[gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

sys-apps/openrc-0.9.6 is just... gone?  Not even masked, but completely 
gone from portage.

What happened to it?

Re: [gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Nilesh Govindarajan]

On Sun 27 Nov 2011 09:06:39 PM IST, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> sys-apps/openrc-0.9.6 is just... gone?  Not even masked, but
> completely gone from portage.
>
> What happened to it?
>

0.9.6? I updated my tree 24h before writing this reply. It's still not 
there. Only upto 0.9.4 & -9999 is masked.

-- 
Nilesh Govindarajan
http://nileshgr.com

Re: [gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 577 bytes --]

Am 27.11.2011 17:22, schrieb Nilesh Govindarajan:
> On Sun 27 Nov 2011 09:06:39 PM IST, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> sys-apps/openrc-0.9.6 is just... gone?  Not even masked, but
>> completely gone from portage.
>>
>> What happened to it?
>>
> 
> 0.9.6? I updated my tree 24h before writing this reply. It's still not 
> there. Only upto 0.9.4 & -9999 is masked.
> 

From $PORTDIR/sys-apps/openrc/Changelog:
  26 Nov 2011; William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> -openrc-0.9.6.ebuild:
  remove release that did not work with rc_parallel

Regards,
Florian Philipp


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Dale]

Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
> On Sun 27 Nov 2011 09:06:39 PM IST, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> sys-apps/openrc-0.9.6 is just... gone?  Not even masked, but
>> completely gone from portage.
>>
>> What happened to it?
>>
> 0.9.6? I updated my tree 24h before writing this reply. It's still not
> there. Only upto 0.9.4&  -9999 is masked.
>

I got this in mine:

root@fireball / # equery list -p openrc
  * Searching for openrc ...
[IP-] [  ] sys-apps/openrc-0.8.3-r1:0
[-P-] [ ~] sys-apps/openrc-0.9.2:0
[-P-] [ ~] sys-apps/openrc-0.9.3:0
[-P-] [ ~] sys-apps/openrc-0.9.3-r1:0
[-P-] [ ~] sys-apps/openrc-0.9.4:0
[-P-] [ ~] sys-apps/openrc-0.9.6:0
[-P-] [ -] sys-apps/openrc-9999:0
root@fireball / #

My last sync was:

Fri Nov 25 19:20:06 2011

If you need a ebuild or something, speak up soon while I still got it.  :-)

Could it be that that version had a serious problem and puked on the 
devs keyboard so he, or she, removed it before it messed up someone 
else's keyboard?  We got any female devs?  :/

Dale

:-)  :-)

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

Re: [gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Andrea Conti]

On 27/11/11 16.36, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> sys-apps/openrc-0.9.6 is just... gone?  Not even masked, but completely
> gone from portage.
> 
> What happened to it?

Last time I checked it was hardmasked. Now it's been confined into
oblivion, I hope.
It had a "little" problem in resolving the dependencies of a newly
introduced boot service that created a cycle and caused the boot process
to hang (almost) forever with rc_parallel=YES.

With 100% repeatability, mind you, which does raise same questions on
the amount of testing done before release. Yes, it's ~arch and
rc_parallel is explicitly marked "experimental", but it's not expected
to be completely and consistently broken, either.

If that sounds like I'm ranting, it's because I just spent about an hour
getting three machines affected by this problem back into working state.

If anyone still has it installed, it's time to sync and downgrade :)

andrea

Re: [gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Albert W. Hopkins]

On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 20:28 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
> With 100% repeatability, mind you, which does raise same questions on
> the amount of testing done before release. Yes, it's ~arch and
> rc_parallel is explicitly marked "experimental", but it's not expected
> to be completely and consistently broken, either.
> 
> If that sounds like I'm ranting, it's because I just spent about an
> hour
> getting three machines affected by this problem back into working
> state.
> 
> If anyone still has it installed, it's time to sync and downgrade :)


Sorry to add more to the whining but...

Yes, you are in the testing tree.  Yes, as a member of testing, *you*
expect things will occasionally break, and it is *your* job to test
things, break them, and report bugs.
> 
And no, don't expect the devs to have tested something even they have
told you is "experimental" and might not always work. If you don't like
the unpredictability of testing, move to something more *stable* and
don't enable options that come with a caveat.
> 

[gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, Albert W. Hopkins wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 20:28 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
>> With 100% repeatability, mind you, which does raise same questions on
>> the amount of testing done before release. Yes, it's ~arch and
>> rc_parallel is explicitly marked "experimental", but it's not expected
>> to be completely and consistently broken, either.
>>
>> If that sounds like I'm ranting, it's because I just spent about an
>> hour
>> getting three machines affected by this problem back into working
>> state.
>>
>> If anyone still has it installed, it's time to sync and downgrade :)
>
> Sorry to add more to the whining but...
>
> Yes, you are in the testing tree.  Yes, as a member of testing, *you*
> expect things will occasionally break, and it is *your* job to test
> things, break them, and report bugs.

Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken.  That means 
not even its upstream dev bothered to test it.

~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case there 
are problems".  It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works because we 
didn't even try it once".

