1 |
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> I'm not sure the SSD-for-games-only is the most effective solution |
4 |
> either, but there are plenty of use cases that I disagree with that tend |
5 |
> to get by without issue. Are / or /usr on SSD the proposed solution for |
6 |
> someone who's aiming for the speed boost? |
7 |
> |
8 |
|
9 |
Well, that's certainly what I would do. But, you can ask the games |
10 |
team if they have a better idea, or feel free to join it. |
11 |
|
12 |
> |
13 |
> How are we certain that users will speak up for their cause when it's |
14 |
> lacking support? Don't we risk alienating people without considering use |
15 |
> cases? |
16 |
|
17 |
I specifically said that the Council is NOT limited to considering |
18 |
only the use cases that come up in the discussion. |
19 |
|
20 |
Obviously we consider every use case that people suggest or that we |
21 |
think up. We probably don't consider use cases that nobody has come |
22 |
up with. |
23 |
|
24 |
In any case, if you come up with a good reason not to move forward |
25 |
with the decision and the Council agrees with you, I'm sure the |
26 |
decision would be changed. |
27 |
|
28 |
The fact is that ANY decision can turn out to be a bad one in |
29 |
retrospect. That isn't a reason to never make a decision. If you can |
30 |
think of a good reason why we're wrong, I'm sure we're going to be |
31 |
interested (or more likely the next Council will be). However, |
32 |
decisions that were made months ago after lengthy discussion don't get |
33 |
on hold because somebody /might/ come up with another argument (so far |
34 |
you've only advanced the SSD concern, and I don't see anybody biting |
35 |
on that one). |
36 |
|
37 |
> I understand where you're coming from wrt council decisions. I've |
38 |
> corrected that and started a thread on gentoo-user that will give us |
39 |
> some insight to how many users' use cases were affected by this decision |
40 |
> and which use cases they were. Then we can either set a goal to make |
41 |
> that use case possible, or give quality advice or write good |
42 |
> documentation for that use case. |
43 |
|
44 |
If something important that wasn't considered comes up I'll certainly |
45 |
listen if I'm on the Council, or argue for it if I'm not. However, |
46 |
Gentoo is not obligated to sustain every possible edge case just |
47 |
because somebody claims it is useful, even if that edge case happened |
48 |
to be supported in the past. |
49 |
|
50 |
I'm skeptical that something will come up that hasn't been thought of |
51 |
already, but it isn't like any of us have some kind of personal hate |
52 |
for the eclass. If something important comes up we'll think about it. |
53 |
|
54 |
> |
55 |
> So, agenda gets pushed to council -> council votes in favor of motion -> |
56 |
> QA acts on council decision -> decisions empower them to prohibit |
57 |
> blocking them -> somehow this is not forcing. The last jump in logic is |
58 |
> questionable to me. |
59 |
> |
60 |
|
61 |
Nobody is forcing anybody to DO anything. Nobody is forced to go |
62 |
around editing ebuilds to remove the eclass. |
63 |
|
64 |
Now, we ARE forcing people to NOT DO things. If somebody removes the |
65 |
games eclass from an ebuild you're forbidden to add it back. You're |
66 |
forbidden to port the eclass to EAPI6. And so on. |
67 |
|
68 |
I'm not pretending that the Council decision isn't binding. That's |
69 |
the whole point of having the Council. If every decision were made on |
70 |
unanimous consensus we wouldn't need one. Obviously it isn't the |
71 |
outcome we want but if people do oppose Council decisions they're |
72 |
subject to QA/Comrel actions including temporary or permanent commit |
73 |
access removal, and their ultimate appeal is to the Council they |
74 |
opposed. Democracy isn't anarchy. |
75 |
|
76 |
> Patches *wouldn't* be welcome in this case, however. The patch in |
77 |
> question would change default games.eclass variables to standard Gentoo |
78 |
> paths. I know with certainty it wouldn't be accepted or welcomed. And |
79 |
> with that knowledge, what would motivate me (or someone else, like |
80 |
> someone with a relevant use case) to work toward getting that done? It |
81 |
> would end up relegated to an overlay. |
82 |
|
83 |
Patches to remove games.eclass from ebuilds would be welcome, and that |
