Masking Gnome 3

Message

Anon-E-moose · Post by **Anon-E-moose** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:53 pm

Edit: whatever

TomWij · Post by **TomWij** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:37 pm

This sticky is past its time; the masking is bad advice, the last replies move away from the subject, MATE will be added to the Portage tree, GNOME 2 will be removed, ...

SamuliSuominen · Post by **SamuliSuominen** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:39 pm

TomWij wrote:This sticky is past its time; the masking is bad advice, the last messages move away from the subject, MATE will be added to the Portage tree, GNOME 2 will be removed, ...

+1

steveL · Post by **steveL** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:00 pm

ssuominen wrote:You don't seem to understand how SLOTs work. Say, if package gnome-base/random-2.0 was SLOT="2.0" and this gnome-base/random-2.0 installed binary 'random', and gnome-base/random-3.0 was released and it still installed binary called 'random', then the SLOT shouldn't be changed, or otherwise you'd be hitting file collision.

Re-iterating what a SLOT conflict is, does not answer the point "SLOT conflicts are no excuse."

So, if you had a libfoo-1.0 which came with a utility, then that was ABI-bumped to libfoo-2.0 with the same utility, you would decide that they must therefore use the same SLOT?

The "2.0" is meaningless random number, it has no meaning, it's the same thing as "0" or "whatever". What's important is that it stays the same if there isn't anything that can be co-installed/parallel-installed for Portage to upgrade normally without anykind of blockers.
KDE is/was different, as KDE3 and KDE4 could entirely be parallel installed. Much better comparison would be MATE vs. GNOME3, with MATE renaming binaries and co. allowing the parallel installation.

Nonsense. SLOTs of the same package are allowed to conflict: it's much less contentious than inappropriately jamming not just two different ABIs, but two completely different packages into the same SLOT. That's just amateur, and your incoherent reasoning about how file collisions must mean the same SLOT, makes it even worse. You don't appear to understand software versioning, which I know is not the case, so all I am left with is a conclusion of deliberate nonsense, not at all technically-motivated, since it has no technical basis. It's pure bulshytt afaic.

steveL wrote:As for you presenting eudev as an option.. LMAO. You were the one bad-mouthing its developers instead of helping them.
I don't want to bad mouth anyone, but you are wrong, again. It was the otherway around, people refused to help with sys-fs/udev and insisted in creating an entire fork.

Oh yes it was all their fault for insisting on a fork. FFS once they'd decided to fork, you could have advised them and perhaps shown them how little they really needed to do, thus proving your point. Instead you bad-mouthed them, both on the forums and on the mailing-list iirc. Try to rewrite history all you like, we all remember it, most especially because it was so jarring, and so against all the fine words you parrot from the Gentoo philosophy.

I'm known for being blunt when speaking the truth.

AFAIC you're blunt when talking nonsense too.

I'm still open to helping anyone intrested in changing status-quo by contributing.

As pointed out it's a bit difficult when a) you poison the tree deliberately, b) you bad-mouth anyone who takes up your challenge to "fork it if you don't like it", and c) you are obnoxious when talking nonsense. I'm flabbergasted at your behaviour, most especially the arrogance to think you are any kind of recruiting exemplar. You have a lot of growing-up to do first, IMNSHO, especially given the long-period during which you have continued to discuss in such a manner, on the list as well as the forums. But hey that's just my opinion.

Go ahead and explain what "porting the rule_generator" means and why you're so desperate to do it given that you think it's a bad idea, afaict from earlier ramblings of yours. It's really not hard to get help: you just have to ask for it without behaving like you think you're some sort of alpha-dog, amusing as that is.

eccerr0r · Post by **eccerr0r** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:09 pm

Requesting thread unsticky/lock...

Post by **asturm** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:23 pm

steveL, none of this is relevant to this thread...

TomWij · Post by **TomWij** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:33 pm

SLOTs are indeed quite a freedom, in theory it is thus possible to accomplish this. But given there are file conflicts, this will require files to moved as well as code to be patched (as to refer to the moved files) in order for there to be no file collisions during installation. And that requires work, as well as makes maintenance more complex (given that you need to keep the patches up-to-date); and given they are unable to do further work beyond that, then the work is perceived as a loss given that the removal is planned.

Given that the GNOME team has stated to be unable to support this on top of there already busy workload, we could look at other people that have put in this work; and The MATE team has done this on the level of the package names, instead of a lower level concept as SLOTs. We should put our efforts in a project like MATE which has people that stand behind, or another alternatives; people are free to choose, but I am mentioning MATE because it is close to GNOME 2. Yes, this is the manpower argument again; but that is what this all boils down to, as manpower makes things possible (eg. it is what GNOME be able to be present in the Portage tree at all).

Anon-E-moose · Post by **Anon-E-moose** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:04 pm

Edit: Responded on violations thread

TomWij · Post by **TomWij** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:32 pm

Anon-E-moose wrote:Edit to add: I do have to wonder why 3 devs show up on a thread that was started by those wishing to avoid gnome3.