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Albert W. Hopkins]

On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:15 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken.  That
> means 
> not even its upstream dev bothered to test it.
> 
> ~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case
> there 
> are problems".  It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works because
> we 
> didn't even try it once". 

You're experience is obviously different than mine.  I've been using
Gentoo for many years and sometimes things in unstable don't even
compile... and it's obvious that the Gentoo developers didn't even
attempt to compile it.  This is par for the course.

And you're talking about a feature that is already documented as
"probably won't work" and you're expecting them to test *that* given
that they don't even test things that are expected to work?!

Good luck with that.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:31:44 -0500
"Albert W. Hopkins" <marduk@letterboxes.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:15 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken.  That
> > means 
> > not even its upstream dev bothered to test it.
> > 
> > ~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case
> > there 
> > are problems".  It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works
> > because we 
> > didn't even try it once". 
> 
> You're experience is obviously different than mine.  I've been using
> Gentoo for many years and sometimes things in unstable don't even
> compile... and it's obvious that the Gentoo developers didn't even
> attempt to compile it.  This is par for the course.
> 
> And you're talking about a feature that is already documented as
> "probably won't work" and you're expecting them to test *that* given
> that they don't even test things that are expected to work?!
> 
> Good luck with that.

My experience is different to both of yours. I too have been using
Gentoo for many years and had good results with unstable. Hardly ever,
if even at all, have I run into packages that would not compile at


Build failures for me have always been some unusual configs on my end,
usually strange USE flags. But I don't use any of the more exotic
packages like those in sci- and games- so YMMV I guess.


-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

[gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2011-11-28, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Albert W. Hopkins" <marduk@letterboxes.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:15 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>
>>> Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken.  That
>>> means not even its upstream dev bothered to test it.
>>>
>>> ~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case
>>> there are problems".  It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works
>>> because we didn't even try it once". 
>> 
>> You're experience is obviously different than mine.  I've been using
>> Gentoo for many years and sometimes things in unstable don't even
>> compile... and it's obvious that the Gentoo developers didn't even
>> attempt to compile it.

I don't think that's fair.  Perhaps nobody had compiled it using the
exact set of USE flags and the exast set of library versions and
configurations you were using, but I've never seen anything appear in
testing that was so broken it could be said that nobody had ever tried
to build it.

>> This is par for the course.
>> 
>> And you're talking about a feature that is already documented as
>> "probably won't work" and you're expecting them to test *that* given
>> that they don't even test things that are expected to work?!
>> 
>> Good luck with that.
>
> My experience is different to both of yours. I too have been using
> Gentoo for many years and had good results with unstable. Hardly ever,
> if even at all, have I run into packages that would not compile at
>
> Build failures for me have always been some unusual configs on my end,
> usually strange USE flags. But I don't use any of the more exotic
> packages like those in sci- and games- so YMMV I guess.

I've been running Gentoo for 5-6 years on multiple machines, and there
have been a couple occasions when a testing version of something
didn't build because it wasn't compatible with the testing version of
something else with a particular set of USE flags.  Generally I would
just switch back to stable for the packages involved, since whatever
feature/fix that had prompted the switch to testing had long since
made it into the stable version. Other times, just waiting a day or
two and trying again would fix the problem.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! It's a hole all the
                                  at               way to downtown Burbank!
                              gmail.com            

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Albert W. Hopkins]

On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 17:19 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
> I don't think that's fair.  Perhaps nobody had compiled it using the
> exact set of USE flags and the exast set of library versions and
> configurations you were using, but I've never seen anything appear in
> testing that was so broken it could be said that nobody had ever tried
> to build it. 

I have.. even for packages w/o a USE flag.  Granted, I'm not blaming the
developers.. they have a lot of work to do.  But it *does* happen.
Usually the fix is easy enough.

Just yesterday I reported a bug with webkit-gtk.  The gtk2 version
doesn't build at all (it's an upstream issue that they call a
gtk3-specific function).  No matter what combination of USE flags you
use it wasn't gonna build, but it was obvious nobody had ever tried to
build it, not even upstream apparently. :P

-a

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Albert W. Hopkins]

On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:41 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> My experience is different to both of yours. I too have been using
> Gentoo for many years and had good results with unstable. Hardly ever,
> if even at all, have I run into packages that would not compile at
> Build failures for me have always been some unusual configs on my end,
> usually strange USE flags. But I don't use any of the more exotic
> packages like those in sci- and games- so YMMV I guess. 

I'm not saying that unstable is somehow bad, I'm just saying it's
sometimes... unstable.

I dont' have any "exotic" packages or configs either, but I do from time
to time encounter such problems as

     1. Patches not included
     2. Patches not applying
     3. build failures because a patch in a previous revision is no
        longer applicable in the new revision
     4. build failures caused by upstream issues 
     5. build failures due bad ebuilds 
     6. incomplete DEPENDS or RDEPENDS(this actually happens quite more
        frequently than i'd like)
     7. Broken functionality (upstream bugs)
     8. A dependency of a package was bumped, and that package doesn't
        build against the bump.

