that I had been considering bringing up and getting help
> with is some scripts/whatever to get users to do things they might
> not know they can do during installation.  For example, let's say
> we've got a little script, called sub_to_gwn, which takes a single
> argument, an email address.  At the end of the Installer, we can ask
> "Would you like to subscribe to the Gentoo Weekly Newsletter?" and
> subscribe people that say yes.  We could do the same thing for a
> stats client, or any other projects that we deemed would be useful. 
> The idea here is to present some of these things that we would like
> the users to be doing to provide us feedback (and disseminate
> information) to the user when they're installing.  Of course, we'd
> also add the scripts into the
> documentation, so people can simply run them w/o the Installer, so
> we're not tying this stuff to Installer-only installs.
>
> Anyway, some things I think we could/should do are:
> - GWN
> - gentoo-announce
> - gentoo-stats (or whatever we have now, if anything)
>
> Anything else?

I don't know whether that is what you mean by "gentoo-stats", but other 
distros have quite some interesting usage statistics by having their 
users submit hardware profiles to a server. I like the idea and wanted 
to have a look at Smolt [1]. The Fedora people would be interested in 
providing the client for Gentoo and would extend the web interface to 
enable better filtering of distros, too.

But right now that's just some random ideas until after my exams next 
weeks :-)

Robert

[1] https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/projects/smolt/ , 
    http://smolt.fedoraproject.org/stats
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Thomas Scharl]

Chris Gianelloni schrieb:
> On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 18:54 +0200, Thomas Scharl wrote:
>> Anyways this is more of philosophical/social issue to discuss about than 
>> a technical one.
> 
> One thing that I had been considering bringing up and getting help with
> is some scripts/whatever to get users to do things they might not know
> they can do during installation.  For example, let's say we've got a
> little script, called sub_to_gwn, which takes a single argument, an
> email address.  At the end of the Installer, we can ask "Would you like
> to subscribe to the Gentoo Weekly Newsletter?" and subscribe people that
> say yes.  We could do the same thing for a stats client, or any other
> projects that we deemed would be useful.  The idea here is to present
> some of these things that we would like the users to be doing to provide
> us feedback (and disseminate information) to the user when they're
> installing.  Of course, we'd also add the scripts into the
> documentation, so people can simply run them w/o the Installer, so we're
> not tying this stuff to Installer-only installs.
> 
> Anyway, some things I think we could/should do are:
> - GWN
> - gentoo-announce
> - gentoo-stats (or whatever we have now, if anything)
> 
> Anything else?
> 
quite cool idea, some more optionals could be
- subscribe to -user/<lang> ML's
- install a bookmarks file in ~/ with all relevant Gentoo links
- create accounts for b.g.o/f.g.o
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:36:34 +0100
Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:

> Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> > Perhaps we also need to make it more clear where users can ask such
> > Gentoo-specific questions about specific packages, so they don't
> > need to go and annoy upstream.

In #gentoo we *regularly* send users upstream. We tend *not* to refer
them to #upstream when it's a matter of installation, which would
always be Gentoo's turf and therefore our responsibility. We only
suggest users seek help upstream when they are grappling with runtime
configuration issues or issues that are too complex to handle in a busy
channel.

> > Associate an irc-channel with each package.

Associate how? Sounds like a lot of work at the least and a lot of
cruft at the worst.

> > Most packages have a herd associated with them which can
> > belong to a project which could have an irc-channel where the
> > relevant developers could be found and which can put common
> > problems in its topic.

That is the way things are now. Formalising this seems redundant.

> > Fallback for when no appropriate irc-channel can be found would be
> > #gentoo.

#gentoo is and always has been the fallback. :)

> > Currently it is usually difficult to find such irc-channels or to
> > know if there is none and that your only option is #gentoo or
> > #$upstream.

No problem. Just come and help out in #gentoo. Lots of users giving
lots of other users helpful suggestions as to how and where they can
get their problems solved. We don't need metastructures, just people
talking to each other.

> I think it's a great idea to have an irc-channel associated with each
> herd/ package.

At least from the IRC side, it just doesn't work that way. You can open
channels all you like and find that nobody ever goes there, and
instead everybody turns up in the same channel. :)

What most people do is drop a question in #gentoo. If an issue might
take too much time to resolve in #gentoo, we suggest other channels to
ask in, mainly those mentioned in [1].

> Certainly it took me a while to find #gentoo-desktop which is busier
> than #gentoo-kde.

You could have asked in #gentoo. :)

> The fallback should be #gentoo-dev-help however, wrt to questions
> about changing ebuilds, imo.

The current fallback is #gentoo and I cannot see how you could ever
change that. You cannot force people to (not) use certain channels and
you cannot force them to use/follow whatever link it is you are putting
in place.

