Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Discuss: Unsupported Software
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ateo
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 2019
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:05 pm    Post subject: Discuss: Unsupported Software Reply with quote

Why would Gentoo put unsupported software into official Portage?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
didymos
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 4798
Location: California

PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Such as?
_________________
Thomas S. Howard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 31982
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ateo,

There are lots of things that start out as 'Unsupported Software' but if a dev takes interest and adds ebuilds to the offcial portage tree, that software becomes supported.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ateo
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 2019
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

didymos wrote:
Such as?


many of the kernels found in the tree.. For specific example, suspend2-sources...

Now, I am not bitching in anyway, but why would suspend2-sources be in the tree if I can't even submit a bug report when a package fails to compile due to the kernel patch-set....

NeddySeagoon wrote:
There are lots of things that start out as 'Unsupported Software' but if a dev takes interest and adds ebuilds to the offcial portage tree, that software becomes supported.


I am quite sure this is how a package gets into portage. However, I suppose my point is that I've been using suspend2-sources for over a year, never had ANY issues with it (that required a bug submission). Then, the other day, a package wouldn't compile during an upgrade, I submitted a bug report and was told that my kernel is unsupported. Granted, one of the devs was willing to help but the point is, suspend2 is unsupported, has been in portage for a long time so it should have some level of support. Otherwise, just remove it and let users use overlay if they really want a package...

But completely unsupported packages, especially those that will most likely never receive support such as the handful of kernel patchsets, should not be in the official portage tree.

For the record, I completely understand and agree why gentoo wouldn't support a 3rd party patchset.

Bottom line is I understood Portage Overlay to be the place to put ebuilds for unsupported packages. I guess I was wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Enverex
Guru
Guru


Joined: 02 Jul 2003
Posts: 501
Location: Worcester, UK

PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, as said above, when someone puts it into Portage, it becomes supported software, that's pretty much the defining point (which is why XMMS was being phased out, no-one to maintain it so it's kinda unsupported software now but it can't just be yanked out due to the amount of people using it, so it just gets masked).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ateo
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 2019
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Enverex wrote:
Yeah, as said above, when someone puts it into Portage, it becomes supported software, that's pretty much the defining point (which is why XMMS was being phased out, no-one to maintain it so it's kinda unsupported software now but it can't just be yanked out due to the amount of people using it, so it just gets masked).


Phasing out old, dated software is one thing. Who wants to maintain that? I wouldn't when something different, newer and/or better exists.

What about ebuilds that have active, up to date change logs and are only soft masked (~x86 in my case)? Rather silly to have it in Portage, actively maintained and all but to fall back on 'it's not our software, we don't support it'. If that's the case, yank it out of Portage as then there is no doubt that it is unsupported software.

Think about lost productivity due to dealing with bug reports for unsupported software. I think it's retarded to waste time like this... I would never report a bug for something I drop into my overlay. That's why Gentoo has overlay; for unsupported ebuilds. It shouldn't matter that a Gentoo developer made an ebuild, but it shouldn't be in Portage unless that developer, at the very least, is willing to support it. An ebuild should never make it into Portage unless there is 100% support for it, even if it means bugging upstream developers about it.

Just my 2cents.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
darker
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 221

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Enverex wrote:
Yeah, as said above, when someone puts it into Portage, it becomes supported software, that's pretty much the defining point (which is why XMMS was being phased out, no-one to maintain it so it's kinda unsupported software now but it can't just be yanked out due to the amount of people using it, so it just gets masked).

That rule doesn't seem to apply to Paludis.
_________________
"I saw the code for your computer program yesterday. It looked easy. Its just a bunch of typing. And half of the words were spelt wrong. And dont get me started on your over-use of colons."
- The Pointy Haired Boss sees some actual code
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gentoo_lan
l33t
l33t


Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 889
Location: Denver, CO

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

darker wrote:
Enverex wrote:
Yeah, as said above, when someone puts it into Portage, it becomes supported software, that's pretty much the defining point (which is why XMMS was being phased out, no-one to maintain it so it's kinda unsupported software now but it can't just be yanked out due to the amount of people using it, so it just gets masked).

That rule doesn't seem to apply to Paludis.


I don't use Paludis but I agree if it is in Portage it should be supported by the devs. If there is no support for the package it should be removed from the tree.
_________________
Registered Linux user# 375038.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spb
Retired Dev
Retired Dev


Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 2135
Location: Cambridge, UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gentoo_lan wrote:
I don't use Paludis but I agree if it is in Portage it should be supported by the devs. If there is no support for the package it should be removed from the tree.
It's supported in the same way that any other software in the tree is supported.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
darker
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 221

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

spb wrote:
gentoo_lan wrote:
I don't use Paludis but I agree if it is in Portage it should be supported by the devs. If there is no support for the package it should be removed from the tree.
It's supported in the same way that any other software in the tree is supported.

