1 |
On 11.03.2013 21:47, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
2 |
> Am 11.03.2013 14:00, schrieb Yuri K. Shatroff: |
3 |
|
4 |
[ quoting stripped ] |
5 |
|
6 |
>> sorry for breaking in, but... |
7 |
>> (to Volker Armin Hemmann) |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> 1. If this driver is superfluous as you say, then why does it ever |
10 |
>> exist in portage? |
11 |
> |
12 |
> because it exists? gnome is there too. Or systemd AND openrc. mrxvt, |
13 |
> rxvt AND urxvt. |
14 |
|
15 |
well, I guess, you won't have systemd AND openrc installed together even |
16 |
if you try, that's what portage is for. |
17 |
Is there any obstacle of using *rxvts together? I don't know but do not |
18 |
think it critical. |
19 |
and who's going to blame you for using gnome? |
20 |
|
21 |
>> 2. Since it does exist, then probably it would be much nicer to user |
22 |
>> to show him a notice when he (user) tries to compile it on a kernel |
23 |
>> which has native support for the device, or moreover an unsupported |
24 |
>> kernel installed, than blame user for that? |
25 |
> |
26 |
> no, this is gentoo. You are supposed to do your homework. No training |
27 |
> wheels. |
28 |
|
29 |
Again, following your logic, why not just let the user himself |
30 |
./configure && make && make install as in old days? What is portage for? |
31 |
|
32 |
>> |
33 |
>> 3. Why does the ebuild *not* check for supported kernel version or |
34 |
>> breaking APIs/ABIs? |
35 |
> |
36 |
> why should it? See above. You can't know if in the future something |
37 |
> might change. |
38 |
|
39 |
That is a testing issue. Of course, one can never know what will change, |
40 |
or whether the code contains a bug (before one is detected), but when |
41 |
someone *does* stumble upon such issues, it is up to maintainers to |
42 |
update portage to prevent the issue... that's what portage is for, isn't it? |
43 |
That said, the topic starter has run across an issue and I assume the |
44 |
action to be taken by the package maintainer is to add a test against |
45 |
kernel compatibility and eligibility of the native driver, so that in |
46 |
the future the issue not rise again. Am I right? Or do I completely |
47 |
misunderstand the purpose of portage, and everything? |
48 |
|
49 |
>> 4. How and why would you expect to force all users to grep thru kernel |
50 |
>> src in search for a driver they might need, especially when the |
51 |
>> portage explicitly lists this driver? Also sometimes kernel drivers' |
52 |
>> description is not quite consistent and it is not easy to figure out |
53 |
>> whether it supports exactly yours card/chip/device, or moreover find |
54 |
>> it by grep. |
55 |
> |
56 |
> All kernel source? grep? Nope. Just reading a bit of help text. Maybe |
57 |
> using google. Doing it once. |
58 |
|
59 |
As I said, there is not always good help text for kernel options. |
60 |
|
61 |
> Then you have a working setup you can use |
62 |
> for the rest of eternity (or the next couple of years...) |
63 |
|
64 |
Okay, and when someone like the topic starter *did* have a working setup |
65 |
with the "superfluous" driver from portage, ... do you feel the logic? |
66 |
:) When should one realize that this setup is no more working? I guess, |
67 |
just after it stopped working, right? :) Of course, again, if one is |
68 |
really concerned he will check each kernel release or whatever for the |
69 |
new stuff he's concerned about, but when all *worked*, why should he? |
70 |
|
71 |
>> 5. After all, linux and gentoo in particular are *not* |
72 |
>> developer-only-oriented systems, and it is up to maintainers or |
73 |
>> whomever to make them more user-friendly. Yes, it is not fair of a |
74 |
>> user to blame someone for breaking APIs etc. but neither it is fair to |
75 |
>> blame the user for not knowing everything as I bet nobody knows |
76 |
>> everything about linux kernel. |
77 |
> |
78 |
> oh, so gentoo is for ubuntu users? Well, why not use ubuntu in the first |
79 |
> place? |
80 |
|
81 |
so, according to that, everyone who's striving to get |
82 |
linux/gentoo/whtever more user-friendly (including portage's key |
83 |
features) is an ubuntoid? You know, I came from FreeBSD where you're |
84 |
supposed to do much more work by hand, and after a dozen years I'm a |
85 |
little bit tired of that. I *can* do without things like portage's |
86 |
colorful output, for example (although it's helpful most of the time). |
87 |
But I really dislike things broken e.g. on `portupgrade -aR` and the |
88 |
sort and I can *not* call a system which allows that a quality system. |
89 |
That sort of user-friendliness has nothing to do with ubuntism ("we know |
90 |
better what you want") and visual beauty: that's about quality. |
91 |
(I know that there's no absolute quality, but when a system tends to |
92 |
fail, and justifies that with "user not having googled or having taken a |
93 |
way we, devs, didn't ever think to go" -- it's at least incorrect if not |
94 |
arrogant.) |
95 |
|
96 |
> But I feel generous right now. You might have a point there. That does |
97 |
> not invalidate the 'remove kernels before testing' criticism from the |
98 |
> list nor does it solve the 'insisting to use the latest kernel release |
99 |
> instead of stable series' problem. |
100 |
|
101 |
That's right, I was just feeling like the words you said towards the |
102 |
topic starter were a little harsh, and wanted to have him a little |
103 |
acquitted :) |
104 |
|
105 |
|
106 |
-- |
107 |
Best wishes, |
108 |
Yuri K. Shatroff |