Add bc back to the stage3

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
50 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Tom Wijsman-2
On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 13:22:45 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:47:14 +0200
> Luca Barbato <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant
>
> I agree. It's time to replace nano with Vim.

Vim is not fully POSIX compliant; you may find it claim "mostly" in its
documentation, but that's where it stays at and thus doesn't suffice...

While we're at it, we must make everyone use a POSIX IDE with a ribbon!

Jokes aside, this sub discussion is pointless; if we want results, a
moderated mailing list as suggested in a reply won't cut it!

What is really needed here is a vote by the Council on whether to add bc
back to the stage3. If the people do insist, another vote regarding
adding or changing an editor to stage3 could be done as well.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Rich Freeman
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Tom Wijsman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> What is really needed here is a vote by the Council on whether to add bc
> back to the stage3. If the people do insist, another vote regarding
> adding or changing an editor to stage3 could be done as well.
>

The call for agenda goes out on Tuesday, so if somebody wants a vote
please put it up.  Don't let mgorny be the only one with agenda items.
:)

--
Rich

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Anthony G. Basile
On 09/27/14 18:46, Rich Freeman wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Tom Wijsman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> What is really needed here is a vote by the Council on whether to add bc
>> back to the stage3. If the people do insist, another vote regarding
>> adding or changing an editor to stage3 could be done as well.
>>
> The call for agenda goes out on Tuesday, so if somebody wants a vote
> please put it up.  Don't let mgorny be the only one with agenda items.
> :)
>
> --
> Rich
>
He isn't ... remember GLEP 64 :)

And now for something completely different ... drum roll ... Really!  We
have to have a council vote on whether bc goes into stage3?  If this
does go to the council, then I want a pre-vote vote: should we bounce
the decision back to the releng team?  We should not micro manage to
this level.

--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : [hidden email]
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Rich Freeman
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Anthony G. Basile <[hidden email]> wrote:
> And now for something completely different ... drum roll ... Really!  We
> have to have a council vote on whether bc goes into stage3?  If this does go
> to the council, then I want a pre-vote vote: should we bounce the decision
> back to the releng team?  We should not micro manage to this level.
>

I never said we have to have a council vote.  However, any dev can ask
for the Council to take up any agenda item.  The Council can always
choose to defer to another team.  As of this moment, nobody has asked
to put it on the agenda.  However, putting it on the agenda is better
than having a huge flamewar with no resolution.

I don't think the Council needs to vote on individual packages being
in/out of @system and so on, but it does make sense for the Council to
decide the guidelines for what does go in.

There is a big debate here about whether @system should be a
collection of useful stuff, or a minimal set of core dependencies,
etc.  That seems like a topic worth discussing to me...

--
Rich

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Luca Barbato
In reply to this post by Luca Barbato
On 27/09/14 15:19, Luca Barbato wrote:

> On 27/09/14 14:22, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:47:14 +0200
>> Luca Barbato <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant
>>
>> I agree. It's time to replace nano with Vim.
>>
>
> Surely certain stuff might enjoy having ex available as well.
>
> Probably busybox could be enough for both use-cases.

What about documenting this detail somewhere?

lu


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Richard Yao-2
In reply to this post by Anthony G. Basile
On 09/27/2014 07:39 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:

> On 09/27/14 18:46, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Tom Wijsman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> What is really needed here is a vote by the Council on whether to add bc
>>> back to the stage3. If the people do insist, another vote regarding
>>> adding or changing an editor to stage3 could be done as well.
>>>
>> The call for agenda goes out on Tuesday, so if somebody wants a vote
>> please put it up.  Don't let mgorny be the only one with agenda items.
>> :)
>>
>> --
>> Rich
>>
> He isn't ... remember GLEP 64 :)
>
> And now for something completely different ... drum roll ... Really!  We
> have to have a council vote on whether bc goes into stage3?  If this
> does go to the council, then I want a pre-vote vote: should we bounce
> the decision back to the releng team?  We should not micro manage to
> this level.
>
May I suggest an alternative? We could implement sys-virtual/posix and
make it depend on all packages that are not necessary for @system, but
are necessary for proper POSIX compliance. Then we can tell users who
need/want an environment containing all tools specified by POSIX, such
as those not using sys-kernel/*-sources, to `emerge virtual/posix`.