Granted, when I test, I test hard.  I depclean with build time
dependencies removed, to make sure packages have the correct DEPENDS.  I
do an "emerge -e world" about once per month.  I have a build system
that builds virtual appliances from scratch that help me find bugs
(granted, most of these VMs are in the stable tree so they actually find
bugs in stable and the stage3 tarballs).  I set USE flags manually
instead of using the defaults.  So, while that may be considered an
"unusual config" it should work and it helps me find bugs before they
get into stable.

But my feeling is, if you use the testing branch and you *don't* find
bugs, then you aren't testing hard enough :P


-a

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:22:48 -0500
"Albert W. Hopkins" <marduk@letterboxes.org> wrote:

> But my feeling is, if you use the testing branch and you *don't* find
> bugs, then you aren't testing hard enough :P

Or maybe I just got used to dealing with occasional oopsies and
stopped noticing them...

I do that a lot at work too. Some days I can tell you I found and
dealt with more than one issue or bug but can't recall afterwards what
it was.

I'm still undecided if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or neither

-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:22:48 -0500
> "Albert W. Hopkins"<marduk@letterboxes.org>  wrote:
>
>> But my feeling is, if you use the testing branch and you *don't* find
>> bugs, then you aren't testing hard enough :P
> Or maybe I just got used to dealing with occasional oopsies and
> stopped noticing them...
>
> I do that a lot at work too. Some days I can tell you I found and
> dealt with more than one issue or bug but can't recall afterwards what
> it was.
>
> I'm still undecided if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or neither
>


Uh oh.  I do that too.  Thing is, I can't forget hal.  O_O  I do forget 
those little things I run into and fix easily tho.

Is it age?  :-(

Dale

:-)  :-)

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[James Wall]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:22:48 -0500
>> "Albert W. Hopkins"<marduk@letterboxes.org>  wrote:
>>
>>> But my feeling is, if you use the testing branch and you *don't* find
>>> bugs, then you aren't testing hard enough :P
>>
>> Or maybe I just got used to dealing with occasional oopsies and
>> stopped noticing them...
>>
>> I do that a lot at work too. Some days I can tell you I found and
>> dealt with more than one issue or bug but can't recall afterwards what
>> it was.
>>
>> I'm still undecided if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or neither
>>
>
>
> Uh oh.  I do that too.  Thing is, I can't forget hal.  O_O  I do forget
> those little things I run into and fix easily tho.
>
> Is it age?  :-(
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
> --
> I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how
> you interpreted my words!
>
>
>

You had to bring up that ugly beast, didn't you....

-- 
No trees were harmed in the sending of this message. However, a large
number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Dale]

James Wall wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:22:48 -0500
>>> "Albert W. Hopkins"<marduk@letterboxes.org>    wrote:
>>>
>>>> But my feeling is, if you use the testing branch and you *don't* find
>>>> bugs, then you aren't testing hard enough :P
>>> Or maybe I just got used to dealing with occasional oopsies and
>>> stopped noticing them...
>>>
>>> I do that a lot at work too. Some days I can tell you I found and
>>> dealt with more than one issue or bug but can't recall afterwards what
>>> it was.
>>>
>>> I'm still undecided if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or neither
>>>
>>
>> Uh oh.  I do that too.  Thing is, I can't forget hal.  O_O  I do forget
>> those little things I run into and fix easily tho.
>>
>> Is it age?  :-(
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-)
>>
>> --
>> I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how
>> you interpreted my words!
>>
>>
>>
> You had to bring up that ugly beast, didn't you....
>

Sorry.  ;-)

< Dale goes back to his hole now >

Dale

:-)  :-)

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Walter Dnes]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 08:28:13PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote

> I do that a lot at work too. Some days I can tell you I found and
> dealt with more than one issue or bug but can't recall afterwards what
> it was.
> 
> I'm still undecided if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or neither

  They say that memory is the second thing to go... I forget what the
first is.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2089 bytes --]

Am 28.11.2011 17:15, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
> On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, Albert W. Hopkins wrote:
>> On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 20:28 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
>>> With 100% repeatability, mind you, which does raise same questions on
>>> the amount of testing done before release. Yes, it's ~arch and
>>> rc_parallel is explicitly marked "experimental", but it's not expected
>>> to be completely and consistently broken, either.
>>>
>>> If that sounds like I'm ranting, it's because I just spent about an
>>> hour
>>> getting three machines affected by this problem back into working
>>> state.
>>>
>>> If anyone still has it installed, it's time to sync and downgrade :)
>>
>> Sorry to add more to the whining but...
>>
>> Yes, you are in the testing tree.  Yes, as a member of testing, *you*
>> expect things will occasionally break, and it is *your* job to test
>> things, break them, and report bugs.
> 
> Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken.  That means
> not even its upstream dev bothered to test it.
> 
> ~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case there
> are problems".  It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works because we
> didn't even try it once".
> 
> 

Do you have any idea how much time you can spend with the kind of system
testing you propose? Most companies don't do what you expect from
part-time devs. You either have provide means to automate it or
outsource it with very cheap labor. Otherwise it will never be done
(talking from experience here).

However, "dev labor" is expensive since it is limited and better spent
on other issues. Automating tests for a reasonable subset of openrc's
parameter space is also a tricky issue. Therefore you have to resort to
cheap voluntarily provided "user labor" by means of ~arch.

