FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux General Discussion

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-24-2011, 03:41 AM
Oon-Ee Ng
 
Default repo - minimal requirements?

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Testing#.5Btesting.5D states the
following (paraphrased for summary):-

[testing] is for experienced users who can deal with broken systems,
not for the 'absolute latest' package versions. It may break
critical/[core] packages, as such users are strongly encouraged to
subscribe to [arch-dev-public] and watch the [testing] sub-forum.

Second reference - this forum thread -
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=128682

A user basically is using [testing] without fulfilling the above
requirements. Should the user be advised not to use [testing] or is
this counter-productive to the purpose of [testing]?

This discussion is not meant to be commentary on any of the
personalities involved in the thread, the thread did spark this but
I'd like to hear (esp from devs/TUs) opinions on the general case, not
the specific case. The reason for this is that its possible there's
quite a bit of difference in opinions, and some clarity would (IMO)
help.

My personal opinion - If you don't fulfil the above requirement you
should not use [testing], and other Arch users should graciously
inform you as such.

Sorry for the long email, feel free to mute this thread, since I do
know its got high potential for unproductive cross-chatter.
 
Old 10-24-2011, 09:24 AM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default repo - minimal requirements?

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:41 AM, Oon-Ee Ng <ngoonee.talk@gmail.com> wrote:
> A user basically is using [testing] without fulfilling the above
> requirements. Should the user be advised not to use [testing] or is
> this counter-productive to the purpose of [testing]?

It is very important that people use testing [0], so we should really
encourage _more_ rather than less of that, IMHO. Rather than advice
the user to stop using testing, I'd advice them to sign up to the
mailinglist :-)

Maybe this requirement should be communicated more clearly (e.g. a
comment in the standard pacman.conf)?

Cheers,

Tom

[0]: a lot of the non-trivial bugs against my packages are discovered
after they move to core, probably because the people with the right
hardware/use-cases are not using testing.
 
Old 10-24-2011, 11:40 AM
Martti Kühne
 
Default repo - minimal requirements?

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
<snip>
> Maybe this requirement should be communicated more clearly (e.g. a
> comment in the standard pacman.conf)?

Great idea. I mean, as a non-[testing] user I get that guinea pig
feeling which comes naturally with linux often enough. Don't miss to
express that [testing] here is far from what other distros label with
"testing" and will hopefully break your system (because we want to
know).

<snip>
> [0]: a lot of the non-trivial bugs against my packages are discovered
> after they move to core, probably because the people with the right
> hardware/use-cases are not using testing.

Looks really like I keep missing all the fun.
What the hell, I'll add [testing] to my pacman.conf tonight...

cheers!
mar77i
 
Old 10-24-2011, 11:53 AM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default repo - minimal requirements?

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Martti Kühne <mysatyre@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Maybe this requirement should be communicated more clearly (e.g. a
>> comment in the standard pacman.conf)?
>
> Great idea. I mean, as a non-[testing] user I get that guinea pig
> feeling which comes naturally with linux often enough. Don't miss to
> express that [testing] here is far from what other distros label with
> "testing" and will hopefully break your system (because we want to
> know).

Depends on who you compare to, unlike certain other distro's who shall
not be named, we actually compile, install and test our packages
before pushing to testing. We really don't want any packages in
testing to break anyone's system as that will lead to fewer people
using it. However, there will obviously be problems from time to time.

Personally, I use testing on all my five machines (including for
work), and never experienced a big problem (such as loss of data or a
failed boot), but your mileage may vary ;-)

Cheers,

Tom
 
Old 10-24-2011, 02:37 PM
Myra Nelson
 
Default repo - minimal requirements?