That said, the larger matter of standards conformance that needs to be
considered. Illumos' Garrett D'amore has been working on standards
conformance tests for libc:

https://bitbucket.org/gdamore/illumos-gate/src/8815a50c9cc3f6f213931e12f72c252504363a82/usr/src/test/libc-tests/?at=core

Garrett told me yesterday that the changes necessary to run them on
Linux should be very small and are likely restricted to a few dozen
lines in 1 file. I want to try running them to catch POSIX conformance
issues in our base system. That will likely come later this year, as I
recently became aware of a SUS conformance issue in ZFS' implementation
of mmap() where PROT_WRITE + MAP_PRIVATE on a readonly file fails.
Fixing that will take priority over reviewing the standards conformance
of libc (others can review libc before i do if they wish).

I imagine that the tests will catch issues in our present conformance
when they are run. Once we have the results, we will need to decide how
proactive we intend to be about fixing them. We will definitely want to
work with upstream libcs to get issues that tests identified fixed.
However, there would be the question of whether we wish to fix them
immediately or wait for the patches fixing them to be upstreamed. If the
matter of adding bc to the base system for POSIX conformance goes to the
Council, it might be worth thinking about how far we wish to go for
standards conformance when further issues are identified.


signature.asc (902 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Tom Wijsman-2
In reply to this post by Anthony G. Basile
On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 19:39:44 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> And now for something completely different ... drum roll ... Really!
> We have to have a council vote on whether bc goes into stage3?  If
> this does go to the council, then I want a pre-vote vote: should we
> bounce the decision back to the releng team?  We should not micro
> manage to this level.

The Council gets involved when there is disagreement, which makes
this more serious than micro management; but sure, if they want to
revisit the case then that could work out as well. The releng team's
input on this case is important, even if it ends up going to Council.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Steven J. Long
In reply to this post by Luca Barbato
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014, Luca Barbato wrote:

> On 17/09/14 14:09, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, Luca Barbato wrote:
> >
> >> The bc utility is part of the posix tools and it might be used to build
> >> linux among the other stuff.
> >
> > Luca,
> >
> > bc is not in the system set and is a dependency of the kernel or any
> > other package that needs it, so why do we need to include a package that
> > takes ~20 seconds to build?
>
> Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant and it is a pain to
> remember that Gentoo doesn't have it by default (since the errors can be
> quite vague).
>

I agree; ed should be supplied too for the same reason (and not be
considered as a provider for the virtual.) It's a pita not being able to
rely on a POSIX.2 base.

Similarly with vi/ex too (again, not providing the virtual); though vim
should likely be another package, unless it's much easier just to bundle
it. AFAIR you get into all the gvim/X questions then, but I can't say as
I use it, so defer to whomever. ex is useful for scripters, though we
use ed more, since it avoids the vi question and we've had reports of
ex not being as reliable as ed, on other platforms.

busybox ed should never be built afaic. GNU ed has tight linkage for
rootfs usage (like sed and awk, which should be in /bin), and actually
works:
$ ldd $(type -p ed)
  linux-vdso.so.1
  libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6
  /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2

Regards,
steveL
--
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto-2
In reply to this post by Tom Wijsman-2
On Sat, 27 Sep 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 13:22:45 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:47:14 +0200
>> Luca Barbato <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant
>>
>> I agree. It's time to replace nano with Vim.
>
> Vim is not fully POSIX compliant; you may find it claim "mostly" in its
> documentation, but that's where it stays at and thus doesn't suffice...
>
> While we're at it, we must make everyone use a POSIX IDE with a ribbon!
>
> Jokes aside, this sub discussion is pointless; if we want results, a
> moderated mailing list as suggested in a reply won't cut it!