And it worked, didn't it? You found a bug before it entered stable. Now
give yourself a pat on the shoulder for your accomplishment and go back
to stable if you value your time so high that you don't want to chase bugs.

Regards,
Florian Philipp


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 11/28/2011 06:59 PM, Florian Philipp wrote:
> Am 28.11.2011 17:15, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
>> On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, Albert W. Hopkins wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 20:28 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
>>>> With 100% repeatability, mind you, which does raise same questions on
>>>> the amount of testing done before release. Yes, it's ~arch and
>>>> rc_parallel is explicitly marked "experimental", but it's not expected
>>>> to be completely and consistently broken, either.
>>>>
>>>> If that sounds like I'm ranting, it's because I just spent about an
>>>> hour
>>>> getting three machines affected by this problem back into working
>>>> state.
>>>>
>>>> If anyone still has it installed, it's time to sync and downgrade :)
>>>
>>> Sorry to add more to the whining but...
>>>
>>> Yes, you are in the testing tree.  Yes, as a member of testing, *you*
>>> expect things will occasionally break, and it is *your* job to test
>>> things, break them, and report bugs.
>>
>> Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken.  That means
>> not even its upstream dev bothered to test it.
>>
>> ~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case there
>> are problems".  It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works because we
>> didn't even try it once".
>
> Do you have any idea how much time you can spend with the kind of system
> testing you propose?

About 2 minutes?  Enabling the parallel startup thingy and rebooting the 
machine.  There you go :-/

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Michael Mol]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de> wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 06:59 PM, Florian Philipp wrote:
>>
>> Am 28.11.2011 17:15, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
>>>
>>> On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, Albert W. Hopkins wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 20:28 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> With 100% repeatability, mind you, which does raise same questions on
>>>>> the amount of testing done before release. Yes, it's ~arch and
>>>>> rc_parallel is explicitly marked "experimental", but it's not expected
>>>>> to be completely and consistently broken, either.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that sounds like I'm ranting, it's because I just spent about an
>>>>> hour
>>>>> getting three machines affected by this problem back into working
>>>>> state.
>>>>>
>>>>> If anyone still has it installed, it's time to sync and downgrade :)
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to add more to the whining but...
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you are in the testing tree.  Yes, as a member of testing, *you*
>>>> expect things will occasionally break, and it is *your* job to test
>>>> things, break them, and report bugs.
>>>
>>> Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken.  That means
>>> not even its upstream dev bothered to test it.
>>>
>>> ~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case there
>>> are problems".  It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works because we
>>> didn't even try it once".
>>
>> Do you have any idea how much time you can spend with the kind of system
>> testing you propose?
>
> About 2 minutes?  Enabling the parallel startup thingy and rebooting the
> machine.  There you go :-/

That's a facetious answer, and you're purposely only examining a tiny
piece of the testing surface. Hindsight is 20/20, though only if
you're lucky.

Perhaps they've never seen this type of failure before, and they could
add a single test to whatever unit test suite they may be using.
Perhaps that's an improvement they can make going forward.

To fully test OpenRC, you'd want a two-stage testing harness. The
outer stage would generate Gentoo VMs with every plausibly-relevant
USE flag permutation crossed against as many automatically-generated
permutations of OpenRC configuration as could be considered plausibly
encountered.

For each generated VM, spin it up. Watch for some kind of watchdog
"hey, I booted successfully!" indicator. Then spin up a testing
harness *inside* the VM to ensure all services started and behave
correctly. Dump a report to the vmhost detailing that everything went
well (or didn't), and hibernate the VM. vmhost looks at the report and
decides whether or not to keep the saved VM state.

That's an extraordinary amount of testing to do. And that's what I see
argued as what ~arch is for; instead of having a script whip up and
test hundreds of virtual machines, people running ~arch do that
testing. Gentoo devs get reports for the features and combinations
that people actually *use*, and can spend less time fixing features
nobody is using. (And it's obvious none of the OpenRC devs are using
parallel boot themselves, or they would have caught this. Perhaps
that's why it's experimental; nobody who actively uses that feature is
keeping up with HEAD and offering patches.)


-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3124 bytes --]

Am 28.11.2011 20:16, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
> On 11/28/2011 06:59 PM, Florian Philipp wrote:
>> Am 28.11.2011 17:15, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
>>> On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, Albert W. Hopkins wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 20:28 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
>>>>> With 100% repeatability, mind you, which does raise same questions on
>>>>> the amount of testing done before release. Yes, it's ~arch and
>>>>> rc_parallel is explicitly marked "experimental", but it's not expected
>>>>> to be completely and consistently broken, either.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that sounds like I'm ranting, it's because I just spent about an
>>>>> hour
>>>>> getting three machines affected by this problem back into working
>>>>> state.
>>>>>
>>>>> If anyone still has it installed, it's time to sync and downgrade :)
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to add more to the whining but...
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you are in the testing tree.  Yes, as a member of testing, *you*
>>>> expect things will occasionally break, and it is *your* job to test
>>>> things, break them, and report bugs.
>>>
>>> Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken.  That means
>>> not even its upstream dev bothered to test it.
>>>
>>> ~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case there
>>> are problems".  It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works because we
>>> didn't even try it once".
>>
>> Do you have any idea how much time you can spend with the kind of system
>> testing you propose?
> 
> About 2 minutes?  Enabling the parallel startup thingy and rebooting the
> machine.  There you go :-/
> 
> 

Oh, you just want to test the features *you* use, understood. What about
*my* (imaginary) issue with rc_depend_strict="YES" or one of the other
two dozen parameters you can set there. Not even considering different
init scripts in different run levels and so forth. I, for example, start
dmcrypt _before_ lvm because all lvm volumes are on one encrypted
partition. Do you want that to be tested as well or is your experimental
feature more valuable than mine?

