On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 23:30:07 +0800
Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > So you think Gentoo should advertise as "the chances of it working
> > are greater than 0%"?
>
> I said better ... not repetitive trolls.
>
> If you cared about making things better you'd spend more time writing
> patches and less time trying to pick fights on public mailinglists
>
> But I guess small minds, small pleasures ...

What Gentoo needs is less immediate writing of patches and more careful
thinking about how a complex mess of sort-of working, poorly
interacting features can be unified into a smaller number of correct,
coherent concepts. Right now most of the patches are fixing screwups in
earlier patches that were caused by implementing the wrong thing (and
often introducing new problems along the way).

The fact that you have code that does something does not automatically
imply that doing it is a good idea.

--
Ciaran McCreesh

On Mar 31, 2012 5:57 PM, "Ciaran McCreesh" <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

>

> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 15:08:29 +0300

> Alex Alexander <alex.alexander@gmail.com> wrote:

> > No. I didn't say I think it works, I said I have proof it works.

>

> Well that's interesting, because there are plenty of examples where it

> doesn't work, and all that it takes to disprove a theory is a single

> counterexample. So I think you're misunderstanding what constitutes

> proof here -- "some evidence" certainly isn't it.

>

> --

> Ciaran McCreesh


Boring. You conveniently ignored the other part of my message.


I'll repeat it: no matter how much you argue, it'll still work fine for me.


That said, I think we can end this conversation now


Gentoo o/


Alex | wired

On 03/31/12 23:38, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 23:30:07 +0800
> Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> So you think Gentoo should advertise as "the chances of it working
>>> are greater than 0%"?
>>
>> I said better ... not repetitive trolls.
>>
>> If you cared about making things better you'd spend more time writing
>> patches and less time trying to pick fights on public mailinglists
>>
>> But I guess small minds, small pleasures ...
>
> What Gentoo needs is less immediate writing of patches and more careful
> thinking about how a complex mess of sort-of working, poorly
> interacting features can be unified into a smaller number of correct,
> coherent concepts. Right now most of the patches are fixing screwups in
> earlier patches that were caused by implementing the wrong thing (and
> often introducing new problems along the way).
>
> The fact that you have code that does something does not automatically
> imply that doing it is a good idea.
>

... and now we train not sending private messages to public mailing
lists again, mmmhkay? After so many years you still accidentally do such
things on purpose. Not cool.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:39:21 +0300
Alex Alexander <alex.alexander@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2012 5:57 PM, "Ciaran McCreesh"
> <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 15:08:29 +0300
> > Alex Alexander <alex.alexander@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > No. I didn't say I think it works, I said I have proof it works.
> >
> > Well that's interesting, because there are plenty of examples where
> > it doesn't work, and all that it takes to disprove a theory is a
> > single counterexample. So I think you're misunderstanding what
> > constitutes proof here -- "some evidence" certainly isn't it.
>
> Boring. You conveniently ignored the other part of my message.

I was hoping you'd understand how your claim of proof was utterly
unfounded. What you have is limited evidence of a very specific
situation, which is a whole other thing.

> I'll repeat it: no matter how much you argue, it'll still work fine
> for me.

And I'll spell it out. On the scale of "it works", you have a series of
levels:

1. It compiles.

2. I tried it and I didn't see any breakages.

3. I tried it, and I checked carefully that nothing was broken.

4. I tried it on a wide range of valid inputs, and I checked carefully
that nothing was broken.

5. I tried it on a wide range of valid inputs, including inputs designed
to test edge cases, and I checked carefully that nothing was broken.

6. I tried it on a wide range of valid and invalid inputs, and I
checked carefully that nothing was broken, and that the invalid inputs
were handled correctly.

7. I carefully considered all the equivalence classes of inputs, and
tested each.

8. I carefully considered all the equivalence classes of inputs, and
can explain why each is handled correctly.

9. I can prove that it works.

You're offering evidence of number 2, or possibly 3. Gentoo is a large
system containing many interacting components, that is expected to keep
working for long periods in many different unpleasant situations. We
need to be at at least number 7 here, and ideally number 8. For preserve
libs, the feature fails at number 4.

--
Ciaran McCreesh

On 03/30/2012 03:00 PM, Axel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to wish you all a happy birthday, 10 years already since
> first release (Gentoo 1.0)! Here is a little thing [1] we made to
> celebrate it. Recipe: two layers of Génoise (for each: 6 eggs, 180g
> sucre, 180g farine, vanilla sugar), between layers and on top: full
> cream with beaten eggs and caramel. Add between the middle layers on
> top of the cream: raspberry. ENJOY
>
> [1]: http://imgur.com/iMjLi
>

Nice cake!