It seems like everyone needs to "chill" a bit. Ciaran wasn't trolling, he
was making a point. I'm sure everyone around here understood his point.
There were no attacks and no "foul language", so can we move forward?

> What is really needed here is a vote by the Council on whether to add bc
> back to the stage3. If the people do insist, another vote regarding
> adding or changing an editor to stage3 could be done as well.

No, there isn't a need for a Council vote here. This is something up to
Releng (in respect to what is in the stages) and to everyone in respect to
what is part of the system set.
Further, to me, this is a case where if anyone tries to side-step Releng
and go over it with a Council decision, than the council members should be
ready to start doing Releng work.

I've stopped following this mailing list regularly quite sometime ago. To
see this thread is still going on and no one bothered to cc releng, to me
shows a lack of respect for the people actually doing releases around
here, as well as a real lack of interest in getting this done as you can
discuss this all you want, but in the end, it's releng that works on this.

Regards,

Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
Gentoo Developer
(Releng Lead)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Peter Stuge-4
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> I've stopped following this mailing list regularly quite sometime ago.
> To see this thread is still going on and no one bothered to cc releng,
> to me shows a lack of respect

I expected you to participate on the developer list to some degree,
since you are developers.

Isn't that even mentioned in a quiz somewhere?


//Peter

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Rich Freeman
In reply to this post by Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto-2
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> No, there isn't a need for a Council vote here. This is something up to
> Releng (in respect to what is in the stages) and to everyone in respect to
> what is part of the system set.

I don't think many really care about deferring to releng on what is in
the stages.

My concern is what is in @system, since that has a big impact on everybody.

> I've stopped following this mailing list regularly quite sometime
> ago. To see this thread is still going on and no one bothered to cc
> releng, to me shows a lack of respect for the people actually doing
> releases around here, as well as a real lack of interest in getting
> this done as you can discuss this all you want, but in the end, it's
> releng that works on this.

Nobody is intending to show a lack of respect for anybody.  The whole
point of having a mailing list is so that you don't have to CC every
single developer on every single thread.

Nobody is required to read -dev, but as was pointed out recently,
claiming that you don't read -dev isn't really a good starting point
for a complaint that you've been left out of something.  [1]

> Further, to me, this is a case where if anyone tries to side-step Releng and
> go over it with a Council decision, than the council members should be ready
> to start doing Releng work.
>

So, do you have an opinion on this that you'd like to share?  I think
it makes more sense to discuss what the best path forward is rather
than argue about who gets to make the decision.

Believe it or not, the folks who are on the Council aren't really
interested in micro-managing everything that goes on in Gentoo.
However, as you pointed out, everybody is impacted by what is in the
system set, and the way "everybody" in Gentoo decides on things is
through the Council.  The alternative is endless threads like this
one.

No, the members of the Council aren't aware of every detail of
everything that happens with Gentoo, and they don't possess every
skill collectively possessed by every member of the community.  About
the only thing the Council can claim is that people voted for them to
represent the community, so it functions best when we actually act
like a community.

[1] - http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20140408-summary.txt

--
Rich

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Anthony G. Basile
On 09/29/14 07:14, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> No, there isn't a need for a Council vote here. This is something up to
>> Releng (in respect to what is in the stages) and to everyone in respect to
>> what is part of the system set.
> I don't think many really care about deferring to releng on what is in
> the stages.
>
> My concern is what is in @system, since that has a big impact on everybody.

The original point and reasoning was about getting bc back into stage3.  
The @system discussion came up secondarily because of the relationship
between the two.  But note that, if the status quo remains (ie bc
doesn't belong in stage3) then there would be no issue about @system.