And that's only the tip of the iceberg. What about all the other scripts
and config files which belong to baselayout2? What about all other
packages? If the openrc dev has to test his configs, surely the SSH dev
also has to because a crashing ssh daemon leaves everyone with a
headless server in quite a uncomfortable situation.

Let's make a simple example, shall we? Let's say we only want to test
all yes/no variables in rc.conf. There are 7 of them. We also remove
those two only affecting output and you still have 5. That are 2^5=32
combinations that you consider valid and therefore want to be tested.
Now we have a dev spending one hour doing nothing but reboots. Even
changing each variable (I counted 27 in total) only once takes a lot of
time and also different hardware capabilities (like a second network
interface).

Sorry if that sounded harsh but really, what you want is what Redhat
(maybe) does for its releases and those only occur every few years and
cost lots of money.

Regards,
Florian Philipp


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Albert W. Hopkins]

On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 20:57 +0100, Florian Philipp wrote:
> Sorry if that sounded harsh but really, what you want is what Redhat
> (maybe) does for its releases and those only occur every few years and
> cost lots of money. 

Yeah, and even *they* send test pre-releases to some of their clients
and beg them to test and submit bugs.  Because no one has the resources
to test *everything*.

But people who put themselves in the *testing* branch are basically
volunteering to be crash-test dummies and really shouldn't be surprised
when something doesn't work.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Andrea Conti]

> Oh, you just want to test the features *you* use, understood.

Guys,

I did not want to start a flamewar. I've been running ~arch for years
and I've had my fair share of breakage, which I'm perfectly fine with
(e.g. I'm not complaining that dev-lang/php-5.4.0._rc2 currently fails
to compile with USE=+snmp). It's my choice to run unstable, and I only
do so on machines where a hosed system is a nuisance rather than an
emergency.

I write software for a living, so I know perfectly well that covering
every possible configuration in your tests is extremely difficult,
especially if you're not granted ample resources (i.e. time+$$$)
specifically for that purpose.

I was just a little surprised that a system package turned out to be
completely broken in a scenario that I thought was quite widespread,
especially among the devs (as rc_parallel results in _very_ tangible
time savings, especially on a desktop with lots of services and frequent
boots).

Things were handled well: as soon as the issue was reported, the
breakage was acknowledged and the offending version was masked and then
removed.

That's all as far as I'm concerned. No data was lost and no kittens were
killed. Let's move on.

andrea

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Albert W. Hopkins]

On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 18:33 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
> I was just a little surprised that a system package turned out to be
> completely broken in a scenario that I thought was quite widespread,
> especially among the devs (as rc_parallel results in _very_ tangible
> time savings, especially on a desktop with lots of services and
> frequent
> boots). 

I have desktops and have not seen any noticable difference in startup
times with rc_parallel.  The config file even says "slight speed"
improvement, then goes on with a *huge* caveat as if to say "yeah, you
might see a little difference, but it's probably not worth it for most
people".

Basically I take that to mean, it *may* speed things up slightly for
some people.  If it works for you, great for you.  If it breaks, you get
to pick up the pieces.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1034 bytes --]

On Nov 30, 2011 12:51 AM, "Albert W. Hopkins" <marduk@letterboxes.org>
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 18:33 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
> > I was just a little surprised that a system package turned out to be
> > completely broken in a scenario that I thought was quite widespread,
> > especially among the devs (as rc_parallel results in _very_ tangible
> > time savings, especially on a desktop with lots of services and
> > frequent
> > boots).
>
> I have desktops and have not seen any noticable difference in startup
> times with rc_parallel.  The config file even says "slight speed"
> improvement, then goes on with a *huge* caveat as if to say "yeah, you
> might see a little difference, but it's probably not worth it for most
> people".
>
> Basically I take that to mean, it *may* speed things up slightly for
> some people.  If it works for you, great for you.  If it breaks, you get
> to pick up the pieces.
>

On my server boxen, rc_parallel gives a very tangible benefit. The boot
time gets cut by roughly half.

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1327 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Paul Hartman]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Albert W. Hopkins
<marduk@letterboxes.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 18:33 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
>> I was just a little surprised that a system package turned out to be
>> completely broken in a scenario that I thought was quite widespread,
>> especially among the devs (as rc_parallel results in _very_ tangible
>> time savings, especially on a desktop with lots of services and
>> frequent
>> boots).
>
> I have desktops and have not seen any noticable difference in startup
> times with rc_parallel.  The config file even says "slight speed"
> improvement, then goes on with a *huge* caveat as if to say "yeah, you
> might see a little difference, but it's probably not worth it for most
> people".
>
> Basically I take that to mean, it *may* speed things up slightly for
> some people.  If it works for you, great for you.  If it breaks, you get
> to pick up the pieces.

I enabled it for a while, ran into a problem once which left my system
unbootable, chrooted from a livecd and disabled it, and never thought
about enabling it again. I usually count my yearly reboots on one
hand, so a few seconds saved to me are not worth my potential minutes
or hours spent fixing it if it goes wrong, in my opinion. For a dev
box or laptop that is booted frequently, that's a different story.
Just not my story. :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Walter Dnes]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 06:15:14PM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote
> On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, Albert W. Hopkins wrote:
>
> > Sorry to add more to the whining but...
> >
> > Yes, you are in the testing tree.  Yes, as a member of testing, *you*
> > expect things will occasionally break, and it is *your* job to test
> > things, break them, and report bugs.
> 
> Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken.  That means 
> not even its upstream dev bothered to test it.

  There aren't enough developers on the planet to test every possible
combination of testing ebuild, and non-recommended rc.conf option.
 
> ~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case there 
> are problems".  It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works because we 
> didn't even try it once".

waltdnes@d531 ~ $ head /etc/rc.conf
# Global OpenRC configuration settings

# Set to "YES" if you want the rc system to try and start services
# in parallel for a slight speed improvement. When running in parallel we
# prefix the service output with its name as the output will get
# jumbled up.
# WARNING: whilst we have improved parallel, it can still potentially lock
# the boot process. Don't file bugs about this unless you can supply
# patches that fix it without breaking other things!
#rc_parallel="NO"

  The developers tried it, and it worked on *THEIR SYSTEMS*.  It appears
that even the developers don't dare run rc_parallel on their machines...
nuff said.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Peter Humphrey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 578 bytes --]

On Tuesday 29 November 2011 23:28:48 Walter Dnes wrote:

> There aren't enough developers on the planet to test every possible
> combination of testing ebuild, and non-recommended rc.conf option.

Not only that, but once random timing is introduced, as in any system with a 
hardware clock interrupt, it becomes impossible in principle to cover all 
cases, so testing is always imperfect. That was the death-knell of 
mathematical proof of correctness in the 80s; it only ever applied to a 
small subset of real computer systems.

-- 
Rgds
Peter		Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2579 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Walter Dnes]

On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 08:28:42PM +0100, Andrea Conti wrote

> It had a "little" problem in resolving the dependencies of a newly
> introduced boot service that created a cycle and caused the boot process
> to hang (almost) forever with rc_parallel=YES.
> 
> With 100% repeatability, mind you, which does raise same questions on
> the amount of testing done before release. Yes, it's ~arch and
> rc_parallel is explicitly marked "experimental", but it's not expected
> to be completely and consistently broken, either.
> 
> If that sounds like I'm ranting, it's because I just spent about an hour
> getting three machines affected by this problem back into working state.

waltdnes@d531 ~ $ head /etc/rc.conf
# Global OpenRC configuration settings

# Set to "YES" if you want the rc system to try and start services
# in parallel for a slight speed improvement. When running in parallel we
# prefix the service output with its name as the output will get
# jumbled up.
# WARNING: whilst we have improved parallel, it can still potentially lock
# the boot process. Don't file bugs about this unless you can supply
# patches that fix it without breaking other things!
#rc_parallel="NO"

  This alone would is enough to deter me from running it.  The potential
problems aren't worth it for a few seconds faster bootup.  It appears
that even the developers don't dare to run it on their machines... nuff
said.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Andrea Conti]

On 27/11/11 16.36, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> sys-apps/openrc-0.9.6 is just... gone?  Not even masked, but completely
> gone from portage.

FYI, sys-apps/openrc-0.9.7 is out.

Apparently, the solution to the rc_parallel issues was to remove every
mention of rc_parallel from the default /etc/rc.conf

Brilliant.

andrea

Re: [gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[James Broadhead]

On 11 December 2011 10:41, Andrea Conti <alyf@alyf.net> wrote:
> On 27/11/11 16.36, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> sys-apps/openrc-0.9.6 is just... gone?  Not even masked, but completely
>> gone from portage.
>
> FYI, sys-apps/openrc-0.9.7 is out.
>
> Apparently, the solution to the rc_parallel issues was to remove every
> mention of rc_parallel from the default /etc/rc.conf
>
> Brilliant.

I didn't take this email at face value when I read it earlier, but I
just merged my openrc-0.9.7 config file.
Wow, what a cynical move.

Perhaps someone could do some performance testing on rc_parallel to
find out if it's worth fighting for as a feature.

Re: [gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 12/11/2011 01:10 PM, James Broadhead wrote:
>
> I didn't take this email at face value when I read it earlier, but I
> just merged my openrc-0.9.7 config file.
> Wow, what a cynical move.

It's not cynical. If you put a cool-sounding option in there with a 
comment that says "this will delete all of your documents," some idiot 
(i.e. me) is probably going to enable it.

Parallel doesn't work correctly, and it shouldn't be enabled unless 
you're looking for fun ways to break stuff.


> Perhaps someone could do some performance testing on rc_parallel to
> find out if it's worth fighting for as a feature.
>

The directive still exists, it's just been removed from the default rc.conf.