84 |
was my point. The reason it is still around is that nobody has done |
85 |
the work to get rid of it yet. |
86 |
|
87 |
And if you want to suggest a better way, feel free. If you want to |
88 |
try to resurrect the games team, please do so. Heaven only knows we |
89 |
tried to get devs to revitalize it numerous times in the last year. |
90 |
|
91 |
I don't know if the Council would accept a games eclass that was a |
92 |
no-op by default but which exposed functionality to users via |
93 |
environment variables. I'd be interested into a discussion of the |
94 |
pros/cons if you're volunteering to do the work to make it happen. |
95 |
I'd be inclined to continue the policy that it is up to maintainers to |
96 |
decide whether they're going to use it, otherwise we'll have endless |
97 |
debates as to whether ktuberling or c-intercal fall under "games" or |
98 |
not. Something more generic and Gentoo Prefix-like might make it into |
99 |
PMS and even become mandatory (and indeed Prefix is already a |
100 |
potential solution which is fairly well-supported). |
101 |
|
102 |
> Ignoring the use cases of others ensures that one day my use case will |
103 |
> be on the stake. I wouldn't have worked toward becoming a developer if I |
104 |
> was apathetic. |
105 |
|
106 |
Gentoo has never claimed to offer a solution for every possible use |
107 |
case, and every distro has its pros and cons. I think Gentoo goes a |
108 |
lot further than most distros to accommodate use cases. If you |
109 |
thought this debate was bad, you should go read the reaction when the |
110 |
decision was made that not having /usr mounted during early boot was |
111 |
not considered supported (though multiple mechanisms to get it mounted |
112 |
during early boot exist). Decisions like these don't mean that we |
113 |
actively go out looking for ways to make our users lives miserable, |
114 |
but it does mean that when somebody's bluetooth keyboard doesn't work |
115 |
in single user mode we can WONTFIX them if they're not mounting /usr |
116 |
early. |
117 |
|
118 |
In any case, I think we'll get further looking for some way to move |
119 |
forward than look backwards. If you come up with a use case you |
120 |
consider important, let's see if we can come up with a good way to |
121 |
deal with it that is more sustainable. You were the one to first |
122 |
suggest looking at something like Prefix for a solution to your SSD |
123 |
use case, and there is probably something to work with there. |
124 |
Personally I think it is probably easier to just stick everything that |
125 |
isn't huge on an SSD than to pick and choose package categories, but |
126 |
you could of course run your games in a prefix, or something |
127 |
prefix-like, or even in a container (though that might be less ideal |
128 |
unless you're sticking X11 and everything else in there too, at which |
129 |
point you might as well just stick your root on an SSD). |
130 |
|
131 |
I understand where you're coming from. There have been times at the |
132 |
past where a package was being treecleaned and I'd tend to go on a |
133 |
crusade to rescue it because somebody might still want to use it. The |
134 |
reality is that such reprieves tend to be temporary at best, unless |
135 |
somebody who is genuinely interested in investing in the package is |
136 |
willing to put the time in. We want to help our users because we care |
137 |
about them, but in the end if their itches aren't our own itches it |
138 |
tends to fizzle out sooner or later. Sometimes a use case gets |
139 |
dropped not because it is a bad one, but simply because nobody cares |
140 |
enough to make it work. Instead, time gets put into maintaining other |
141 |
things that are more interesting. Java isn't in a pitiful state in |
142 |
Gentoo because we all want to see it fail, it simply is the case that |
143 |
most of us aren't interested enough to make it otherwise. All it |
144 |
takes to turn Gentoo into a Java paradise is a few really eager |
145 |
volunteers to step in and make it so. On the other hand, there are |
146 |
other projects where Gentoo could probably be held up as a model |
147 |
distro. |
148 |
|
149 |
If you manage to drum up more interest in games and more active |
150 |
contributions, I think that would be a good thing. |
151 |
|
152 |
-- |
153 |
Rich |