>
>> I've stopped following this mailing list regularly quite sometime
>> ago. To see this thread is still going on and no one bothered to cc
>> releng, to me shows a lack of respect for the people actually doing
>> releases around here, as well as a real lack of interest in getting
>> this done as you can discuss this all you want, but in the end, it's
>> releng that works on this.
> Nobody is intending to show a lack of respect for anybody.  The whole
> point of having a mailing list is so that you don't have to CC every
> single developer on every single thread.
>
> Nobody is required to read -dev, but as was pointed out recently,
> claiming that you don't read -dev isn't really a good starting point
> for a complaint that you've been left out of something.  [1]
>
>> Further, to me, this is a case where if anyone tries to side-step Releng and
>> go over it with a Council decision, than the council members should be ready
>> to start doing Releng work.
>>
> So, do you have an opinion on this that you'd like to share?  I think
> it makes more sense to discuss what the best path forward is rather
> than argue about who gets to make the decision.
>
> Believe it or not, the folks who are on the Council aren't really
> interested in micro-managing everything that goes on in Gentoo.
> However, as you pointed out, everybody is impacted by what is in the
> system set, and the way "everybody" in Gentoo decides on things is
> through the Council.  The alternative is endless threads like this
> one.

What's in stage3 also impacts "everybody".  The point about
micro-managing is a judgment call about how large the impact.  In my
judgment, adding bc to stage3 or keeping the status quo is not a big
enough issue that releng can't decide on their own.  While anything may
come to the Council and be entertained by it (at the cost of time), it
would be my position to motion that the issue be pushed back to releng
for a decision.  At that point the Council will effectively be deciding
whether or not they agree with me, namely, that this issue really
doesn't impact everyone sufficiently to be taken out of releng's hands.  
It is important that the Council reflect the body's sensibilities about
what is significant and what isn't.  If we start judging everything as
having a "significant impact" and taking it from the respective teams,
then we will be micro-managing despite our words to the contrary.  
Jorge's response "than the council members should be ready to start
doing Releng work" would not be atypical if we start overstepping that
line.  Although, I must say, Jorge's is being little premature here, and
I doubt the Council will act rashly.

>
> No, the members of the Council aren't aware of every detail of
> everything that happens with Gentoo, and they don't possess every
> skill collectively possessed by every member of the community.  About
> the only thing the Council can claim is that people voted for them to
> represent the community, so it functions best when we actually act
> like a community.
>
> [1] - http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20140408-summary.txt
>
> --
> Rich


--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : [hidden email]
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Rich Freeman
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Anthony G. Basile <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Although, I must say, Jorge's is being little premature here, and I
> doubt the Council will act rashly.

So, while I was trying to be balanced in my reply, I'll admit it may
have still been a bit too emotionally motivated.

I think this was really the bit that I was reacting to.  In general I
do agree that it is best to let individual teams make the call before
escalating to council.

I just don't like attitudes along the lines of "I'll do what I think
is best, and if you don't like it you can do it instead."  It is true
that we're all volunteers, and we all need to be mindful of that.
However, if all Gentoo is to somebody is a place to host their
sole-committer git repo, you could probably do better.

I don't really think that was how Jorge felt, and I think we're all
just venting, and my response probably wasn't more helpful than what I
replied to, so apologies to all for the line noise.

For what its worth, this still isn't on the agenda (I'll probably send
out the call later today).  I also think that if anybody is feeling
really frustrated over the content of stage3/@system and so on,
they're probably best off directing that frustration towards getting
something like mix-ins supported.  :)  Gentoo is about choice, but we
can only offer the choices that our tools support.