The solution to the problem of upstream only wanting to
talk about compile time configuration issues with people who know
sufficiently well what they are doing, i.e. developers, is not a
technical one, but a social one. If you want to help solve this
problem, just talk to people, help out in #gentoo, and educate both
users and upstream about the way Gentoo (Linux) and Portage work, and
more generally, how to find the information you need without pissing
everybody off. :)


Kind regards,
     JeR


[1] http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/irc.xml
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Robert Buchholz]

On Thursday, 19. July 2007 22:39, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> > > Associate an irc-channel with each package.
> Associate how? Sounds like a lot of work at the least and a lot of
> cruft at the worst.

It could be included in the herds.xml:

<herd>
  <name>kde</name>
  <email>kde@gentoo.org</email>
  <description>KDE and related packages</description>
  <irc>irc://irc.freenode.net/#gentoo-kde</irc>
  <irc>irc://irc.freenode.net/#gentoo-desktop</irc>
  <maintainer>
    <email>caleb@gentoo.org</email>
  </maintainer>
  ...
</herd>

This way, it would not cruft any packages. Still for packages where a 
certain group of people maintain, it would show where to find them and 
other users.

Where could it be displayed to users? I mean, herdstat of course, but 
somehow the info would have to reach Joe User, too.

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

Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Eric Polino]

On 7/19/07, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) <hkBst@gentoo.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> joshua jackson wrote:
> > Jakub Moc wrote:
> >> Petteri Rýty napsal(a):
> >>> Or just do it via package.use in profiles until IUSE defaults are
> >>> implemented.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Petteri
> >> As noted before, they are implemented, just not allowed in the tree.
> >> Plus, what vapier said, this info belongs to the ebuilds, not to profiles.
> >
> >> Wrt pidgin - seriously, what's the big issue here? Users can't use
> >> emerge -pv output and determine what they want, or? Will we bloat the
> >> profiles everytime someone forgets to enable a flag and goes complain
> >> upstream about a 'missing' feature?
> >
> >
> >
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >> !DSPAM:469f3b40137571336712104!
> > Honestly..this is not something to get picky over jakub. Upstream was
> > nice and actually came and politely asked us to change the defaults to
> > what most people would consider sane (all protocols by default). As I
> > think most people emerging pidgin..would like to use any protocol by
> > default..not go..hey I don't have yahoo, I should check my use flags.
> > Which obviously hasn't happened as users pop up in #pidgin to ask why
> > the heck there isn't a yahoo account available.
> >
> > This should be a nothing change to do. Its also working with upstream
> > and maintaining some good relationships here..and or help improve them
> > in general. That should in fact you know...be part of our goals....to
> > improve communications between Gentoo and other projects.
>
> Perhaps we also need to make it more clear where users can ask such
> Gentoo-specific questions about specific packages, so they don't need to go
> and annoy upstream. Associate an irc-channel with each package. Most packages
> have a herd associated with them which can belong to a project which could
> have an irc-channel where the relevant developers could be found and which can
> put common problems in its topic. Fallback for when no appropriate irc-channel
> can be found would be #gentoo. Currently it is usually difficult to find such
> irc-channels or to know if there is none and that your only option is #gentoo
> or #$upstream. It would also make it easier for users to start helping
> developers and eventually become developers themselves, since they won't need
> to search for a point of entry anymore.

Not sure if this fits in to what you're talking about, but I do know
that as myself a "would like to me maintainer someday", I'm somewhat
lost as to knowing how I can get involved and who I need to talk to.

Eric


> Marijn
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.5 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFGn5Jxp/VmCx0OL2wRAoJlAKCzuF92/4rDf/Cty2uOMDC1mZXdBwCdEj/y
> cOnwaXHjD8aDvJQ+XShHQ7E=
> =dfna
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


-- 
http://aluink.blogspot.com

-- 
"...indexable arrays, which may be thought of as functions whose
domains are isomorphic to contiguous subsets of the integers."
--Haskell 98 Library Report
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

[Steve Long]

Eric Polino wrote:
> Not sure if this fits in to what you're talking about, but I do know
> that as myself a "would like to me maintainer someday", I'm somewhat
> lost as to knowing how I can get involved and who I need to talk to.
> 
Your best starting point is #gentoo-dev-help (if you need to talk a problem
out with someone) and bugzilla (in terms of getting involved and being
useful; just start fixing bugs for stuff you use.)

If you know the herd, a quick !herd <name> in #gentoo-dev-help
(irc.freenode.org) will ping anyone in the herd who is available to help
out (which is why they've logged into the channel, one would hope.) Even if
they're not there, anyone who can help will answer. Do please take the time
to read all the docs in the /topic. #gentoo-sunrise is good for when you
start submitting ebuilds.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[Duncan]

joshua jackson <tsunam@gentoo.org> posted 46A0DE7B.6030009@gentoo.org,
excerpted below, on  Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:10:35 -0700:

> Honestly..this is not something to get picky over jakub. Upstream was
> nice and actually came and politely asked us to change the defaults to
> what most people would consider sane (all protocols by default). As I
> think most people emerging pidgin..would like to use any protocol by
> default..not go..hey I don't have yahoo, I should check my use flags.
> Which obviously hasn't happened as users pop up in #pidgin to ask why
> the heck there isn't a yahoo account available.

