| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should x11-wm/ion3 be removed from the tree? |
| yes |
|
71% |
[ 66 ] |
| no |
|
28% |
[ 26 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 92 |
|
| Author |
Message |
mabi
Retired Dev
Joined: 20 Aug 2005
Posts: 10
Location: Germany
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Thanks for the bug. That's what you get when you don't assign to bug-wranglers..
Anyway, since people started asking questions and there is bug #180495 open about it:
i'm going to remove ion3 from the main tree. After 14 days without new bugs i suppose everyone will have picked up the rc and be happy with it.
Then, it's going into a yet to be named space in overlays.gentoo.org if the team agrees to give me a tiny corner in their world 
_________________
Help! Signature ran away! Reward offered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mabi
Retired Dev
Joined: 20 Aug 2005
Posts: 10
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
So, tuomov has sent me an email today and because he states that he won't be using our forums nor bugzilla, i'll repost it here for convenience:
| Tuomo Valkonen wrote: | The Ion 3bu1ld is missing the "prominent notification" for the
supportvoid xft patch. It also does not document it, and the
option does not seem "local" to me, i.e. an explicit request
for the patch for ion3 in particular, as it does not contain
"ion3" as part of the flag.
(I refuse to use your registration-required webshit bug trackers
and forums. The ebuild also is missing maintainer address and
other essential information in a clearly accessible way.) |
To which i replied:
| Matti Bickel wrote: |
Tuomo Valkonen <tuomov@iki.fi> wrote:
> The Ion 3bu1ld is missing the "prominent notification" for the
> supportvoid xft patch.
Please clarify what "prominent notification" means for you. It is
prominent in the sense that every user gets to see it if he installs
ion3. That's as prominent as it can get.
> It also does not document it, and the
> option does not seem "local" to me, i.e. an explicit request
> for the patch for ion3 in particular, as it does not contain
> "ion3" as part of the flag.
It is local in the sense that only ion3 has it. Quoting from
use.local.desc:
x11-wm/ion3:voidsupport-truetype - Enable *unsupported* and
*experimental* TrueType support
> (I refuse to use your registration-required webshit bug trackers
> and forums. The ebuild also is missing maintainer address and
> other essential information in a clearly accessible way.)
You ok with me publishing at least the results of this email exchange,
then? As i feel our users have a right to be informed about the process. |
A final letter from Tuomo:
| Tuomo Valkonen wrote: | On 2007-06-03 09:57 +0200, Matti Bickel wrote:
> Please clarify what "prominent notification" means for you.
The discussion was to display a message with elog, reminding
the user. Also, the version string (in version.h) must be changed
to mention the modification, and the "support void" status.
A number of users have already come complaining on #ion about
gentoo's bugs, BTW. (The fuglytype patch actually missing,
problems with drawing engine locations, etc.)
> It is local in the sense that only ion3 has it. Quoting from
> use.local.desc:
The user does not specifically ask it for ion3 when he just sets
"USE=voidsupport-truetype". The description doesn't clearly explain
that the patch will _void upstream support_ completely, BTW. It just
tells that the feature is experimental and unsupported. |
And reply:
| Matti Bickel wrote: | Tuomo Valkonen <tuomov@iki.fi> wrote:
> On 2007-06-03 09:57 +0200, Matti Bickel wrote:
> > Please clarify what "prominent notification" means for you.
>
> The discussion was to display a message with elog, reminding
> the user. Also, the version string (in version.h) must be changed
> to mention the modification, and the "support void" status.
Done, although i'd like to point out that the elog message asks for
users to not report upstream before confirming on a vanilla (i.e.
USE="") install.
> A number of users have already come complaining on #ion about
> gentoo's bugs, BTW. (The fuglytype patch actually missing,
> problems with drawing engine locations, etc.)
Those errors have been fixed within a day of users reporting them and
were indeed a oversight on my part.
> > It is local in the sense that only ion3 has it. Quoting from
> > use.local.desc:
>
> The user does not specifically ask it for ion3 when he just sets
> "USE=voidsupport-truetype".
If he asks it for anything else than ion3, he's daft. No package besides
ion3 declare such a USE.
> The description doesn't clearly explain
> that the patch will _void upstream support_ completely, BTW. It just
> tells that the feature is experimental and unsupported.
While the wording could have been clearer, "unsupported" does mean
"you'll get no support, if you have that enabled". |
This is only FYI, no flaming please.
Users who have updated very recently might have noticed the USE for truetype usage in ion3 changed yet again. Sorry for that, but i'm trying to match what upstream wants, so i can hand the ebuild to anyone who wants to continue with this in faith that it doesn't violate the license of the package it installs.
_________________
Help! Signature ran away! Reward offered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saibot
n00b
Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 44
Location: nerd town
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mabi wrote: |
Users who have updated very recently might have noticed the USE for truetype usage in ion3 changed yet again. Sorry for that, but i'm trying to match what upstream wants, so i can hand the ebuild to anyone who wants to continue with this in faith that it doesn't violate the license of the package it installs.
|
OK.
Anyway, thanks for the good work! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chiron
n00b
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 60
Location: Saskatoon, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mabi: Thanks for your work on maintaining an ion3 ebuild for this package, especially since it requires extra effort in the face of an apparently hostile individual. And as for worrying about support from tuomov, seeing as one of his pre-requisites is eschewing the use of all Gnome (and presumably Gtk2, as he includes Firefox in his list of complaints) software (http://modeemi.fi/~tuomov/ion/faq/broken_software.html, see Reporting Bugs point 4), I don't think too many people will qualify for support from him anyway.
_________________
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use - Soren Kierkegaard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skellr
l33t
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 975
Location: The Village, Portmeirion
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks for your effort Matti. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TiP-X
n00b
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 39
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| _pF_ wrote: | | ion3 lusers might be interested in trying wmii. |
wmii has become quite good now. It should be a good alternative. (I loved ion3, but i think it should be deleted from the tree too, time to switch to another wm) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
_pF_
Apprentice
Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 195
Location: Central London
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The latest ion3 release won't even start-up for me. The previous iteration wouldn't obey the request for the manual page. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chiron
n00b
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 60
Location: Saskatoon, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| _pF_ wrote: | | The latest ion3 release won't even start-up for me. The previous iteration wouldn't obey the request for the manual page. |
I did find after upgrading xorg that ion3 would not start. A quick recompile of ion3 fixed that. Never experienced the missing manual page one though.
_________________
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use - Soren Kierkegaard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
samurai182
n00b
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | This is only FYI, no flaming please. |
I hope people do not take my response as a flame - as a flame is usually short and devoid of value. However, I'm really sad that the gentoo "community" has chosen this path. I love ion3, and I've been using ion in general for several years now. To see people voting on this issue while simultaneously bashing ion irritates me. One of the reasons I've stayed with gentoo as long as I have has been because of the size and diversity of the portage tree. To see such an issue occur over a developer changing their license to protect their code really worries me. Sure, we are an open-source community, but that doesn't mean that we reserve the right to make decisions on code that is not ours - as implied by criticisms of the license.
Licensing issues aside, the ion community is small, but that doesn't mean we should just be dropped. I find it surprising that attitude is so prevalent among this discussion. Doesn't this contradict the ideals that open-source was created upon? To share ideas and support the development of ideas?
I've read the mailing lists, and while they may not be pleasant, a person has the right to develop and release code the way they want. As a result, a person has a right to choose whether they use the software or not. But cutting off the access (through portage) to the software is taking away that choice, and instead mandating it upon them. Since when did it become the right of the few people on this board to decide for all gentoo users if ion should be maintained on portage?
I have never been more ashamed to use gentoo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gusar
Advocate
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 2665
Location: Slovenia
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| samurai182 wrote: | | a person has the right to develop and release code the way they want. As a result, a person has a right to choose whether they use the software or not. |
A person also has a right to choose if they're going to maintain a specific package or not.