--
Rich

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Panagiotis Christopoulos
In reply to this post by Anthony G. Basile
On 11:24 Sat 27 Sep     , Anthony G. Basile wrote:

> On 09/27/14 11:19, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:47:14 +0200
> >> Luca Barbato <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant
> >> I agree. It's time to replace nano with Vim.
> >>
> > To restate this: There are numerous other utilities specified in POSIX
> > which we do not have in @system (or the stage3 tarball).
> >
> Agreed.  The argument "its posix and should be in there" doesn't fit the
> criterion for a stage3 tarball.  A stage3 should be "a minimal set from
> which any gentoo system can be built" (modulo arch, abi, libc, ..., of
> course.)  Emerging any linux kernel package will pull in bc (see
> REDEPEND in kernel-2.eclass) and therefore bc is not needed to complete
> that minimal set.
>
(picking up the most relevant reply)

Here[1] is the original discussion regarding the removal of bc and ed from
the system set. I do prefer bc in system set too because I'm lazy to emerge the damn
thing but their reasons were valid at that time(2005), and they 're still valid right now(2014).

[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/27216

--
Panagiotis Christopoulos ( pchrist )
    ( Gentoo Lisp Project )

attachment0 (282 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Tom Wijsman-2
In reply to this post by Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto-2
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 04:05:19 +0000 (UTC)
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 13:22:45 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:47:14 +0200
> >> Luca Barbato <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant
> >>
> >> I agree. It's time to replace nano with Vim.
> >
> > Vim is not fully POSIX compliant; you may find it claim "mostly" in
> > its documentation, but that's where it stays at and thus doesn't
> > suffice...
> >
> > While we're at it, we must make everyone use a POSIX IDE with a
> > ribbon!
> >
> > Jokes aside, this sub discussion is pointless; if we want results, a
> > moderated mailing list as suggested in a reply won't cut it!
>
> It seems like everyone needs to "chill" a bit. Ciaran wasn't
> trolling, he was making a point. I'm sure everyone around here
> understood his point. There were no attacks and no "foul language",
> so can we move forward?

Constructiveness does not rely on just making points, as replacing nano
with Vim is out of the context of adding bc back to stage3. Editors are
a world apart from a build tool, even more so from being POSIX. In
order to move forward beyond this point, that needs to be recognized.

Does that make him attacking / foulish / trollish / unchilling? No;
actually, it is helpful / smart / fluffy / chilling towards consensus
as both the opposite and sarcastic interpretations help form that.

> > What is really needed here is a vote by the Council on whether to
> > add bc back to the stage3. If the people do insist, another vote
> > regarding adding or changing an editor to stage3 could be done as
> > well.
>
> No, there isn't a need for a Council vote here.

Not in the way of having the Council actually vote, but by waking up
everyone from these endless side points sub discussions by escalation.

> This is something up
> to Releng (in respect to what is in the stages) and to everyone in
> respect to what is part of the system set.
> Further, to me, this is a case where if anyone tries to side-step
> Releng and go over it with a Council decision, than the council
> members should be ready to start doing Releng work.
>
> I've stopped following this mailing list regularly quite sometime
> ago. To see this thread is still going on and no one bothered to cc
> releng, to me shows a lack of respect for the people actually doing
> releases around here, as well as a real lack of interest in getting
> this done as you can discuss this all you want, but in the end, it's
> releng that works on this.

If people desire a change, it'll be discussed for an eternity; until ...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Tom Wijsman-2
In reply to this post by Peter Stuge-4
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 06:08:11 +0200
Peter Stuge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> > I've stopped following this mailing list regularly quite sometime
> > ago. To see this thread is still going on and no one bothered to cc
> > releng, to me shows a lack of respect
>
> I expected you to participate on the developer list to some degree,
> since you are developers.
>
> Isn't that even mentioned in a quiz somewhere?

Only a small few MLs are mandatory; as for most others, a developer is
free to sub/unsub to/from a ML as they see fit. There was a mail[1] send
out by the Gentoo Council regarding awareness of gentoo-dev ML threads.

 [1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3549 (see 2-3)



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Steven J. Long
In reply to this post by Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto-2
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 04:05:19AM +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> It seems like everyone needs to "chill" a bit.

++

> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > What is really needed here is a vote by the Council on whether to add bc
> > back to the stage3. If the people do insist, another vote regarding
> > adding or changing an editor to stage3 could be done as well.
>
> No, there isn't a need for a Council vote here. This is something up to
> Releng (in respect to what is in the stages) and to everyone in respect to
> what is part of the system set.

