Re: [gentoo-dev] Sunrise contemplations

[Tobias Klausmann]

Hi! 

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:21:53 +0200
> > Idea: should it be more obvious in emerge --info and ebuild
> > failure that an overlay is involved? If it's obvious enough,
> > I don't see a problem. Also, a command that lists all
> > installed packages that come from an overlay might be useful
> > (maybe even a sa part of --info).
>
> emerge --info can easily be forged. I've seen people asking for
> help on #gentoo do it a few too many times (some even refuse to
> provide it), and have wasted precious minutes not just
> wondering what the error messages meant, but also whether I
> could trust the user.

I don't doubt your claim, yet I find it incredible. I'm
constantly amazed at how stupid some people are. Not to mention
how many idiotic assholes are out there.

> The only way to have people submit emerge --info properly and reliably
> would be to set up an online ticketing system - something like this:
>
>
> # emerge --submit-info
>
> * sys-apps/portage generates emerge --info output and uploads it
> relatively tamper-proof to tickets.g.o, and
>
> * returns a ticket to the user, a unique number that he or she can
> communicate to developers and active users through a URL like
> http://tickets.g.o/#ticket-number.
>
> * --submit-info includes information about the emerge commandline that
> was run last and what category/package/version emerge was
> building/installing at the time.

I think this is a very good idea. Better than mine.

> Now, do I appear to sound mistrustful of Gentoo users? Perhaps.
> Perhaps, this --submit-info stuff reminds you of Product
> Activation routines used by closed source software vendors.
> Perhaps you think I am being paranoid. Maybe you think that
> FOSS should be a free-for-all exchange of meaningful
> information, which I would whole-heartedly agree with - the
> information would be meaningless if could not trust it.

I think it's critical how you sell this: don't say "this is
because we can not trust you" but "this is because it makes it
easier for you to send all relevant info". While it may seem
phone-home-ish, the contained info is clearly traceable and
everybody can see that there's nothing sensitive in there.

Feedback agents to which I can have the source are much less
suspicious than binary blobs that send gobs and gobs of binary
info to their home.

> It's a far cry from what Gentoo originally was supposed to be,
> I admit.  I am not even going to argue that this ticket system
> is necessary or should be adopted by all developers once it has
> been implemented - it is a means to an end, or perhaps several
> ends, none of which are required to further develop Gentoo.

Yet I think it's a good idea. Just don't misuse it as a tool to
spy on users. *Don't* turn it into something that pulls more info
than gentoo-stats (and then some).

Regards,
Tobias
-- 
You don't need eyes to see, you need vision.
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list