On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 02:41:44PM -0400, Manolo Martínez wrote:
> On 07/20/12 at 03:27pm, Norbert Zeh wrote:
> > I
> > think the reason why you are having a much more serious issue is that it seems
> > you haven't updated your system in a long time. So now you're running into
> > dealing with two slightly tricky upgrades (filesystem + glibc) at the same time.
>
> I've had no problems with filesystem, /lib -> /usr/lib or, today, grub
> -> grub2. I have at best a tenuous grasp of the issues involved in these
> three changes, so I can only consider myself very lucky that I'm not in the
> quandary others seem to be.
>
> I know, though, of enthusiastic archers who have resented the
> problems that have resulted from some of these changes, and feel less
> enthusiastic about archlinux now. I guess there is an inherent tension
> between the rolling-distro concept and KISS: if you want an up-to-date
> system you are bound to change things that work (which is hardly KISS).
>
> I was wondering if the following could be useful to minimize the impact
> of these, more trepidant pacman -Syu's: archlinux could publish a
> roadmap of user-intervention upgrades well in advance: we will do this
> in Q1, that in Q2, and that other thing in Q3. This way users could, for
> example, plan their upgrades so as not to have to deal with two such
> problematic migrations at the same time.
>
> It would also be nice to know a bit more of the rationale behind the
> moves. I'm sure that they are all for the best, and I trust arch
> decision-makers (and one can find out more about the changes by reading
> blogs and forum discussions), but still it'd be good to have a small FAQ posted to
> arch-general before each of the biggish moves.
>
> Manolo
All of those changes were discussed by the devs on arch-dev-public
There are also discussions there about what will happen and when stuff
breaks like the pacman bug when usr lib was in testing, most of that
happens that
07-20-2012, 07:15 PM
Manolo Martínez
On 07/20/12 at 02:56pm, Daniel Wallace wrote:
> All of those changes were discussed by the devs on arch-dev-public
>
> filesystem ->
> http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2012-June/023014.html
>
> grub ->
> http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2012-June/023147.html
>
> /lib -> usr/lib ->
> http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2012-March/022625.html
>
> There are also discussions there about what will happen and when stuff
> breaks like the pacman bug when usr lib was in testing, most of that
> happens that
I, for one, thought that running archlinux responsibly only committed me
to subscribing to and reading arch-announce and -general. If I need to
read -dev-public too I will, but it'd be good to be explicit about this.
In my previous e-mail I also raised the point of having a roadmap for upgrades
that require user intervention. I'd like to know if that'd be
feasible; I think it would be useful.
Manolo
--
07-20-2012, 07:31 PM
Florian Pritz
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:15:47 -0400 Manolo Martínez <manolo@austrohungaro.com> wrote:
> On 07/20/12 at 02:56pm, Daniel Wallace wrote:
> > All of those changes were discussed by the devs on arch-dev-public
>
> I, for one, thought that running archlinux responsibly only committed me
> to subscribing to and reading arch-announce and -general. If I need to
> read -dev-public too I will, but it'd be good to be explicit about this.
You don't have to read arch-dev-public if you just want to use Arch, but
your original question was about the reasoning behind the move and that
information is available in the mailing list archives.
>
> In my previous e-mail I also raised the point of having a roadmap for upgrades
> that require user intervention. I'd like to know if that'd be
> feasible; I think it would be useful.
Likely not going to happen.
Just update every few weeks rather than months and you'll have the same
problems as everyone else (which will be described in the news posts)
rather than more than one at a time, but even that isn't really that
hard to resolve (see Allan's blog post[1] about upgrading from the
super old core ISO)
On 07/20/12 at 09:31pm, Florian Pritz wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:15:47 -0400 Manolo Martínez <manolo@austrohungaro.com> wrote:
> > On 07/20/12 at 02:56pm, Daniel Wallace wrote:
> > > All of those changes were discussed by the devs on arch-dev-public
> >
> > I, for one, thought that running archlinux responsibly only committed me
> > to subscribing to and reading arch-announce and -general. If I need to
> > read -dev-public too I will, but it'd be good to be explicit about this.
>
> You don't have to read arch-dev-public if you just want to use Arch, but
> your original question was about the reasoning behind the move and that
> information is available in the mailing list archives.
No, apparently you do need to know why and how these things are done even if you just
want to use Arch and don't plan to develop for it. That's a lesson I learnt around here anyway.
Manolo
07-20-2012, 07:44 PM
Daenyth
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Manolo Martínez
<manolo@austrohungaro.com> wrote:
> On 07/20/12 at 09:31pm, Florian Pritz wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:15:47 -0400 Manolo Martínez <manolo@austrohungaro.com> wrote:
>> > On 07/20/12 at 02:56pm, Daniel Wallace wrote:
>> > > All of those changes were discussed by the devs on arch-dev-public
>> >
>> > I, for one, thought that running archlinux responsibly only committed me
>> > to subscribing to and reading arch-announce and -general. If I need to
>> > read -dev-public too I will, but it'd be good to be explicit about this.
>>
>> You don't have to read arch-dev-public if you just want to use Arch, but
>> your original question was about the reasoning behind the move and that
>> information is available in the mailing list archives.
>
> No, apparently you do need to know why and how these things are done even if you just
> want to use Arch and don't plan to develop for it. That's a lesson I learnt around here anyway.