If you like ion3 so much, then convince it's author to go back to a sane license. Besides, you still have a choice of maintaining an ebuild yourself in a local overlay - no one can take that away from you.
You may see this as a flame if you wish, but it is a fact that many find the terms of the new license unacceptable and believe that the right way to fight it is to remove the ebuild from the official portage tree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
i92guboj
Bodhisattva
Joined: 30 Nov 2004
Posts: 10315
Location: Córdoba (Spain)
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| samurai182 wrote: |
Licensing issues aside, the ion community is small, but that doesn't mean we should just be dropped. I find it surprising that attitude is so prevalent among this discussion. Doesn't this contradict the ideals that open-source was created upon? To share ideas and support the development of ideas?
I've read the mailing lists, and while they may not be pleasant, a person has the right to develop and release code the way they want. As a result, a person has a right to choose whether they use the software or not. But cutting off the access (through portage) to the software is taking away that choice, and instead mandating it upon them. Since when did it become the right of the few people on this board to decide for all gentoo users if ion should be maintained on portage?
I have never been more ashamed to use gentoo. |
It is true that anyone can choose his/her licensing scheme, that is not a problem, at least, not from my point of view. The true problem is that the new licensing scheme makes the maintenance of the package way too complicated for such a small piece of software. You have the reason when you say he is on his right, but the maintainer of the ebuild also has the reason when he says he doesn't want to waste time maintaining such a thing. So, if you really care, volunteer to maintain the ebuild. Or find a maintainer between the ion3 user base.
It is not about "rights" or any other philosophical question, it is that you simply can't force anyone to maintain anything they don't agree with, and, that in turns, requires an insane amount of work for such a simple thing like ion3. If we "speak" about "rights", we have to see this other side of the things, and respect those "rights" as well. Not only the users ones.
| Gusar wrote: |
If you like ion3 so much, then convince it's author to go back to a sane license. Besides, you still have a choice of maintaining an ebuild yourself in a local overlay - no one can take that away from you.
You may see this as a flame if you wish, but it is a fact that many find the terms of the new license unacceptable and believe that the right way to fight it is to remove the ebuild from the official portage tree. |
I don't think that the new license is any more "unacceptable" than the licenses of many many more packages into portage. I say it again: to take this question to any mysticall, philosophical or heavenly land, is a waste of time, and totally besides the point. Many of those complaining about ion3 are surely using xv (shareware, more or less), nvidia/ati-drivers (closed), flash (even more closed), or even dual booting any other propietary OS. 
I would stop talking about "what is right and what is not", and start talking about if there is a maintainer or not for ion3 which is willing to deal with the new licensing system. Period. That is the only important thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jakeluck
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 84
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
just emerge-synced, it is gone 
which overlay did it go to? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark_alec
Bodhisattva
Joined: 11 Sep 2004
Posts: 6066
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bbee
n00b
Joined: 16 Jun 2007
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
After 4 years I finally made a forum account just to protest this decision.
Ion is the single best window manager out there, the author going postal and claiming (on the ion mailing list) that he regretted releasing it and that its users suck does not change that.
I agree that the author has turned into enough of an asshole that it wouldn't be fair to ask any maintainer to deal with him. And while the latest ion3 that was still in portage proably conformed to the new text of the license, I also agree that versions covered by the new license shouldn't be included in portage (an overlay maybe).
But removing older versions still covered by the GPL? Based on a forum poll fed by gut responses by non-users of the software? wtf?
I've spent 2 hours figuring out how to shoehorn layman+svn into working with mabi's overlay, and I've reinstalled the latest GPL version. There's no reason they should not be in portage.