[Dev-discussion, so kept posted here.]

I've not seen this question come up yet, so I'll raise it.

Shouldn't the question really depend on whether optional dependencies are 
pulled in by the protocols or not?  If everything's pidgin internal, then 
if upstream wants all the protocols on as shipped, I think that's the 
sane thing to do.

OTOH, if enabling those protocols pulls in all sorts of additional 
packages to support them, shipping with everything on just because it's 
possible is not the Gentoo way.  That's what USE flags are for.  If 
indeed additional dependencies are pulled in, IMO the USE flags should 
remain, and maybe someone needs to explain the Gentoo way to upstream.

-- 
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@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[Eric Polino]

On 7/19/07, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> joshua jackson <tsunam@gentoo.org> posted 46A0DE7B.6030009@gentoo.org,
> excerpted below, on  Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:10:35 -0700:
>
> > Honestly..this is not something to get picky over jakub. Upstream was
> > nice and actually came and politely asked us to change the defaults to
> > what most people would consider sane (all protocols by default). As I
> > think most people emerging pidgin..would like to use any protocol by
> > default..not go..hey I don't have yahoo, I should check my use flags.
> > Which obviously hasn't happened as users pop up in #pidgin to ask why
> > the heck there isn't a yahoo account available.

This is precisely my point, glad to hear it's gotten across to someone.

> [Dev-discussion, so kept posted here.]
>
> I've not seen this question come up yet, so I'll raise it.
>
> Shouldn't the question really depend on whether optional dependencies are
> pulled in by the protocols or not?  If everything's pidgin internal, then
> if upstream wants all the protocols on as shipped, I think that's the
> sane thing to do.
>
> OTOH, if enabling those protocols pulls in all sorts of additional
> packages to support them, shipping with everything on just because it's
> possible is not the Gentoo way.  That's what USE flags are for.  If
> indeed additional dependencies are pulled in, IMO the USE flags should
> remain,

Yes there would be a few other small supporting packages.  They, at
most, would use a few extra 100K of RAM and a small amount of disk
space.  Considering that pidgin is a GTK+ application, it would imply
someone is running X and thus can afford to use a little extra RAM
being used.  They are small packages and would probably take less than
a minute or two of extra compile time.  Considering that Pidgin takes
about 5-10 minutes to compile give or take, this is negligible.

>and maybe someone needs to explain the Gentoo way to upstream.

I agree with the Gentoo way in most cases, hence why I use Gentoo.
But in this case the Gentoo way fails.  It creates more problems than
it solves.  Like was mentioned above, if people read ewarns or ran -pv
we wouldn't be having this problem, but most don't.  Unfortunately,
their negligence becomes our headache and this is what I'm trying to
solve.  I don't think the drawbacks of installing a few extra packages
for the greater good of less headaches for both users and upstream are
worth not making this change.

Once again thank you for your time,
Eric


> --
> 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@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


-- 
http://aluink.blogspot.com

-- 
"...indexable arrays, which may be thought of as functions whose
domains are isomorphic to contiguous subsets of the integers."
--Haskell 98 Library Report
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[Duncan]

"Eric Polino" <aluink@gmail.com> posted
b21328ed0707191852o3ec406b6ga325c70951d83adc@mail.gmail.com, excerpted
below, on  Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:52:16 -0400:

>> OTOH, if enabling those protocols pulls in all sorts of additional
>> packages to support them, shipping with everything on just because it's
>> possible is not the Gentoo way.  That's what USE flags are for.  If
>> indeed additional dependencies are pulled in, IMO the USE flags should
>> remain,
> 
> Yes there would be a few other small supporting packages.  They, at
> most, would use a few extra 100K of RAM and a small amount of disk
> space.  Considering that pidgin is a GTK+ application, it would imply
> someone is running X and thus can afford to use a little extra RAM being
> used.  They are small packages and would probably take less than a
> minute or two of extra compile time.  Considering that Pidgin takes
> about 5-10 minutes to compile give or take, this is negligible.

I may well be in the minority on this, but here it's not so much the 
compile time or space I'm worried about, but the whole security thing of 
not installing stuff that I'm not going to use and shouldn't need.

To be clear, if it's simply the USE flag defaults under debate, not a 
problem.  Portage (and I assume the alternatives) already makes it easy 
to see and change those for those that care about such things.

Someone mentioned just killing the USE flags and making them all hard 
dependencies, however.  I really hope that's not done if additional 
dependencies are involved.