>
> Manolo
Just to chime in here, I hadn't updated my system in about 6 months
and was able to get past the /lib bump without reading the ML threads
just fine. The news article linking to the wiki page was plenty.
07-20-2012, 08:45 PM
Tom Gundersen
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Manolo Martínez
<manolo@austrohungaro.com> wrote:
> On 07/20/12 at 09:31pm, Florian Pritz wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:15:47 -0400 Manolo Martínez <manolo@austrohungaro.com> wrote:
>> > On 07/20/12 at 02:56pm, Daniel Wallace wrote:
>> > > All of those changes were discussed by the devs on arch-dev-public
>> >
>> > I, for one, thought that running archlinux responsibly only committed me
>> > to subscribing to and reading arch-announce and -general. If I need to
>> > read -dev-public too I will, but it'd be good to be explicit about this.
>>
>> You don't have to read arch-dev-public if you just want to use Arch, but
>> your original question was about the reasoning behind the move and that
>> information is available in the mailing list archives.
>
> No, apparently you do need to know why and how these things are done even if you just
> want to use Arch and don't plan to develop for it. That's a lesson I learnt around here anyway.
The aim is that reading the news items should be enough to deal with
any update. If you want notifications in advance of future plans or if
you want to understand the reasoning behind certain changes, then
following arch-dev-public should be enough. arch-general is typically
for user discussions, and not so much for development discussions.
-t
07-20-2012, 09:33 PM
Celejar
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:26:37 +1200
Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 03:20:03PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:08:58 +0300
> > Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jo, 19 iul 12, 01:17:49, Doug wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for the bandwidth, but I think the Linux user--I'm certainly
> > > > one of them--needs to realize what real specialized software is, and
> > > > what it costs to develop, and why it's not free.
> > >
> > > Please don't confuse free (beer) with free(dom). Also, I don't have a
> >
> > It's not that simple. If I realize my software as FLOSS, even if I
> > charge money for it, how many copies can I realistically hope to sell
> > if any and all my customers are perfectly free to distribute it gratis?
>
> There are plenty of Debian consultants making money. Just because the
> source code is available, doesn't mean you have to spoon feed the user
> for free.
Again, I'm certainly not denying the many possibilities of making money
with FLOSS. I'm just arguing that a) it's kind of pedantic to insist on
the distinction between free as in beer and free as in speech, since
any software that's FLOSS might just as well be free as in beer
(although certainly not the other way around), too (although money can
still be made off it in other ways) and b) if the developers of some
software spend hundreds of thousands or millions on its development,
it's pretty glib for us to breezily tell them "don't charge for it -
just make back your investment by selling consulting services", and so
on.
--
Celejar <celejar@gmail.com>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120720173325.348bb8cfbc4973bc6f163f0e@gmail.com" >http://lists.debian.org/20120720173325.348bb8cfbc4973bc6f163f0e@gmail.com
07-20-2012, 11:13 PM
Manolo Martínez
On 07/20/12 at 10:45pm, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Manolo Martínez
> <manolo@austrohungaro.com> wrote:
> > On 07/20/12 at 09:31pm, Florian Pritz wrote:
> >> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:15:47 -0400 Manolo Martínez <manolo@austrohungaro.com> wrote:
> >> > On 07/20/12 at 02:56pm, Daniel Wallace wrote:
> >> > > All of those changes were discussed by the devs on arch-dev-public
> >> >
> >> > I, for one, thought that running archlinux responsibly only committed me
> >> > to subscribing to and reading arch-announce and -general. If I need to
> >> > read -dev-public too I will, but it'd be good to be explicit about this.
> >>
> >> You don't have to read arch-dev-public if you just want to use Arch, but
> >> your original question was about the reasoning behind the move and that
> >> information is available in the mailing list archives.
> >
> > No, apparently you do need to know why and how these things are done even if you just
> > want to use Arch and don't plan to develop for it. That's a lesson I learnt around here anyway.
>
> The aim is that reading the news items should be enough to deal with
> any update. If you want notifications in advance of future plans or if
> you want to understand the reasoning behind certain changes, then
> following arch-dev-public should be enough. arch-general is typically
> for user discussions, and not so much for development discussions.
>
OK. I'll subscribe to arch-dev-public, then. I think it would be good if
the "mailing lists" page at archlinux.org explained what one is to
expect from each mailing list, and maybe recommend which mailing lists
to follow, like you just did.
Thanks,
Manolo
07-21-2012, 12:33 AM
Guus Snijders
Op 21 jul. 2012 01:13 schreef "Manolo Martínez" <manolo@austrohungaro.com>
het volgende:
>
>
> OK. I'll subscribe to arch-dev-public, then. I think it would be good if
> the "mailing lists" page at archlinux.org explained what one is to
> expect from each mailing list, and maybe recommend which mailing lists
> to follow, like you just did.
I usually just check the online archives for that list every now and then.
Mainly when there are 'special' updates, sometimes just curiousity.
Mvg, Guus
07-21-2012, 08:07 AM
Arch Website Notification
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 2 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 0 fully signed off packages
* 4 packages missing signoffs
* 0 packages older than 14 days
(Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by
pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one
package per architecture, even if it is a split package.)
== New packages in [community-testing] in last 24 hours (2 total) ==