Then why was its support thread moved to Unsupported Software? Maybe I'm missing something here...
_________________
"I saw the code for your computer program yesterday. It looked easy. Its just a bunch of typing. And half of the words were spelt wrong. And dont get me started on your over-use of colons."
- The Pointy Haired Boss sees some actual code
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ateo
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 2019
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

spb wrote:
It's supported in the same way that any other software in the tree is supported.


http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-kernel.xml#doc_chap3

Code:
shadow sys-kernel # ls /usr/portage/sys-kernel/
cell-sources      hppa-sources     mips-headers        openvz-sources    usermode-sources
ck-sources        ksymoops         mips-sources        rsbac-sources     vanilla-sources
genkernel         kurobox-sources  mm-sources          sh-sources        vserver-sources
gentoo-sources    linux-docs       module-rebuild      sparc-sources     xbox-sources
git-sources       linux-headers    openblocks-sources  suspend2-sources  xen-sources
hardened-sources  metadata.xml     openmosix-sources   systrace-sources


So, ck, mm, suspend2 are all in the tree but not supported? how is this the same support as any other package?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2493
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ateo wrote:
NeddySeagoon wrote:
There are lots of things that start out as 'Unsupported Software' but if a dev takes interest and adds ebuilds to the offcial portage tree, that software becomes supported.


I am quite sure this is how a package gets into portage. However, I suppose my point is that I've been using suspend2-sources for over a year, never had ANY issues with it (that required a bug submission). Then, the other day, a package wouldn't compile during an upgrade, I submitted a bug report and was told that my kernel is unsupported. Granted, one of the devs was willing to help but the point is, suspend2 is unsupported, has been in portage for a long time so it should have some level of support. Otherwise, just remove it and let users use overlay if they really want a package...

But completely unsupported packages, especially those that will most likely never receive support such as the handful of kernel patchsets, should not be in the official portage tree.
I totally agree. Even just yanking stuff (as far as the users are concerned) isn't on. Maybe there should be a button on bugzilla so that if you get the response `x unsupported' you can put in a request for it to be removed from the tree via treecleaners.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Conan
Guru
Guru


Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 360

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The reason these kernels are in portage is a large subset of users ask for them.

They are not official kernels, and therefore are not supported by the kernel team officially, but usually someone will be willing to help with them (as you saw).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ateo
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 2019
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Conan wrote:
The reason these kernels are in portage is a large subset of users ask for them.


Then they should be supported. Period.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Conan
Guru
Guru


Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 360

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Then do it. period.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ateo
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 2019
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Conan wrote:
Then do it. period.


I'm not a developer to support anything, if that's what you're suggesting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Conan
Guru
Guru


Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 360

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You seem to be missing the point.

1) Users want to use a set of patches on the kernel
2) lots of users want to use this patchset
3) lots of bugs get filed by lots of users about wanting these patchsets
4) The kernel team decides to add these patchsets, specifically noting that they are "added as a courtesy". They never claim to support them.
5) Because they are in the tree users feel they should be supported
6) users are told they are not supported
7) Users complain because they cannot read that they are not supported, and feel it is their right to have the developers support them because they cannot do it themselves.
8) ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ateo
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 2019
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Conan wrote:
You seem to be missing the point.

1) Users want to use a set of patches on the kernel
2) lots of users want to use this patchset
3) lots of bugs get filed by lots of users about wanting these patchsets
4) The kernel team decides to add these patchsets, specifically noting that they are "added as a courtesy". They never claim to support them.
5) Because they are in the tree users feel they should be supported
6) users are told they are not supported
7) Users complain because they cannot read that they are not supported, and feel it is their right to have the developers support them because they cannot do it themselves.
8) ...


Nah. You miss the point. It's called overlay, for unsupported software. Perhaps you've heard of it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Conan
Guru
Guru


Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 360

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

overlays are relativly new. They are kind of messy with reguards to stacking order, and have horrible discoverability. Having the kernels in the portage tree is a way to make them accessabile.

By the way you may find it more useful to get to the point in your first post instead of taking seven posts to get to your actual point. If your question had started out as "Why are the unsupported kernels not in an overlay" I'm sure you would have had a much more precise answer a while ago.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 31982
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Conan,

Support in gentoo means different things to different people.
For all ebuilds in the tree, the ebuilds themselves are supported. That is, if you find a bug in the ebuild, its likely to be fixed. It does not mean that gentoo provides support to the software all the ebuilds install. Very often, such bugs are passed to the project providing the software, called simply upstream.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ateo
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 2019
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Conan wrote:
overlays are relativly new. They are kind of messy with reguards to stacking order, and have horrible discoverability. Having the kernels in the portage tree is a way to make them accessabile.