Yeah, my bad, for my part I was really thinking of @system, though ed outside
chroot would make install-scripting easier. (I have a penchant for running
off the minimal install iso; yes I know the alternatives, thx.)

Cheers for your continued hard-work; from where I'm sitting releng works
well, though could perhaps use one or two dedicated helpers.

Regards,
igli
--
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Ciaran McCreesh-4
In reply to this post by Tom Wijsman-2
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 23:37:20 +0200
Tom Wijsman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 04:05:19 +0000 (UTC)
> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Sep 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 13:22:45 +0100
> > > Ciaran McCreesh <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:47:14 +0200
> > >> Luca Barbato <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>> Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant
> > >>
> > >> I agree. It's time to replace nano with Vim.
> >
> > It seems like everyone needs to "chill" a bit. Ciaran wasn't
> > trolling, he was making a point. I'm sure everyone around here
> > understood his point. There were no attacks and no "foul language",
> > so can we move forward?
>
> Constructiveness does not rely on just making points, as replacing
> nano with Vim is out of the context of adding bc back to stage3.
> Editors are a world apart from a build tool, even more so from being
> POSIX. In order to move forward beyond this point, that needs to be
> recognized.
But POSIX does describe vi. That was the point...

(And until fairly recently, texlive used to require 'ex' if you wanted
to build it fully from unpatched sources.)

--
Ciaran McCreesh

signature.asc (188 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto-2
In reply to this post by Rich Freeman
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014, Rich Freeman wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Anthony G. Basile <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Although, I must say, Jorge's is being little premature here, and I
>> doubt the Council will act rashly.
>
> So, while I was trying to be balanced in my reply, I'll admit it may
> have still been a bit too emotionally motivated.
>
> I think this was really the bit that I was reacting to.  In general I
> do agree that it is best to let individual teams make the call before
> escalating to council.
>
> I just don't like attitudes along the lines of "I'll do what I think
> is best, and if you don't like it you can do it instead."  It is true
> that we're all volunteers, and we all need to be mindful of that.
> However, if all Gentoo is to somebody is a place to host their
> sole-committer git repo, you could probably do better.

In this case I reacted more "emotionally" that I should have.
Using your expression above, please consider it as "releng is doing what
it thinks is best." As the team lead, I was also expressing that to see
something as "ordinary" as deciding if bc should be in stage3 sent to the
council to "decide", those pushing for that (and that critic wasn't
directed to the council members but those pushing this to council),
shouldn't be surprised if releng members get upset and decide to spend
their time elsewhere.

> I don't really think that was how Jorge felt, and I think we're all
> just venting, and my response probably wasn't more helpful than what I
> replied to, so apologies to all for the line noise.

Yes, I was venting. I got a bit upset to see something as simple and
ordinary still being discussed (I believe the last time I read about it
had been 2 weeks before).
To me, this isn't the first time that someone decides to discuss in the
dev ml about releng work, without even bothering to let releng know about
it.
I know that our policies state that technical issues should be raised in
the dev ml, although they also support doing the discussion in specialized
mls, but they also mention that one should make an effort to contact those
involved in the matter.

> For what its worth, this still isn't on the agenda (I'll probably send
> out the call later today).  I also think that if anybody is feeling
> really frustrated over the content of stage3/@system and so on,
> they're probably best off directing that frustration towards getting
> something like mix-ins supported.  :)  Gentoo is about choice, but we
> can only offer the choices that our tools support.
>
> --
> Rich

Regards,

Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
Gentoo Developer

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Rich Freeman
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I know that our policies state that technical issues should be raised in the
> dev ml, although they also support doing the discussion in specialized mls,
> but they also mention that one should make an effort to contact those
> involved in the matter.
>

++

I think people just assume everybody reads these threads.  That isn't
always the case, and we can all stand a reminder once in a while...

--
Rich

123