>>and maybe someone needs to explain the Gentoo way to upstream.
> 
> I agree with the Gentoo way in most cases, hence why I use Gentoo. But
> in this case the Gentoo way fails.  It creates more problems than it
> solves.  Like was mentioned above, if people read ewarns or ran -pv we
> wouldn't be having this problem, but most don't.  Unfortunately, their
> negligence becomes our headache and this is what I'm trying to solve.  I
> don't think the drawbacks of installing a few extra packages for the
> greater good of less headaches for both users and upstream are worth not
> making this change.

People not running -pv or -av... <content for project or user omitted>

The ewarn thing, however, is now changing for the better, thanks to our 
hard working portage devs. =8^)  

It may not be in stable yet, but at least ~arch portage now reprints 
ewarns and the like at the END of the merge, by default.  The problem 
before was that unless the package happened to be the last one merged, 
all the output got lost way up the scrollback somewhere.  With portage 
now reprinting the (level configurable, sane defaults) message output for 
all merged packages again at the END of the merge, it's far far more 
likely that users actually see and read it.

As I said, it has already made a BIG difference here.  Major major kudos 
to the portage guys for implementing it! =8^)  Once a portage with this 
feature is stable and widely deployed, it's likely there'll be a 
noticeable reduction in "PEBKAC" bugs due to not reading these messages.  
This I can say from actual use! =8^)

-- 
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@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[Eric Polino]

On 7/19/07, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> "Eric Polino" <aluink@gmail.com> posted
> b21328ed0707191852o3ec406b6ga325c70951d83adc@mail.gmail.com, excerpted
> below, on  Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:52:16 -0400:
>
> >> OTOH, if enabling those protocols pulls in all sorts of additional
> >> packages to support them, shipping with everything on just because it's
> >> possible is not the Gentoo way.  That's what USE flags are for.  If
> >> indeed additional dependencies are pulled in, IMO the USE flags should
> >> remain,
> >
> > Yes there would be a few other small supporting packages.  They, at
> > most, would use a few extra 100K of RAM and a small amount of disk
> > space.  Considering that pidgin is a GTK+ application, it would imply
> > someone is running X and thus can afford to use a little extra RAM being
> > used.  They are small packages and would probably take less than a
> > minute or two of extra compile time.  Considering that Pidgin takes
> > about 5-10 minutes to compile give or take, this is negligible.
>
> I may well be in the minority on this, but here it's not so much the
> compile time or space I'm worried about, but the whole security thing of
> not installing stuff that I'm not going to use and shouldn't need.

If this is truly a problem, then I think the negative USE flags might
be the better solution then.  This would allow users the ability to
disable potential insecure features.  But really, I  doubt security is
an issue here.

> To be clear, if it's simply the USE flag defaults under debate, not a
> problem.  Portage (and I assume the alternatives) already makes it easy
> to see and change those for those that care about such things.
>
> Someone mentioned just killing the USE flags and making them all hard
> dependencies, however.  I really hope that's not done if additional
> dependencies are involved.

I see your point, but how different would this be to any application
that requires dependencies and you can't change the fact that they
require them.  For instance, any application that uses GTK+ requires
GTK+ and there's nothing you can do about it.  I don't care how much
you strip down Firefox, you'll still need GTK+.  The Pidgin team
"sells" their application as having all these protocols so they should
be there, at least out of the box.

> >>and maybe someone needs to explain the Gentoo way to upstream.
> >
> > I agree with the Gentoo way in most cases, hence why I use Gentoo. But
> > in this case the Gentoo way fails.  It creates more problems than it
> > solves.  Like was mentioned above, if people read ewarns or ran -pv we
> > wouldn't be having this problem, but most don't.  Unfortunately, their
> > negligence becomes our headache and this is what I'm trying to solve.  I
> > don't think the drawbacks of installing a few extra packages for the
> > greater good of less headaches for both users and upstream are worth not
> > making this change.
>
> People not running -pv or -av... <content for project or user omitted>

Don't know what you mean here.

>
> The ewarn thing, however, is now changing for the better, thanks to our
> hard working portage devs. =8^)
>
> It may not be in stable yet, but at least ~arch portage now reprints
> ewarns and the like at the END of the merge, by default.  The problem
> before was that unless the package happened to be the last one merged,
> all the output got lost way up the scrollback somewhere.  With portage
> now reprinting the (level configurable, sane defaults) message output for
> all merged packages again at the END of the merge, it's far far more
> likely that users actually see and read it.
>
> As I said, it has already made a BIG difference here.  Major major kudos
> to the portage guys for implementing it! =8^)  Once a portage with this
> feature is stable and widely deployed, it's likely there'll be a
> noticeable reduction in "PEBKAC" bugs due to not reading these messages.
> This I can say from actual use! =8^)

Cool!  Though PEBKAC is far too common than most would like to admit.
I think you'd agree!

