From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A4B51389DF for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 23:30:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D2914E05B4; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 23:30:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A9B4E04C8 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 23:30:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6638333E3F1 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 23:30:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.106 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.103, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IHhmrW7Q3_JD for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 23:30:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8453F33E3BE for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 23:30:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U5PJ5-00035Z-Q1 for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:30:35 +0100 Received: from rej5.kyla.fi ([82.130.49.149]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:30:35 +0100 Received: from nunojsilva by rej5.kyla.fi with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:30:35 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: (Nuno Silva) Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: No server profile anymore??? Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 01:30:07 +0200 Message-ID: <87sj51860w.fsf@ist.utl.pt> References: <5117D813.9080505@gmail.com> <51180B47.4080907@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: rej5.kyla.fi User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:PA1kLy3khWNSZMOj4YJco3AtpU4= X-Archives-Salt: 9a2e5b8e-081e-4426-91ca-3b0a5dee785c X-Archives-Hash: 889d8fc6854487989c1dca929ededc98 On 2013-02-10, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 10/02/2013 19:25, Jarry wrote: > >> !!! Your current profile is deprecated and not supported anymore. >> !!! Use eselect profile to update your profile. >> !!! Please upgrade to the following profile if possible: >> default/linux/amd64/13.0 [...] >> So is server-profile not suported anymore??? I hope devs had >> good reason for this, but anyway a change like *this* should >> definitely be communicated with users in advance... [...] > [1] OK, the news items, or more specifically the lack of timeous news > items in advance. This is the second occurrence in recent times where > devs have had to do some back-pedalling, the first was udev with it's > TMPDEVFS fiasco. I myself am getting a teeny bit pissed off with this > now. I think a large collection of user should pen a nice polite letter > to whomever deals with such things asking for more attention to be paid > to QA matters like this. +1 I have no doubts that devs have lots of work to do, but it's a rather serious situation if the difference between unstable and stable land is *not* used as an advantage when it comes to deal with situations like this and udev's kernel requirements and network rules. I guess a good rule of thumb would be: if a stabilization/profile change or introduced error message will require users to change their settings by hand, change their kernel config to match new requirements in order to have an usable system or to treat some packages/flags in a different way, this should not go forward until a news item has been prepared to notify users about it. -- Nuno Silva (aka njsg) http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/