Because the techniques mentioned in this thread set the users up for an installation of broken package versions that are also near the end of their lifetime in the Portage tree; since there are other approaches that guarantee a future of the user's system (while still avoiding GNOME 3), we focus our efforts towards a working future proof system to satisfy the users (for instance, bringing MATE to the Portage tree).

Anon-E-moose wrote:One would think they don't have anything else to do other than possibly try and get a thread locked instead of devoting
their time to maintaining packages, when they claim they don't have enough time to do so, ie they're overworked.

The GNOME team is a different team than those that we are on, our presence is different than reflecting or affecting their manpower; for example, my presence on the forum provides support as well as assures quality.

Anon-E-moose wrote:
eccerr0r wrote:Requesting thread unsticky/lock...
As predicted, here we go.

That is because this thread has become more than what its topic marks it as, as well as that it is past its time given that the GNOME maintainers made a statement about the removal; it is steering that way as expected by the responses we see, given that its nature steers away from a constructive approach that brings a guaranteed future to satisfy the users.

Anon-E-moose · Post by **Anon-E-moose** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:22 pm

Edit: whatever

TomWij · Post by **TomWij** » Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:40 am

We are a community thus more contributors are always welcome, see contributing to Gentoo for details; a one man army would have never brought us to where we are today, which is similar to that holding on to disappearing versions will keep one away from a reliable working future proof system. This is because you need manpower to keep these versions from disappearing, there needs to be work or an overlay on GNOME 2 for that to succeed; such manpower does appear to exist in other forms. This makes these other forms of manpower a good choice; this manpower can be found in alternatives like the MATE Desktop Environment, note that MATE will enter the Portage tree soon.

steveL · Post by **steveL** » Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:35 pm

TomWij wrote:SLOTs are indeed quite a freedom, in theory it is thus possible to accomplish this. But given there are file conflicts, this will require files to moved as well as code to be patched (as to refer to the moved files) in order for there to be no file collisions during installation. And that requires work, as well as makes maintenance more complex (given that you need to keep the patches up-to-date); and given they are unable to do further work beyond that, then the work is perceived as a loss given that the removal is planned..

More nonsense that clearly hasn't read anything I've written.

But I think it's time I stopped commenting: I've made my point enough times, and I do regret not being as conciliatory as I should have been in my last post. I'm just fed up of all the arrant nonsense being spouted to justify a clearly political decision.

Post by **asturm** » Sun Feb 23, 2014 7:33 pm

steveL wrote:
TomWij wrote:SLOTs are indeed quite a freedom, ...
More nonsense that clearly hasn't read anything I've written.

Does it really matter? Whatever you hope to gain with 'prettier' slotted gnome packages, it doesn't change the fact that gnome-2 ebuilds are unmaintained, going to be masked (which you can easily undo, slotted or not), in order to be removed (someone's provided an overlay already), will break in the lack of an upstream.

Anon-E-moose · Post by **Anon-E-moose** » Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:11 pm

Edit: whatever

eccerr0r · Post by **eccerr0r** » Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:15 pm

The thing I don't want:

install stage3
emerge gnome2
...Why doesn't this work?

The distribution should contain software that at least known to the developers as working. If it doesn't work, it shouldn't be there in the "default" install. Should gnome2 be marked ~amd64 and ~x86? But that implies it will be fixed?

Anon-E-moose · Post by **Anon-E-moose** » Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:28 pm

Edit: whatever

Post by **asturm** » Sun Feb 23, 2014 11:24 pm

Anon-E-moose wrote:I don't understand why it bothers some that others would prefer to keep something like gnome 2?
If as you say "Does it really matter?" then why does it bother you or others?

No, you don't understand.

My curiousness was about the upheaval around slotting. It doesn't solve anything wrt gnome-2 - you already established you didn't want to have 2 and 3 installed at the same time (which doesn't work regardless), so slotting does not matter if in theory gnome-2 packages would stay in portage. The only thing that matters is a mask/unmask file which is totally irrelevant to whatever slots there might be. Thus, a lot of energy going into something that is entirely besides the point.

TomWij · Post by **TomWij** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:43 am

genstorm wrote:
Anon-E-moose wrote:I don't understand why it bothers some that others would prefer to keep something like gnome 2?
If as you say "Does it really matter?" then why does it bother you or others?
No, you don't understand.

My curiousness was about the upheaval around slotting. It doesn't solve anything wrt gnome-2 - you already established you didn't want to have 2 and 3 installed at the same time (which doesn't work regardless), so slotting does not matter if in theory gnome-2 packages would stay in portage. The only thing that matters is a mask/unmask file which is totally irrelevant to whatever slots there might be. Thus, a lot of energy going into something that is entirely besides the point.

You can run a MATE session on top of the GNOME 3 shell, or just pick the one you want in GDM or MDM; while forking on the level of packages accomplishes this, you can also accomplish this by forking on the level of slots. Since it can be done in an overlay, I consider that as relevant to the situation; it is to the point, but needs manpower to accomplish (whether it happens in the Portage tree or an overlay).

Post by **asturm** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:13 am

TomWij wrote:You can run a MATE session on top of the GNOME 3 shell, or just pick the one you want in GDM or MDM;...

...which works because MATE upstream does the renaming. Of course it does, while it won't work with gnome-2. Which makes slots once again irrelevant? Unless I'm completely wrong now.

TomWij · Post by **TomWij** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:44 am

Both package renaming as well as SLOT renaming allow you to install multiple packages or versions; so, the end result is similar. This is just like media-libs/libsdl and media-libs/libsdl2; those could have been two slots, but they have became two packages instead.

krinn · Post by **krinn** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:46 am

TomWij wrote:This sticky is past its time; the masking is bad advice, the last messages move away from the subject, MATE will be added to the Portage tree, GNOME 2 will be removed, ...

Mate is in the tree ? Gnome2 is removed ? Until then, the sticky still makes sense.
The masking is a bad advice : maybe, but i asked it to help users that don't want migrate to gnome 3.8. As many users were hit by that, and gnome team didn't tell them how to avoid it. So that advice was the only answer they get.

Something you should ask Gnome Team why, as this is an answer to a problem they create...

TomWij · Post by **TomWij** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:47 am

krinn wrote:
TomWij wrote:This sticky is past its time; the masking is bad advice, the last messages move away from the subject, MATE will be added to the Portage tree, GNOME 2 will be removed, ...
Mate is in the tree ? Gnome2 is removed ? Until then, the sticky still makes sense.
The masking is a bad advice : maybe, but i asked it to help users that don't want migrate to gnome 3.8. As many users were hit by that, and gnome team didn't tell them how to avoid it. So that advice was the only answer they get.

There is more advice in this thread, and the GNOME team could be contacted about this; outside of that context, the GNOME team has written a blog post on this, we have had a mailing list thread before that and early on this has been answered on IRC.

krinn wrote:Something you should ask Gnome Team why, as this is an answer to a problem they create...

This is a problem that the community creates (which includes that team, other developers and even our users); we, as a community, can only achieve as much out of it as the work that we put into it. Masking is indeed good in the short run; however, as time goes by the advice will either need to focus on the community putting more work into GNOME 2 (to keep this legacy code alive) or change the advice towards alternatives that do that work (or work as an alternative). If we do that, instead of this last discussion; this sticky still makes sense.

Anon-E-moose · Post by **Anon-E-moose** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:58 am

Edit: whatever

steveL · Post by **steveL** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:18 pm

genstorm wrote:Does it really matter?

If it didn't matter, why is it under discussion? And yes, I think it matters if the tree is deliberately poisoned in some sort of scorched-earth policy that makes the product less useful for anyone who comes after. You have to justify a non-standard approach and "file collisions" simply does not do it.

Sure, Gnome-2 is gone now, so it's moot in that sense. That does not excuse anything, and it certainly doesn't make it all right. All it means is the political tactic worked, which means it's more likely to be repeated.

That last part is what bothers me. So yes, it matters. Quite apart from being an awful mess, and frankly embarrassing. WTF has Gentoo come to?

Yes I know it's not all Gentoo developers etc, but where are the wiser heads keeping the firebrands in line? That worries me too. Mostly because the way things are going, one side or the other is going to have to fork, in order to maintain their work (or just to bring some sanity back). And let's face it, the "new-school" (I hesitate to attach the word 'school' to such an undisciplined, lackadaisical approach, but there it is) are much better at propaganda and working the web in order to drum up "support". So by the time y'all realise just how top-heavy the approach is, and that one cannot build nor run the new, without the old, it'll be too late, and the Gentoo community I love will have gone, yaf distro that bit the dust.

Or maybe I'm just moody today ;)

eccerr0r · Post by **eccerr0r** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:03 pm

I don't understand why people don't understand there are big problems in making sure every file is no longer disturbed. Perhaps the only way to make it clear to everyone is to make sure for Gnome to make one last statically linked library for Gnome2, else conflicts will keep on occurring as time goes on.

And this thread is NOT helpful. Every time a new library release comes out has a risk of generating dependency hell with blockers. Because there was no mask file that works for everyone (every single one posted in this thread does NOT work for me, along with the effort made to devise my own) I had to grudgingly migrate to other DE that was supported. Believe me, if there was a way to stay at gnome2 or convert to MATE I would have gone this route. If there is a mask that works for everything and I can keep other things updated without breaking gnome2 I ask you to do that work and send it to this thread. I still have two or so machines that I have not converted and are ready for your masks.

Is it not weird that MATE is taking so long to be integrated and stabilized in the main portage tree despite all the "work" has already been done? Or is there "work" not being accounted for?