> --
> 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@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


-- 
http://aluink.blogspot.com

-- 
"...indexable arrays, which may be thought of as functions whose
domains are isomorphic to contiguous subsets of the integers."
--Haskell 98 Library Report
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[Duncan]

"Eric Polino" <aluink@gmail.com> posted
b21328ed0707192102s2d4d46c8t719e2e4b9720967f@mail.gmail.com, excerpted
below, on  Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:02:56 -0400:

> On 7/19/07, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Eric Polino" <aluink@gmail.com> posted
>> b21328ed0707191852o3ec406b6ga325c70951d83adc@mail.gmail.com, excerpted
>> below, on  Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:52:16 -0400:
>>
>> > Yes there would be a few other small supporting packages.
>>
>> I may well be in the minority on this, but here it's not so much the
>> compile time or space I'm worried about, but the whole security thing
>> of not installing stuff that I'm not going to use and shouldn't need.
> 
> If this is truly a problem, then I think the negative USE flags might be
> the better solution then.  This would allow users the ability to disable
> potential insecure features.  But really, I  doubt security is an issue
> here.

Some people don't like negative USE flags because they are a bit counter-
intuitive.  You /enable/ the USE flag to /disable/ the feature, and that 
counter-intuitivity has some devs hoping to eventually do away with them 
entirely.  Personally, while I generally prefer positive flags, negative 
flags serve a very good purpose precisely because they /do/ stick out -- 
if I encounter one, it's a pretty good indication I better think twice 
about disabling it (since it's generally enabled by default).  It serves 
as a quite useful distinction between "do as you wish" flags and "do as 
you wish, but be SURE you know the consequences first."

So I agree with you on the negative USE flag idea but believe many won't.

The security issue is in general, and worse when an app is net-exposed as 
is the case here.  Think of the recent aim:// protocol exploits in 
certain apps.  If a user never uses AIM, they may not realize they are 
vulnerable, yet if these apps are installed with aim:// protocol active, 
they are /very/ exposed as the exploit (from what I've read) required 
simply that the remote end of the conversation invoke an aim:// URL with 
the malware payload attached.

If it's possible to protect a user from that sort of exploit by making 
various protocols optional so they don't need them enabled when not 
necessary (and that's what Gentoo does with USE flags and compile from 
source), I believe it's a very good idea to do so.

>> To be clear, if it's simply the USE flag defaults under debate, not a
>> problem [but s]omeone mentioned just killing the USE flags and making
>> them all hard dependencies
> 
> [H]ow different would this be to any application that requires
> dependencies and you can't change the fact that they require them.

Required are required.  Take it or leave it.  Decision made by upstream 
and when a user chooses that app.  Optionals are just that, optional.

> The Pidgin team "sells" their application as having all these protocols
> so they should be there, at least out of the box.

But a big selling point of Gentoo is that it doesn't force you to take 
that "box" as it's normally shipped.  You effectively get the components 
as a kit and assemble it yourself, with the ability to leave out parts 
that you don't need.  That's a /good/ thing, at least to most Gentoo 
users, or by definition, they'd be using a distribution that comes with 
all those binaries "pre-assembled".  To then ship it with all those 
options forced on... goes against one of the big points of running Gentoo 
in the first place.

>> People not running -pv or -av... <content for project or user omitted>
> 
> Don't know what you mean here.

Simply that I down that down that topic lays a rant, and this isn't the 
place for it.

This subthread is headed off-topic for gentoo-dev too, so I'm x-posting 
to gentoo-project, with further replies set to go there (if the listserv 
doesn't overwrite them).  Or reply to me personally if you prefer.

-- 
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@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[Andrew Gaffney]

Eric Polino wrote:
> If this is truly a problem, then I think the negative USE flags might
> be the better solution then.  This would allow users the ability to
> disable potential insecure features.  But really, I  doubt security is
> an issue here.

The negative (or no*) USE flags are generally considered a "bad thing". They're 
"icky".

-- 
Andrew Gaffney                                 http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer             Catalyst/Installer + x86 release coordinator
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[Eric Polino]

On 7/20/07, Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Eric Polino wrote:
> > If this is truly a problem, then I think the negative USE flags might
> > be the better solution then.  This would allow users the ability to
> > disable potential insecure features.  But really, I  doubt security is
> > an issue here.
>
> The negative (or no*) USE flags are generally considered a "bad thing". They're
> "icky".

I know and understand that.  Though we still have to consider them as
a possible solution to this problem.

