Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
121 messages Options
1234 ... 7
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

Mike Frysinger
This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically the
2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
irc.freenode.net) !

If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.

Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review
must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum)
before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days
before the meeting.  Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be
notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself.

For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
--
[hidden email] mailing list

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

Steven J. Long
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
>
I appreciate that many will be against this idea, but I'd still like to
discuss it: a binary repository for gentoo.

Yes, I know gentoo is a meta-distro. And that there isn't loads of bandwidth.
That's easily got round. The main problem I see is USE flags (devs already
compile with standard C-flags right?) but I was thinking about standardising
for 2 or 3 types of network- SOHO, medium and large enterprise (eg for LDAP
etc) would solve most cases. We can always tag pkgs with USE flags.

If gentoo is still serious about enterprise adoption, it needs a binary repo
(so we can avoid system breakage) which would of course be a little bit
behind. I'd be happy to contribute time, as I'm sure many other users would.

As to why I don't just do it myself, I think it's a bit silly to duplicate the
compile that devs do anyway.

There are, after all, other nice things about gentoo besides compiling from
source, which would always remain a choice.

I'm more interested in practical objections than philosophical debates, but as
ever it's your free speech :)
--
[hidden email] mailing list

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

Mike Frysinger
On Friday 03 November 2006 03:47, Steve Long wrote:
> If gentoo is still serious about enterprise adoption

Gentoo as an entire whole is not really "serious" about anything

last i checked, it was the "server" project who was working on the
whole "enterprise" thing ... those guys are serious about targetting the
enterprise so why do we need to discuss it ?
-mike

attachment0 (844 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

Grant Goodyear
In reply to this post by Steven J. Long
Steve Long wrote: [Fri Nov 03 2006, 02:47:52AM CST]
> I appreciate that many will be against this idea, but I'd still like to
> discuss it: a binary repository for gentoo.
>
> Yes, I know gentoo is a meta-distro. And that there isn't loads of
> bandwidth.  That's easily got round.

It is?

> The main problem I see is USE flags (devs already
> compile with standard C-flags right?) but I was thinking about standardising
> for 2 or 3 types of network- SOHO, medium and large enterprise (eg for LDAP
> etc) would solve most cases. We can always tag pkgs with USE flags.
>
> If gentoo is still serious about enterprise adoption, it needs a binary repo
> (so we can avoid system breakage) which would of course be a little bit
> behind. I'd be happy to contribute time, as I'm sure many other users would.

I think you'll find that there is little interest (among devs) in Gentoo
maintaining a binary sub-distribution.  My view, and for some time it's
been our semi-official view, is that Gentoo can serve as a nice base for
creating a binary distribution, and we encourage people to do so, but
that it shouldn't be a part of Gentoo itself.

(That said, it's true that there is still a real need for better support
for binaries in portage, especially for handling USE conflicts.)

As for Gentoo being serious about enterprise adoption, I don't agree
that we need a binary repo.  I think we ought to make it easy for our
users to create and use their own, customized, distribution.  That's our
strength as a meta-distribution.  (We also need to make it easy to
install and replicate custom distributions, but we already have Catalyst
and the Seeds project addressing those issues.)

-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[hidden email]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

attachment0 (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

Stuart Herbert-2
On 11/3/06, Grant Goodyear <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Steve Long wrote: [Fri Nov 03 2006, 02:47:52AM CST]
> > The main problem I see is USE flags (devs already
> > compile with standard C-flags right?) but I was thinking about standardising
> > for 2 or 3 types of network- SOHO, medium and large enterprise (eg for LDAP
> > etc) would solve most cases. We can always tag pkgs with USE flags.

If the Seeds project proves successful, I'd be interested in providing
binary packages for seeds.  Whether that'll be as part of Gentoo, or
whether it'll be better to move downstream (so to speak) to do so is
up for debate.

Genux tried providing binary packages for generic Gentoo systems.
They ultimately failed as a business.

> > If gentoo is still serious about enterprise adoption, it needs a binary repo
> > (so we can avoid system breakage) which would of course be a little bit
> > behind. I'd be happy to contribute time, as I'm sure many other users would.

I think that's total rot, sorry.  A binary distro can break a system
just as much as a source based one.  A source-based distro is just as
practical in the enterprise; in fact, for web stuff, it's a lot more
practical, because it gives you the flexibility to build a box to your
exact needs, rather than having to compromise on what binary distro
vendors provide you with.

I think what you really need is an alternative package tree, one
that's versioned and tested as a whole, and one that isn't "live".

> As for Gentoo being serious about enterprise adoption, I don't agree
> that we need a binary repo.  I think we ought to make it easy for our
> users to create and use their own, customized, distribution.  That's our
> strength as a meta-distribution.  (We also need to make it easy to
> install and replicate custom distributions, but we already have Catalyst
> and the Seeds project addressing those issues.)

Definitely.

Best regards,
Stu
--
--
[hidden email] mailing list

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

Robin H. Johnson-2
In reply to this post by Steven J. Long
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 08:47:52AM +0000, Steve Long wrote:
> As to why I don't just do it myself, I think it's a bit silly to duplicate the
> compile that devs do anyway.
My compiles as a dev are of very minimal use to anybody except me.
There are too many things that are specific to my systems.