This prevents people from thinking "well, parallel is better than not 
parallel, so I'm gonna enable it." I should know, most of my machines 
still have it enabled and that was the extent of the research I did.

Re: [gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[James Broadhead]

On 11 December 2011 21:42, Michael Orlitzky <michael@orlitzky.com> wrote:
> On 12/11/2011 01:10 PM, James Broadhead wrote:
>>
>>
>> I didn't take this email at face value when I read it earlier, but I
>> just merged my openrc-0.9.7 config file.
>> Wow, what a cynical move.
>
>
> It's not cynical. If you put a cool-sounding option in there with a comment
> that says "this will delete all of your documents," some idiot (i.e. me) is
> probably going to enable it.
>
> Parallel doesn't work correctly, and it shouldn't be enabled unless you're
> looking for fun ways to break stuff.

It's worked for me ever since I switched all of my machines to OpenRC
a year+(?) ago.

"We broke it, so let's just remove the comments about it" _is_ a
cynical response.


>> Perhaps someone could do some performance testing on rc_parallel to
>> find out if it's worth fighting for as a feature.
> The directive still exists, it's just been removed from the default rc.conf.
>
> This prevents people from thinking "well, parallel is better than not
> parallel, so I'm gonna enable it." I should know, most of my machines still
> have it enabled and that was the extent of the research I did.

Parallel _is_ better than Not Parallel - at least in general.

I was proposing some concrete testing rather than data-less
complaining, or allowing it to be brushed under the rug

Re: [gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 756 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:48:11 +0000, James Broadhead wrote:

> > Parallel doesn't work correctly, and it shouldn't be enabled unless
> > you're looking for fun ways to break stuff.  
> 
> It's worked for me ever since I switched all of my machines to OpenRC
> a year+(?) ago.

You are not a representative sample.
 
> "We broke it, so let's just remove the comments about it" _is_ a
> cynical response.

Maybe, but those are your words. How about "it is known to be buggy and
no one has the time or inclination to maintain it..."

The fact that such a glaring bug slipped through on the 0.9.6 release
indicates that this is likely to be the case.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Don't let your mind wander, it's too little to be let out alone.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 921 bytes --]

On Dec 12, 2011 6:00 AM, "Neil Bothwick" <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:48:11 +0000, James Broadhead wrote:
>
> > > Parallel doesn't work correctly, and it shouldn't be enabled unless
> > > you're looking for fun ways to break stuff.
> >
> > It's worked for me ever since I switched all of my machines to OpenRC
> > a year+(?) ago.
>
> You are not a representative sample.
>

worksforme

In production servers, even. Virtualized on top of XenServer. All of them
last updated last week.

> > "We broke it, so let's just remove the comments about it" _is_ a
> > cynical response.
>
> Maybe, but those are your words. How about "it is known to be buggy and
> no one has the time or inclination to maintain it..."
>
> The fact that such a glaring bug slipped through on the 0.9.6 release
> indicates that this is likely to be the case.
>

Too bad.

I much prefer OpenRC to systemd our upstart.

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1233 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 07:29:16 +0700
Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:

> > > It's worked for me ever since I switched all of my machines to
> > > OpenRC a year+(?) ago.
> >
> > You are not a representative sample.
> >
> 
> worksforme
> 
> In production servers, even. Virtualized on top of XenServer. All of
> them last updated last week.
> 

Same here. All my server VMs work just fine with parallel enabled.
There's nothing complex in them, they tend to be single-service
machines.

I don't have a current desktop Gentoo system, those necessarily have
more complex start-up routines. Perhaps that's where most of the
problems are to found?

-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2190 bytes --]

Am 12.12.2011 09:43, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 07:29:16 +0700
> Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
> 
>>>> It's worked for me ever since I switched all of my machines to
>>>> OpenRC a year+(?) ago.
>>>
>>> You are not a representative sample.
>>>
>>
>> worksforme
>>
>> In production servers, even. Virtualized on top of XenServer. All of
>> them last updated last week.
>>
> 
> Same here. All my server VMs work just fine with parallel enabled.
> There's nothing complex in them, they tend to be single-service
> machines.
> 

Don't tell me you reboot your servers so often that it is necessary to
tune the boot process for every last second. And please tell me you make
the time slots for scheduled reboots large enough for trouble shooting,
thereby not requiring every last second, either.

> I don't have a current desktop Gentoo system, those necessarily have
> more complex start-up routines. Perhaps that's where most of the
> problems are to found?
> 

Guess so. Besides, there is a new init script format in the pipe, for
example mentioned here: [1] It will also make use of cgroups [2]. IMHO
loosing a few seconds of boot time is an acceptable price for better CPU
and IO scheduling.

If these "new style" scripts are written declarative, that means less
shell scripting and probably better performance even under sequential
execution. And as I've learned often and hard: You don't parallelize
until you have properly optimized your sequential execution, not the
other way around.

WTF do you need fast boot processes, anyway?! If you care about this,
you hibernate or suspend. Daily shutdown/bootup sounds like something
you'd do on a diskless client, a pre-ACPI system or some flakey
hardware. I hardly see a boot screen once per month. My laptop currently
has an uptime of 15 days, my workstation three months. You probably
waste more time repopulating your page cache after starting your desktop
environment than you do with init scripts.