> --
> Andrew Gaffney                                 http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
> Gentoo Linux Developer             Catalyst/Installer + x86 release coordinator
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


-- 
http://aluink.blogspot.com

-- 
"...indexable arrays, which may be thought of as functions whose
domains are isomorphic to contiguous subsets of the integers."
--Haskell 98 Library Report
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1448 bytes --]

On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 00:02 -0400, Eric Polino wrote:
> > Someone mentioned just killing the USE flags and making them all hard
> > dependencies, however.  I really hope that's not done if additional
> > dependencies are involved.
> 
> I see your point, but how different would this be to any application
> that requires dependencies and you can't change the fact that they
> require them.  For instance, any application that uses GTK+ requires
> GTK+ and there's nothing you can do about it.  I don't care how much
> you strip down Firefox, you'll still need GTK+.  The Pidgin team
> "sells" their application as having all these protocols so they should
> be there, at least out of the box.

Why is it configurable, at all, then?

If the pidgin team wants these protocols enabled by everyone, why make
them optional?  I fully agree that the *defaults* should be sane, but if
upstream doesn't want people turning these things off, why give people a
switch?  It's like putting out a big shiny red button that says "don't
press me" then complaining when people press it.  ;P

Anyway, if nobody objects and nobody beats me to it, I'll add the USE
flags for the common protocols to package.use in the profiles.  Now, the
real question is what should I enable?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 516 bytes --]

On Fri, 2007-20-07 at 14:40 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Anyway, if nobody objects and nobody beats me to it, I'll add the USE
> flags for the common protocols to package.use in the profiles.  Now, the
> real question is what should I enable?

All of the ones that have no major dependencies are enabled by default
and have been for a while... The other should really stay off by
default. I don't think adding it them to the profiles is wise..

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 738 bytes --]

On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 22:57 +0100, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-20-07 at 14:40 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Anyway, if nobody objects and nobody beats me to it, I'll add the USE
> > flags for the common protocols to package.use in the profiles.  Now, the
> > real question is what should I enable?
> 
> All of the ones that have no major dependencies are enabled by default
> and have been for a while... The other should really stay off by
> default. I don't think adding it them to the profiles is wise..

Cool.  We're all done, then.  Thanks.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 431 bytes --]

On Thursday 19 July 2007, Duncan wrote:
> OTOH, if enabling those protocols pulls in all sorts of additional
> packages to support them, shipping with everything on just because it's
> possible is not the Gentoo way.  That's what USE flags are for.

USE flags are not for controlling dependencies, they are for controlling 
features.  it just happens to work out that most of the time, features imply 
dependencies.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[fire-eyes]

Duncan wrote:
> joshua jackson <tsunam@gentoo.org> posted 46A0DE7B.6030009@gentoo.org,
> excerpted below, on  Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:10:35 -0700:
> 
>> Honestly..this is not something to get picky over jakub. Upstream was
>> nice and actually came and politely asked us to change the defaults to
>> what most people would consider sane (all protocols by default). As I
>> think most people emerging pidgin..would like to use any protocol by
>> default..not go..hey I don't have yahoo, I should check my use flags.
>> Which obviously hasn't happened as users pop up in #pidgin to ask why
>> the heck there isn't a yahoo account available.
> 
> [Dev-discussion, so kept posted here.]
> 
> I've not seen this question come up yet, so I'll raise it.
> 
> Shouldn't the question really depend on whether optional dependencies are 
> pulled in by the protocols or not?  If everything's pidgin internal, then 
> if upstream wants all the protocols on as shipped, I think that's the 
> sane thing to do.
> 
> OTOH, if enabling those protocols pulls in all sorts of additional 
> packages to support them, shipping with everything on just because it's 
> possible is not the Gentoo way.  That's what USE flags are for.  If 
> indeed additional dependencies are pulled in, IMO the USE flags should 
> remain, and maybe someone needs to explain the Gentoo way to upstream.
> 


++; from a user. I prefer to leave them off. However I can understand
the other sides point of view, too.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[Jim Ramsay]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1448 bytes --]

fire-eyes wrote:
> Duncan wrote:
> > OTOH, if enabling those protocols pulls in all sorts of additional 
> > packages to support them, shipping with everything on just because
> > it's possible is not the Gentoo way.  That's what USE flags are
> > for.  If indeed additional dependencies are pulled in, IMO the USE
> > flags should remain, and maybe someone needs to explain the Gentoo
> > way to upstream.
> 
> ++; from a user. I prefer to leave them off. However I can understand
> the other sides point of view, too.

I believe one of the main philosophies of Gentoo is to try to have an
app be as close to upstream as possible.  I personally believe that
this means the we should try to enable enough USE flags by default that
it is roughly equivalent to running upstream's './configure' with no
arguments.  USE flags then give the advanced user the ability to
disable those features normally on, or enable those features normally
off, but we want a freshly installed package by default to "just
work"[1] and to be "as close to upstream as possible"[2].

With this in mind, enabling most of the default protocols makes sense
to me.

[1]
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=1#doc_chap1

[2] looking for actual references to this, but couldn't find it...
    I think it's _somewhere_ in the required new-developer reading...

-- 
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm)

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[Eric Polino]

It would seem there is a good support for a change to enable all
protocols by default.  What will change this issue from a good thread
to an action on the package to implement these ideas?