> I appreciate that many will be against this idea, but I'd still like to
> discuss it: a binary repository for gentoo.
>
> Yes, I know gentoo is a meta-distro. And that there isn't loads of bandwidth.
> That's easily got round. The main problem I see is USE flags (devs already
> compile with standard C-flags right?) but I was thinking about standardising
> for 2 or 3 types of network- SOHO, medium and large enterprise (eg for LDAP
> etc) would solve most cases. We can always tag pkgs with USE flags.
>
> If gentoo is still serious about enterprise adoption, it needs a binary repo
> (so we can avoid system breakage) which would of course be a little bit
> behind. I'd be happy to contribute time, as I'm sure many other users would.
From all of the large Gentoo deployments I've done (one of which
exceeded 200 machines), you're approaching this the wrong way.

1. Consider where each enterprise needs customization: USE-flags, CFLAGs
This might be for example an LDAP or Kerberos-based shop, so they would
have their stuff built with those, or a hardened or selinux place. Or
SASL, or Java or any of a hundred different variables. This was after
all the point of USE flags in the first place.
2. From point one, it is clear that each enterprise needs to be able to
customize. They also need binaries. So we need a solution that combines
the two.
3. The solution is for each enterprise to have their own tinderbox /
build-machine. Tinderboxing is supported under catalyst, and I believe
there is at least one other tinderbox implementation around.
4. (Assuming catalyst, as it's the only tinderbox I'm familiar with) The
enterprise defines a specfile that describes each of their unique
environments, and feeds these to tinderbox. Tinderbox generates sets of
binpkgs for each environment, which the enterprise then deploys.

The above plan works perfectly - I use it in my enterprise deployments.
To use the example of my largest deployment that I mentioned above, my
specfiles were for the following:
- cluster nodes [128 machines]
- cluster master [1 machine]
- web servers [~60 machines]
- ldap servers [2 machines]
- dedicated file serving (network homedirs) [4 machines]
- infrastructure management [3 machines]
- desktops [~60 machines]

The build-box role was actually undertaken by one of the infrastructure
management machines, since it doesn't need a dedicated machine.

--
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : [hidden email]
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

attachment0 (240 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

Peter Gordon-4
In reply to this post by Mike Frysinger
On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 08:40 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.

I have one item that I would like to see addressed in the next possible
council meeting: The reply behavior of gentoo-core messages. What's
happening is that gentoo-core appears to have no default Reply-To header
set.

This issue I feel needs to be addressed for two major reasons:
Firstly, with no explicit Reply-To address, most mail clients default to
replying to the sender of the message. This means that, for people who
use such clients must manually replace the To: address in their reply
composition. Unfortunately, there have been prior instances of a dev
accidentally replying to the -core list on -dev. This means that the
conversation intended to stay private and internal to Gentoo suddenly is
in the public eye and many archives. This will inevitably occur if such
behavior is not resolved.

Secondly, every other Gentoo mailing list that I am subscribed to
(g-dev, g-devrel, g-gwn) adds a Reply-To header which instructs the
dev's MUA to default to replying to the list address, rather than to the
individual sender of the message to which they reply. Unfortunately,
gentoo-core is the only list which does not follow this behavior.

I would appreciate the council voting on making this behavior
consistent: Force gentoo-core to add this header, or remove it from the
other mailing lists.

Thanks.
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
Gentoo Forums Global Moderator
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
  DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479
My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

Alin Năstac-2
In reply to this post by Mike Frysinger
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
>  
I have a problem with our current SPF record. I wanna see a +all in this
record for 2 reasons:
  a) SPF is really worthless
  b) spamassassin have a SPF_NEUTRAL test, with a score bigger than 1

See http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/43707/focus=43707 .


signature.asc (260 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

Mike Frysinger
In reply to this post by Peter Gordon-4
On Sunday 05 November 2006 04:35, Peter Gordon wrote:
> I have one item that I would like to see addressed in the next possible
> council meeting: The reply behavior of gentoo-core messages. What's
> happening is that gentoo-core appears to have no default Reply-To header
> set.

i dont see anyone talking to infra about it so why dont you start there
-mike

attachment0 (844 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

Ciaran McCreesh-3
In reply to this post by Peter Gordon-4
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:35:43 -0800 Peter Gordon
<[hidden email]> wrote:
| On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 08:40 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
| > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
| > vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
| > Gentoo dev list to see.
|
| I have one item that I would like to see addressed in the next
| possible council meeting: The reply behavior of gentoo-core messages.

Wow. That's about the pettiest and least relevant thing you could ask
them to discuss. Why not ask for a vote on what colour the soft
icecream machine should be whilst you're at it?

Clearly this is one of those easy to understand issues where everyone
has an opinion, and rather than fix their mail client or behaviour they
try to have a huge debate about it... Don't you people have any bugs to
fix?

--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13


signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

Paul de Vrieze-2
On Sunday 05 November 2006 10:59, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:35:43 -0800 Peter Gordon

> Clearly this is one of those easy to understand issues where everyone
> has an opinion, and rather than fix their mail client or behaviour they
> try to have a huge debate about it... Don't you people have any bugs to
> fix?

Also please remember that you can easilly do this yourself if you so desire.
procmail (and thus formail too) is available on woodpecker, so you can add
them/remove them from the core list as desired. As it considers -core you
have access to woodpecker and the mail flows through it too.

Paul

--
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: [hidden email]
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

attachment0 (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

Paul de Vrieze-2
In reply to this post by Robin H. Johnson-2
On Sunday 05 November 2006 00:45, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> From all of the large Gentoo deployments I've done (one of which
> exceeded 200 machines), you're approaching this the wrong way.

> The above plan works perfectly - I use it in my enterprise deployments.
> To use the example of my largest deployment that I mentioned above, my
> specfiles were for the following:
> - cluster nodes [128 machines]
> - cluster master [1 machine]
> - web servers [~60 machines]
> - ldap servers [2 machines]
> - dedicated file serving (network homedirs) [4 machines]
> - infrastructure management [3 machines]
> - desktops [~60 machines]
>
> The build-box role was actually undertaken by one of the infrastructure
> management machines, since it doesn't need a dedicated machine.
It would be cool if you could write up a howto for others who want to do this.

Paul

--
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: [hidden email]
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

attachment0 (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

David Shakaryan-2
In reply to this post by Ciaran McCreesh-3
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Wow. That's about the pettiest and least relevant thing you could ask
> them to discuss. Why not ask for a vote on what colour the soft
> icecream machine should be whilst you're at it?

Silly analogy.

> Clearly this is one of those easy to understand issues where everyone
> has an opinion, and rather than fix their mail client or behaviour they
> try to have a huge debate about it... Don't you people have any bugs to
> fix?

This is not a question of opinion; this is one of consistency. All of
the lists are currently doing it a certain way, whilst -core seems to be
behaving differently. This is bound to cause confusion. As you
mentioned, we should be dealing with more important things. Why not
settle this once and for all, so we constantly don't have to spend time
having this useless argument?

--
David Shakaryan
GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B


signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

Mike Frysinger
In reply to this post by Alin Năstac-2
On Sunday 05 November 2006 04:50, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> > vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> > Gentoo dev list to see.
>
> I have a problem with our current SPF record. I wanna see a +all in this
> record for 2 reasons:

that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
-mike

attachment0 (844 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

Alin Năstac-2
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
>  
It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had
to be involved in this decision.


signature.asc (260 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

Bugzilla from jakub@gentoo.org
In reply to this post by Alin Năstac-2
Alin Nastac napsal(a):

> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
>> vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
>> Gentoo dev list to see.
>>  
> I have a problem with our current SPF record. I wanna see a +all in this
> record for 2 reasons:
>   a) SPF is really worthless
>   b) spamassassin have a SPF_NEUTRAL test, with a score bigger than 1
>
> See http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/43707/focus=43707 .
I second this request... Thanks.


--
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:[hidden email]
 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   ;)


signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

Mike Frysinger
In reply to this post by Alin Năstac-2
On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
>
> It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had
> to be involved in this decision.

it isnt ... so file a bug for infra
-mike

attachment0 (844 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

Marius Mauch
In reply to this post by David Shakaryan-2
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 02:23:02 -0800
David Shakaryan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Wow. That's about the pettiest and least relevant thing you could ask
> > them to discuss. Why not ask for a vote on what colour the soft
> > icecream machine should be whilst you're at it?
>
> Silly analogy.

It isn't silly, the color of the icecream machine is a top priority for many people! Well, I guess you don't know how much lobby work went into this over the last years ;)

> > Clearly this is one of those easy to understand issues where everyone
> > has an opinion, and rather than fix their mail client or behaviour they
> > try to have a huge debate about it... Don't you people have any bugs to
> > fix?
>
> This is not a question of opinion; this is one of consistency. All of
> the lists are currently doing it a certain way, whilst -core seems to be
> behaving differently. This is bound to cause confusion. As you
> mentioned, we should be dealing with more important things. Why not
> settle this once and for all, so we constantly don't have to spend time
> having this useless argument?

Still doesn't make this material for the council, this is entirely infras domain so people who want to get this "fixed" in what way ever should talk to them. Or should I refer people to the council whenever they aren't happy with the output/option handling of emerge (to give you a more realistic analogy)?

Marius
--
[hidden email] mailing list

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

Alin Năstac-2
In reply to this post by Mike Frysinger
Mike Frysinger wrote:

> On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote:
>  
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>    
>>> that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
>>>      
>> It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had
>> to be involved in this decision.
>>    
>
> it isnt ... so file a bug for infra
>  
done in bug 154120 .


signature.asc (260 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

Bugzilla from jakub@gentoo.org
Alin Nastac napsal(a):

> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote:
>>  
>>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>    
>>>> that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
>>>>      
>>> It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had
>>> to be involved in this decision.
>>>    
>> it isnt ... so file a bug for infra
>>  
> done in bug 154120 .
>
And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to
the council... :/



--
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:[hidden email]
 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   ;)


signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
1234 ... 7