[1] http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2011/10/22/updating-init-scripts
[2] http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2011/11/28/the-infamous-run-migration

Regards,
Florian Philipp


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:23:16 +0100
Florian Philipp <lists@binarywings.net> wrote:

> > Same here. All my server VMs work just fine with parallel enabled.
> > There's nothing complex in them, they tend to be single-service
> > machines.
> >   
> 
> Don't tell me you reboot your servers so often that it is necessary to
> tune the boot process for every last second. And please tell me you
> make the time slots for scheduled reboots large enough for trouble
> shooting, thereby not requiring every last second, either.

I think you misunderstand me. I basically said:

"Parallel init out the box? Works for me."

I said nothing else. Especially not that I test it often, that I need
it, that I know exactly what I'm going to do with the 3 seconds I save
or anything else other than one single data point in the discussion
about problematic parallel init - that it works for me with simple
setups.


-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1276 bytes --]

Am 13.12.2011 00:25, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:23:16 +0100
> Florian Philipp <lists@binarywings.net> wrote:
> 
>>> Same here. All my server VMs work just fine with parallel enabled.
>>> There's nothing complex in them, they tend to be single-service
>>> machines.
>>>   
>>
>> Don't tell me you reboot your servers so often that it is necessary to
>> tune the boot process for every last second. And please tell me you
>> make the time slots for scheduled reboots large enough for trouble
>> shooting, thereby not requiring every last second, either.
> 
> I think you misunderstand me. I basically said:
> 
> "Parallel init out the box? Works for me."
> 
> I said nothing else. Especially not that I test it often, that I need
> it, that I know exactly what I'm going to do with the 3 seconds I save
> or anything else other than one single data point in the discussion
> about problematic parallel init - that it works for me with simple
> setups.
> 
> 

Yeah, and this was not meant as an attack specifically to you. Sorry if
it sounded somewhat harsh. The issue (as stated by James) is: Is it
worth putting in effort to keep this feature? My answer is: Probably
not, for the given reasons.

Regards,
Florian Philipp


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 12/11/2011 1:10 PM, James Broadhead wrote:
> On 11 December 2011 10:41, Andrea Conti<alyf@alyf.net>  wrote:
>> On 27/11/11 16.36, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>> sys-apps/openrc-0.9.6 is just... gone?  Not even masked, but completely
>>> gone from portage.
>>
>> FYI, sys-apps/openrc-0.9.7 is out.
>>
>> Apparently, the solution to the rc_parallel issues was to remove every
>> mention of rc_parallel from the default /etc/rc.conf
>>
>> Brilliant.
>
> I didn't take this email at face value when I read it earlier, but I
> just merged my openrc-0.9.7 config file.
> Wow, what a cynical move.

Its only cynical in that it reflects a basic failing of 
human psychology, namely, "thst warning doesn't apply to me" 
syndrome.

I imagine their thought process went something like this:

"We exposed this experimental feature that's hard to get 
right and only moderately useful, with explicit instructions 
not to complain if it doesn't work unless you are personally 
going to put in the time and effort to fix it."

"People blithely ignored our warning, enabled it, then 
complained loudly when it did not work."

"Since no one bothers to read the warning in rc.conf about 
this feature, and we have neither the time, manpower, nor 
overwhelming need to make it work, we'll just stop 
mentioning it."

"HOPEFULLY anyone smart enough to find and re-enable a 
hidden, explicitly unsupported feature will be smart enough 
not to complain when it doesn't work."

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

[Dale]

Mike Edenfield wrote:
> On 12/11/2011 1:10 PM, James Broadhead wrote:
>> On 11 December 2011 10:41, Andrea Conti<alyf@alyf.net>  wrote:
>>> On 27/11/11 16.36, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>>> sys-apps/openrc-0.9.6 is just... gone?  Not even masked, but 
>>>> completely
>>>> gone from portage.
>>>
>>> FYI, sys-apps/openrc-0.9.7 is out.
>>>
>>> Apparently, the solution to the rc_parallel issues was to remove every
>>> mention of rc_parallel from the default /etc/rc.conf
>>>
>>> Brilliant.
>>
>> I didn't take this email at face value when I read it earlier, but I
>> just merged my openrc-0.9.7 config file.
>> Wow, what a cynical move.
>
> Its only cynical in that it reflects a basic failing of human 
> psychology, namely, "thst warning doesn't apply to me" syndrome.
>
> I imagine their thought process went something like this:
>
> "We exposed this experimental feature that's hard to get right and 
> only moderately useful, with explicit instructions not to complain if 
> it doesn't work unless you are personally going to put in the time and 
> effort to fix it."
>
> "People blithely ignored our warning, enabled it, then complained 
> loudly when it did not work."
>
> "Since no one bothers to read the warning in rc.conf about this 
> feature, and we have neither the time, manpower, nor overwhelming need 
> to make it work, we'll just stop mentioning it."
>
> "HOPEFULLY anyone smart enough to find and re-enable a hidden, 
> explicitly unsupported feature will be smart enough not to complain 
> when it doesn't work."
>
> --Mike
>
>


Sounds like good reasoning too.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

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

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"