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 06:53, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Martti Kühne <mysatyre@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Maybe this requirement should be communicated more clearly (e.g. a
>>> comment in the standard pacman.conf)?
>>
>> Great idea. I mean, as a non-[testing] user I get that guinea pig
>> feeling which comes naturally with linux often enough. Don't miss to
>> express that [testing] here is far from what other distros label with
>> "testing" and will hopefully break your system (because we want to
>> know).
>
> Depends on who you compare to, unlike certain other distro's who shall
> not be named, we actually compile, install and test our packages
> before pushing to testing. We really don't want any packages in
> testing to break anyone's system as that will lead to fewer people
> using it. However, there will obviously be problems from time to time.
>
> Personally, I use testing on all my five machines (including for
> work), and never experienced a big problem (such as loss of data or a
> failed boot), but your mileage may vary ;-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
IMHO, one that doesn't count for much, I have to agree with Tom. I
also have to agree with those making the point for watching the Arch
Dev Public mailing list and reading the news announcements. I moved to
Arch because it forces me to learn how to maintain my machines. It
also allows me to compile my base and core packages to my machines
architecture not a generic configuration. This is my system:

Linux gandalf 3.0-pf #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Oct 24 00:05:45 CDT 2011
x86_64 AMD Phenom(tm) 8450 Triple-Core Processor AuthenticAMD
GNU/Linux

This is my makepkg configuration:

CFLAGS="-march=amdfam10 -m64 -O2 -pipe -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2"
CXXFLAGS="-march=amdfam10 -m64 -O2 -pipe -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2"

This may not be an extreme, or even close to an edge case, but it
might find something that a generic compile doesn't find. I've also
discovered whether it boots or not, I can fix it. I will admit, as
someone who has already responded on this thread can attest, I can
ocassionally as a "I really should have known that" type of question.
However, everyone screws up every once in a while, except me I'm
perfect.

The rest of this may be considered noise/off topic/thread high jacking
but I'll try to make a point. Until I became disabled and had to
retire in 2009 I was considered one of the best at what I did. I
routinely trained people and wrote training manuals. It tooks years of
having someone point out to me that I had the same response when
training people that some experienced linux users have. If I had to
tell someone more than once how to do it they got dressed down, after
the third time I had no use for them. That was a hard lesson to learn.
My son was an expert, definition of an expert -- a has been little
drip, with Windows and worked as a support tech. He had the same
opionion when training people, after the third how to do the same
thing he had no use for them. The same son who was quick to point out
how badly I treated people when trying to train them.

I know answering the same questions over and over can be a pain and no
one wants to invite "help vampires" but simply saying "don't use
testing" just doesn't seem to be the right way to go. I've read the
thread linked in the first email and I agree with the point made if,
and I point out if and only if, it's done graciously. To many people,
no names etc just generic people, jump in when the original poster
doesn't get it and start slicing and dicing. Keep the commentary
civil.

Myra


--
Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
 
Old 10-24-2011, 04:00 PM
Karol Blazewicz
 
Default repo - minimal requirements?

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Leonid Isaev <lisaev@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
> Besides, one really doesn't have to enable testing in pacman.conf -- individual
> pacman -U will do, imho.

I've read that [testing] is all or nothing and you shouldn't
cherrypick packages because you might break something.
Somewhat relevant https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=127144
 
Old 10-25-2011, 12:38 AM
Oon-Ee Ng
 
Default repo - minimal requirements?

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Leonid Isaev <lisaev@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
> On (10/24/11 18:00), Karol Blazewicz wrote:
> -~> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Leonid Isaev <lisaev@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
> -~> > Besides, one really doesn't have to enable testing in pacman.conf -- individual
> -~> > pacman -U will do, imho.
> -~>
> -~> I've read that [testing] is all or nothing and you shouldn't
> -~> cherrypick packages because you might break something.
> -~> Somewhat relevant https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=127144
>
> That's where brain comes in handy
>
Yes, its a REALLY good idea to state that its okay to pacman -U
individual [testing] packages on a public mailing list with at least
some users who really don't know any better than to do just that.
 
Old 10-25-2011, 04:43 AM
Myra Nelson
 
Default repo - minimal requirements?

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 19:38, Oon-Ee Ng <ngoonee.talk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Leonid Isaev <lisaev@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
>> On (10/24/11 18:00), Karol Blazewicz wrote:
>> -~> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Leonid Isaev <lisaev@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
>> -~> > Besides, one really doesn't have to enable testing in pacman.conf -- individual
>> -~> > pacman -U will do, imho.
>> -~>
>> -~> I've read that [testing] is all or nothing and you shouldn't
>> -~> cherrypick packages because you might break something.
>> -~> Somewhat relevant https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=127144
>>
>> That's where brain comes in handy
>>
> Yes, its a REALLY good idea to state that its okay to pacman -U
> individual [testing] packages on a public mailing list with at least
> some users who really don't know any better than to do just that.
>
This is the reason these discussions become useless, there are some
opinions that will never change. All the warnings are in place and as
I agreed with earlier "point that out to graciously" if need be. But
you never learn anything if you take the safest route all the time.
Learning is about experimentation. Without experimentation a person
becomes stagnant.