The author said that development was pretty much done anyway, so the latest GPL release should be usable for years to come. XMMS was maintained without upstream support for how long? And it's not like ion3 is half as buggy as xmms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jakeluck
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 84
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
other similar alternatives are:
x11-wm/ratpoison
and
http://xmonad.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bbee wrote: | | But removing older versions still covered by the GPL? Based on a forum poll fed by gut responses by non-users of the software? wtf? |
Well,the author was threatening a trademark dispute with distros keeping 'forked' versions using the name. (By forked, he meant with eg xft patches.) So those couldn't be kept. The current build with voidupstreamsupport-xft (or w/e) in, is acceptable, only no-one wants to accept his license terms (ie being forced to put a new version in the tree within 28 days of release by him.) Personally I think his email to Arch was st00pid, as is his manner unfortunate, but I actually hang in#ion now even tho I don't use it, as I agree with most of his points (once you get past the bad manners ;) He made a link to latest on his site, which resolves to the correct version, so it is easy enough to automate a check. Ironic, when you consider that Gentoo devs are arguing to keep skype, a closed binary, which has imposed an even tighter deadline. :roll: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bruzzler
n00b
Joined: 08 Oct 2003
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bbee wrote: |
I've spent 2 hours figuring out how to shoehorn layman+svn into working with mabi's overlay
|
Can you tell me how you did it, I can't get that stuff to work !!
-Bernhard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shamgar03
n00b
Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 35
Location: Blacksburg, VA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:16 pm Post subject: wiki updated |
|
|
I just added a wiki article on how to get the ion3 ebuilds into an overlay:
http://gentoo-wiki.com/Ion
Its not really complete yet. Not to mention the ebuilds seem to be out of date, alot of the original repo's don't carry ion3 anymore. Since debian has just moved the old packages and source to its non free repo, maybe we can have that as the mirrror:
http://ftp.gva.es/mirror/debian/pool/non-free/i/ion3/ for example still has the old source even though the new source is no longer available on the ion website. I have never written an ebauild, so I don't think I can be the one to maintain the ion3 ebuilds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bruzzler
n00b
Joined: 08 Oct 2003
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
very nice howto, thanks for doing this.
I got one problem, I'm behind a proxy which is no problem for layman (I just specify the proxy variable) but the layman -a ion-overlay fails because svn doesn't know about my proxy. Any ideas how I can solve that?
-Bernhard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bruzzler
n00b
Joined: 08 Oct 2003
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, I fixed my proxy problems by setting the right values in the root's .subversion/server file.
Here's another problem, I can't find the ion3-rc3-20070608 archive anymore (the one on the ion3 webside is already newer).
Can anybody point me to a location?
Thanks,
-Bernhard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konsti
l33t
Joined: 10 Dec 2002
Posts: 691
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Can't the layman installation be avoided doing a single rsync xxxxx in my existing PORTDIR_OVERLAY ? This layman stuff is far too complicated for one tree... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bbee
n00b
Joined: 16 Jun 2007
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Konsti wrote: | | Can't the layman installation be avoided doing a single rsync xxxxx in my existing PORTDIR_OVERLAY ? This layman stuff is far too complicated for one tree... |
It's really not that hard, take a look at the wiki link that was posted a few days ago. mabi's overlay was changed a while back to be more friendly to layman so you don't have to mess about with subversion directly anymore.
This whole business is very unfortunate, especially since nothing out there even comes close to ion's usability for people doing acual work (the beryl/compiz eyecandy crapware being the opposite end of the scale). It's just begging for a fork; I might have done it myself if I didn't find X so daunting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konsti
l33t
Joined: 10 Dec 2002
Posts: 691
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I have the layman stuff running now and ion3 is back on my desktop again, what a relief. I would have preferred the direct svn way to get the ion3 overlay but... Tjis way it is okay also |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Corona688
Veteran
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 1204
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The documentation is about as friendly as timecube(you are educated stupid into using standard window managers!), and now the license is similarly obnoxious. So long, ion3. I for one won't miss a package that insults its users.
_________________
Petition for Better 64-bit ATI Drivers - Sign Here
http://www.petitiononline.com/atipet/petition.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Gentoo Chat