Another suggestion brought to me by an upstream dev was that Pidgin is
configured to install all protocols by default.  If the required
libraries for a protocol is missing, ie: gadu, zephyr, silc, bonjour,
then Pidgin builds/runs fine and that protocol isn't available for the
user to use.  Not wanting to alienate those who use these protocols,
but they aren't very common to begin with, so this will only apply to
a small sample of users.  So a warning could be put in the ewarn
saying that if you want there protos you have to install their
required libs.

I don't think this is  a bad idea. I've seen a few packages do that
before.  This way we don't pull in unwanted dependencies.  This could
be coupled with the idea of negative USE flags, though nasty and
unwanted, I think like someone mentioned a bit earlier, they stand out
and are more effective when it comes to this type of situation
involving defaults.

Summary:

1.  Switch all USE flags to negative USE flags.
2.  Don't install deps for protocols (maybe still install SSL)
3.  Put a message in the ewarn about missing libs for extra protos.

Once again, how does this thread move to action on the package?  Can I
call "Question"? ;)

Thanks,
Eric
On 7/20/07, Jim Ramsay <lack@gentoo.org> wrote:
> fire-eyes wrote:
> > Duncan wrote:
> > > OTOH, if enabling those protocols pulls in all sorts of additional
> > > packages to support them, shipping with everything on just because
> > > it's possible is not the Gentoo way.  That's what USE flags are
> > > for.  If indeed additional dependencies are pulled in, IMO the USE
> > > flags should remain, and maybe someone needs to explain the Gentoo
> > > way to upstream.
> >
> > ++; from a user. I prefer to leave them off. However I can understand
> > the other sides point of view, too.
>
> I believe one of the main philosophies of Gentoo is to try to have an
> app be as close to upstream as possible.  I personally believe that
> this means the we should try to enable enough USE flags by default that
> it is roughly equivalent to running upstream's './configure' with no
> arguments.  USE flags then give the advanced user the ability to
> disable those features normally on, or enable those features normally
> off, but we want a freshly installed package by default to "just
> work"[1] and to be "as close to upstream as possible"[2].
>
> With this in mind, enabling most of the default protocols makes sense
> to me.
>
> [1]
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=1#doc_chap1
>
> [2] looking for actual references to this, but couldn't find it...
>     I think it's _somewhere_ in the required new-developer reading...
>
> --
> Jim Ramsay
> Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm)
>
>


-- 
http://aluink.blogspot.com

-- 
"...indexable arrays, which may be thought of as functions whose
domains are isomorphic to contiguous subsets of the integers."
--Haskell 98 Library Report
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 698 bytes --]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:20:06 -0400
"Eric Polino" <aluink@gmail.com> wrote:

> It would seem there is a good support for a change to enable all
> protocols by default.  What will change this issue from a good thread
> to an action on the package to implement these ideas?

File a bug on bugs.gentoo.org about the issue. TBH, this shouldn't have
been on the list in the first place, as it's directly targeted at the
respective package maintainers, not the dev community in general.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[Eric Polino]

On 7/20/07, Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:20:06 -0400
> "Eric Polino" <aluink@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It would seem there is a good support for a change to enable all
> > protocols by default.  What will change this issue from a good thread
> > to an action on the package to implement these ideas?
>
> File a bug on bugs.gentoo.org about the issue. TBH, this shouldn't have
> been on the list in the first place, as it's directly targeted at the
> respective package maintainers, not the dev community in general.

My apology, I will do so in the future.

> Marius
>
> --
> Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
>
> In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
> Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
>
>


-- 
http://aluink.blogspot.com

-- 
"...indexable arrays, which may be thought of as functions whose
domains are isomorphic to contiguous subsets of the integers."
--Haskell 98 Library Report
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[Christian Faulhammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1473 bytes --]

"Eric Polino" <aluink@gmail.com>:

> Would it be possible to have all the protocols for net-im/pidgin
> turned on by default.  We often get people coming to #pidgin looking
> for help as to why they can't get MSN or some other protocol working.
> It most often is because they haven't enabled the given protocol USE
> flag.

 Without doubting the decision made about the msn USE flag, here are
some quotes from a bug report:

"I am not sure if it's a bug ...
anyway, at least on AMD64 you have removed MSN protocol.
Right now I am avoiding an upgrade because the flag has been marked as
not usable.[...]"

[Some discussion later]

"If I see (-msn%*) and as far as I know it means that you are removing
the protocol." [Editor's note: (-msn%) means that the USE flag has been
removed and was not enabled]

[Even more bitching]

"Otherwise, if this was not the case, it's not written anywhere that
this flag is incorporated .... oh, yes I know it is in the Changelog,
and I have read it before filing this bug, but come on ... that's not
the point. In this case, you should do like skype, i.e.: emerge pidgin
(msn) (yahoo) (icq) spell tcl tk -avahi -bonjour ... and so far and so
on ... and you should not delete/remove the flag in the way you did.