You can't tell someone you can't do that, or at least don't tell me
that or I'll bust my ass and break my neck trying to do what I've been
told not to do. I'm not sure but it may be that being born in the USA,
working in the oil field for 30+ years where the main incentive was
the line "can't get it can't stay", or maybe because I live in Texas
and am one of those obstinate know it all Texans. Better put was a
joke years ago by the comedian Red Skelton. It used to reside on a
bill board along I10 in South Texas. When asked how you can tell a
Texan, his reply was "Yep you can tell a Texan but you can't tell him
much".

The attitude about not telling some users who really don't know any
better than to do just that grates on my nerves. It might be a better
idea to put a better explanation on the wiki about what exactly might
happen to those who chose to use testing. Of course I'm one of those
who build there own packages from testing and trunk, keeps their own
repo for base and core, and uses pacman -U to install my packages. I
wouldn't have learned how to do that without making some mistakes,
doing a lot of reading, and asking a few "I really should have known
that" type questions. I wouldn't have learn how to fix my box when
it's broken.

I've now broken my own rule and made this personal on a list where
that shouldn't be done. I apologize to all those whom I didn't mean to
offend and did and for the excess noise on the list.

Myra Nelson
--
Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
 
Old 10-25-2011, 03:56 PM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default repo - minimal requirements?

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Leonid Isaev <lisaev@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
> Say I want to try package X, but instead I download pkgs X, Y and Z from
> testing. Now my scripts which rely on /proc/.../BAT0/* fail because pkg Y is a
> new kernel, /dev/cdrom is gone since pkg Z is udev. And all I wanted is to try
> out new qemu-kvm...
>
> IMHO saying that testing is for experienced people is misleading since
> "experienced" is a vague term; such statements only repell users. A useful
> guideline would be "think three times before you type and understand how
> package management works".

Cherry-picking might work, but we are not even trying to make sure it
does, so it would be by coincidence.

-t
 
Old 10-25-2011, 04:23 PM
Myra Nelson
 
Default repo - minimal requirements?

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:56, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Leonid Isaev <lisaev@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
>> Say I want to try package X, but instead I download pkgs X, Y and Z from
>> testing. Now my scripts which rely on /proc/.../BAT0/* fail because pkg Y is a
>> new kernel, /dev/cdrom is gone since pkg Z is udev. And all I wanted is to try
>> out new qemu-kvm...
>>
>> IMHO saying that testing is for experienced people is misleading since
>> "experienced" is a vague term; such statements only repell users. A useful
>> guideline would be "think three times before you type and understand how
>> package management works".
>
> Cherry-picking might work, but we are not even trying to make sure it
> does, so it would be by coincidence.
>
> -t
>
To All:

To clarify what I do, I build my base and core packages from testing
compiled to my architecture. If anything else is broken I have to find
the error and fix it, wait for the broken package to be updated, or
find an alternative that does work. The working alternative is
sometimes better than the original. By that I mean a lighter weight
app, one that forces the user to think about what they're doing, or
actually works better just doens't have all the bells and whistles.
That's my version of knowing how to use and take care of a computer.
That's one reason I like Linux. I don't think it's for everyone, but
neither do I think a blanket statement about users that don't know any
better might just hinder the learning process. I once had a manager,
who after I'd made a fairly serious and costly error to the tune of
about $60000 circa 1978, made the statement "If you never screw up
your not out there doing anything."

I agree with Tom about not cherry picking just for the sake of doing
so, but don't turn people off to using testing. IMHO it helps find
edge cases and bugs that might not be found for years. This is turning
into a rant from me about knowing how to use a computer besides
turning it on and clicking the mouse. Seems like I'm highjacking an
earnest discussion but can't seem to see the side that says don't do
that. Maybe I should put my money where my mouth is and try to write a
wiki article on the plusses and minuses of using testing and let
people critique that.

Myra


--
Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:15 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org