FYI it seems some people count the age of Gentoo differently:
http://www.gentoo.org/news/20090722-anniversary.xml

Best,



Sebastian

On 30 March 2012 14:25, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Back to year 2009?
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/news/20091004-gentoo-10-years.xml

That never stopped anyone before....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_X-2

On 03/31/2012 04:49 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh posted on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:52:53 +0100 as excerpted:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:44:03 +0300 Alex Alexander
>> <alex.alexander@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> @preserved-libs works very well and is awesome. hack or not. IMO it
>>> should be in stable already. I've been using it on stable production
>>> boxes for years without any issues
>>
>> ...and here we see the problem. You think that "I haven't noticed it
>> break" means "it works".
>
> Funny how familiar that argument looks... aka...
>
> A separate /usr is already broken, you just don't know it yet.

For separate /usr, there's a relatively simple solution, which is to
mount /usr with an initramfs. For preserve-libs, there is no such a
simple solution. Much like separate-/usr-without-initramfs,
preserve-libs does not work correctly unless lots of different pieces of
software behave cooperatively.
--
Thanks,
Zac

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 15:59:00 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > I wouldn't care if it weren't the fact your gentoo dev posts
> > generally consist of "xyz is stupid, as is the people behind it"
> > whether it be portage, udev, council, etc, take your pick.
>
> No, what I actually say is *why* things don't work, and if it hasn't
> already been explained, I say how to fix it.

No, that's what you see from the inside. We, outside your head, the
others, see it precisely as Brian worded it. Some people apparently
tolerate or even appreciate your general (online) attitude towards
humans, but most do not.


jer

It would figure that some in the Linux community would consider a sub 1.0 release as the birthday of a project . Start flame mail here:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 03/31/2012 10:52 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:44:03 +0300 Alex Alexander
> <alex.alexander@gmail.com> wrote:
>> @preserved-libs works very well and is awesome. hack or not. IMO
>> it should be in stable already. I've been using it on stable
>> production boxes for years without any issues
>
> ...and here we see the problem. You think that "I haven't noticed
> it break" means "it works".
>
> The problem with preserved-libs (and emerge --jobs, for that
> matter) is that the design is "I can think of a few ways where it
> might break, so I'll hard-code in special cases to handle those,
> but in general I can't think of what other problems there are so
> it's fine". That's a bad way of doing things.
>
You are right, it does not work as good as it should but it's still
better than nothing In any case, I am glad portage developers did
not backport this feature to 2.1.X portage releases as it is quite
fragile at the moment.

- --
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPd3USAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCeI0P/2YheKfgLeAYwU/0A9RRW/UK
IXquEnUzYbYO8Y9YW8SH6V2+P3LZxye/HMJIEgv4Fy835cToVE7bUcxlizssdz5g
KllHYGBitTsd3akThmO58G2gr8BqgO7u0CkArfy8N8ulLPUigr pkdoFxSOdhTlFz
Qf2+VLhjGxN3iumAZYSG6Af+88W5P+HjhHiTCRU75M4PnL62/wCZHEBtbY7YUImS
0zsJo8fvYkCu0mqZQyguCfX5gi3elr2PQ/wSI72N2GhGsOHEw4KR3D/gDXmwFJw6
W/ymuWrmxUJtSjhFjwVxo5ZqYqiu35CSNlOA4nth6iiMNoNRsvDp IG3HploCzsBB
Gf8EA3DYfIaSkihzm/uKFbaJ/kt3n6cm8Jv8dE5MGt4f263pgV3VbRY0gXMTesRF
A+XotL46OmnR9oH35BfbtW59yz8oYaJLrhDJpa/8t0DSXGAOqWATdKsBr0klaIyz
SOTASwZkAeVAeLZBGomVfSFlqb2yA2O+mQoRwG9aLhzEJkb0Qu w/EnxF3PDiOgvH
9R2OfaczNO2DfZoa/P9bNzyzUfCQNyXh45sJztBzR2aMtvwDvSQfL5ro0L7BW/M6
O3XESHxy3xypSeAn9ZTfGnVp0taTmAW/xEo8NOqpH/jail1JZ2ywDqEGuA6q4qZ7
RLvexdxVoOd7NjoGIHhw
=XsdD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----