Licq still uses msn flag .... so I user may understand that licq is the
only software supporting MSN."

V-Li

-- 
http://www.gentoo.org/
http://www.faulhammer.org/
http://www.gnupg.org/

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[Dawid Węgliński]

Dnia 23-07-2007, pon o godzinie 13:38 +0200, Christian Faulhammer
napisał(a):
> "Eric Polino" <aluink@gmail.com>:
> 
> > Would it be possible to have all the protocols for net-im/pidgin
> > turned on by default.  We often get people coming to #pidgin looking
> > for help as to why they can't get MSN or some other protocol working.
> > It most often is because they haven't enabled the given protocol USE
> > flag.
> 
>  Without doubting the decision made about the msn USE flag, here are
> some quotes from a bug report:
> 
> "I am not sure if it's a bug ...
> anyway, at least on AMD64 you have removed MSN protocol.
> Right now I am avoiding an upgrade because the flag has been marked as
> not usable.[...]"
> 
> [Some discussion later]
> 
> "If I see (-msn%*) and as far as I know it means that you are removing
> the protocol." [Editor's note: (-msn%) means that the USE flag has been
> removed and was not enabled]
> 
> [Even more bitching]
> 
> "Otherwise, if this was not the case, it's not written anywhere that
> this flag is incorporated .... oh, yes I know it is in the Changelog,
> and I have read it before filing this bug, but come on ... that's not
> the point. In this case, you should do like skype, i.e.: emerge pidgin
> (msn) (yahoo) (icq) spell tcl tk -avahi -bonjour ... and so far and so
> on ... and you should not delete/remove the flag in the way you did.
> 
> Licq still uses msn flag .... so I user may understand that licq is the
> only software supporting MSN."
That's why we do have ChangeLogs and --changelog switch to let users
know about changes.
> V-Li
> 

Regards
-- 
,-----------------------------.
| Dawid Węgliński             |
| cla@gentoo.org              |
| cla @ irc.freenode.net      |
| GPG: 295E72D9               |
`-----------------------------'


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[Jonathan Adamczewski]

Dawid Węgliński wrote:
>
> That's why we do have ... --changelog switch to let users
> know about changes.
>   

Which is of no use when (as in this case) there is no associated version 
bump.

j.



(also, when every new version is a new slot - kernels and webapps)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[Stratos Psomadakis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1804 bytes --]

i'm a bit confused...
i have the same problem...
i try to make an upgrade and it says that pidgin is going to be rebuilt
without the msn use flag(althoug i have enabled the use flag for
pidgin,in /etc/portage/package.use)...
what's the problem?...is there a solution?...
:/
thx...
O/H Christian Faulhammer έγραψε:
> "Eric Polino" <aluink@gmail.com>:
>
>   
>> Would it be possible to have all the protocols for net-im/pidgin
>> turned on by default.  We often get people coming to #pidgin looking
>> for help as to why they can't get MSN or some other protocol working.
>> It most often is because they haven't enabled the given protocol USE
>> flag.
>>     
>
>  Without doubting the decision made about the msn USE flag, here are
> some quotes from a bug report:
>
> "I am not sure if it's a bug ...
> anyway, at least on AMD64 you have removed MSN protocol.
> Right now I am avoiding an upgrade because the flag has been marked as
> not usable.[...]"
>
> [Some discussion later]
>
> "If I see (-msn%*) and as far as I know it means that you are removing
> the protocol." [Editor's note: (-msn%) means that the USE flag has been
> removed and was not enabled]
>
> [Even more bitching]
>
> "Otherwise, if this was not the case, it's not written anywhere that
> this flag is incorporated .... oh, yes I know it is in the Changelog,
> and I have read it before filing this bug, but come on ... that's not
> the point. In this case, you should do like skype, i.e.: emerge pidgin
> (msn) (yahoo) (icq) spell tcl tk -avahi -bonjour ... and so far and so
> on ... and you should not delete/remove the flag in the way you did.
>
> Licq still uses msn flag .... so I user may understand that licq is the
> only software supporting MSN."
>
> V-Li
>
>   



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols

[Marijn Schouten (hkBst)]

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

Stratos Psomadakis wrote:
> i'm a bit confused...
> i have the same problem...
> i try to make an upgrade and it says that pidgin is going to be rebuilt
> without the msn use flag(althoug i have enabled the use flag for
> pidgin,in /etc/portage/package.use)...
> what's the problem?...is there a solution?...
> :/
> thx...

gentoo-user@gentoo.org

Marijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGph/Ip/VmCx0OL2wRAiLsAKCJnjQ0dEPv1DHnKD9dEt15mm64dwCeML6Y
knVO6SwUGq9+P9IvNgMf9iY=
=7pit
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list