Relatively new? Please dude. I've been using Gentoo for well over 3 years now. Does that make me an expert? Certainly not. However, Gentoo, by it's very nature (especially when I started using it) REQUIRED users to read the manuals so I have read. Portage overlay has been there since I've been using this OS. And, it was certainly there, in make.conf, when I was considering Gentoo several months before I even installed it.

Is it my problem that Overlay doesn't work perfectly? No. Not at all (I, personally, use Overlay for some things and have never had an issue, including some kernel patch sets such as nitro). So, just because it doesn't work well is not justification for putting an ebuild for unsupported software into the official tree so that 'certain users' can use it.

Honestly, I have no fucking clue what you mean with your above claim. I honestly don't think you do either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
i92guboj
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2004
Posts: 9844
Location: Córdoba (Spain)

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ateo wrote:

Honestly, I have no fucking clue what you mean with your above claim. I honestly don't think you do either.


I don't know either, the only valid point was the NeddySeagoon's one:

NeddySeagoon wrote:
Conan,
Support in gentoo means different things to different people.
For all ebuilds in the tree, the ebuilds themselves are supported. That is, if you find a bug in the ebuild, its likely to be fixed. It does not mean that gentoo provides support to the software all the ebuilds install. Very often, such bugs are passed to the project providing the software, called simply upstream.


Still it is true that there is a serious inconsistency here.

For example, if I post somewhere in the Desktop Environment section about gtk segfaults, gimp errors or general questions not related to the ebuild, but to things that are part of the app itself (upstream) I will certainly always receive support. In most cases the bug/problem/doubt is reproducible in any other distro the same, since it is not a question about an specific gentoo pacth or an ebuild problem.

In the contraty, if the package is into sys-kernel/* (except for the so-claimed supported cases) I will get an instant free trip to the Unsupported section of the forums. It was just an example, it's not my case really since I stick to vanilla kernels unless I need support for some essoteric device (in which case I just patch the critter myself).

I think that this inconsistency in the behaviour is what drives mad too much users. And to a certain degree I agree :P that really unsupported stuff should be out of portage.

Otherwise, if the support is just for the ebuild, and not the software, all the forums would be empty, but the portage one.

Maybe to create a section called "Alternative kernel patchsets" in these forums would help as well.

Said that, I don't mind at all. As always, I have the power to do what I want in gentoo, and that is all that I need.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ateo
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 2019
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

6thpink wrote:
Said that, I don't mind at all. As always, I have the power to do what I want in gentoo, and that is all that I need.


You make a very good point here. But remember, just because we use Gentoo doesn't mean we are all experienced in specific tasks. Ej:. You can patch your own kernel. That's great. I can't say I can because I have never, in the MANY years of using Linux in general, had the need to learn. Especially now, with Gentoo, making it simple to acquire patched kernels that do what I need it to do.

Don't get me wrong.. If I needed to patch my own kernel, I would attempt, at the very least.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Conan
Guru
Guru


Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 360

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ateo wrote:
Conan wrote:
overlays are relativly new. They are kind of messy with reguards to stacking order, and have horrible discoverability. Having the kernels in the portage tree is a way to make them accessabile.


Relatively new? Please dude. I've been using Gentoo for well over 3 years now. Does that make me an expert? Certainly not. However, Gentoo, by it's very nature (especially when I started using it) REQUIRED users to read the manuals so I have read. Portage overlay has been there since I've been using this OS. And, it was certainly there, in make.conf, when I was considering Gentoo several months before I even installed it.

Is it my problem that Overlay doesn't work perfectly? No. Not at all (I, personally, use Overlay for some things and have never had an issue, including some kernel patch sets such as nitro). So, just because it doesn't work well is not justification for putting an ebuild for unsupported software into the official tree so that 'certain users' can use it.

Honestly, I have no fucking clue what you mean with your above claim. I honestly don't think you do either.


Okay, let me spell it out for you.

overlays.gentoo.org is new
layman is new

Before these things overlays would have to be hosted off gentoo infrastructure and hope that people would know which document to read in order to add it. In order to stop bugs from being filed regularly with requests for packages (mm-sources, suspend2-source, ck-sources, ricer1-sources, ricer2-sources, ricer3-sources) these packages were added to portage. The kernel project made a large note about them being added only for convience. You seem to feel that this is not enough. You're experiences do not cover everyones either.

As it is you have not really said what your problem is with it, you seem to just be fishing around looking for something to complain about. Feel like enlighting those of us who cannot read minds?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ateo
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 2019
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Conan wrote:
You seem to just be fishing around looking for something to complain about. Feel like enlighting those of us who cannot read minds?


Dude. Read the thread.

If you think I'm just here to complain about something, please don't participate in this thread.

FYI, this has nothing, zero, zilch to do with this said overlays.gentoo.org. And you are still missing the point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum