[arch-general] mandriva beat us to a new version - Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

newer
[arch-general] Pacman fails to...

[arch-general] mandriva beat us to a new version

older
[arch-general] Arch forum closed...

Caleb Cushing

29 Jul 2010 29 Jul '10

2:05 p.m.

of perl http://jquelin.blogspot.com/2010/07/perls-state-in-mandriva-cooker.html how embarrassing. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.com

Show replies by date

Caleb Cushing

29 Jul 29 Jul

2:36 p.m.

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Caleb Cushing wrote:

how embarrassing.

I guess cooker is like their testing version... but according to this it's in opensuse 11.3... we're definitely starting to fall behind release distro's here. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.com

Guillaume ALAUX

2:38 p.m.

Mandriva Cooker is like debian sid that's the unstable branch from which they freeze to stable ones. On 29 July 2010 16:36, Caleb Cushing wrote:

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Caleb Cushing wrote:

...
how embarrassing.

I guess cooker is like their testing version... but according to this it's in opensuse 11.3... we're definitely starting to fall behind release distro's here.

-- Caleb Cushing

http://xenoterracide.com

Smith Dhumbumroong

2:47 p.m.

On 07/29/2010 09:36 PM, Caleb Cushing wrote:

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Caleb Cushing wrote:

...
how embarrassing. I guess cooker is like their testing version... but according to this it's in opensuse 11.3... we're definitely starting to fall behind release distro's here.

Since when did releasing a new version of software become a race? I'd rather wait and let the devs sort out any/all problems with the new version of perl, or any software for that matter, before releasing it, rather than rushing to releasing it in order to "win" a nonexistent race. Regards,

Caleb Cushing

3:07 p.m.

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Smith Dhumbumroong wrote:

I'd rather wait and let the devs sort out any/all problems with the new version of perl, or any software for that matter, before releasing it, rather than rushing to releasing it in order to "win" a nonexistent race.

Normally I'd agree with you, but we're a rolling distro, it shouldn't take us 6 months to get something like perl into stable. I know of 1 set of packages that need a rebuild... not hard to fix. And another bug that was caused by an attempt to fix a bug that was in reality not a bug, that really only requires changing settings back to the way they were... e.g. just move a few lines around. However, I don't think this new bug is more potential than real, as I don't think any package exists to trigger it. Thus should not be a blocker. Keep in mind we've released kde before it was actually released (by hours, but still), and that we had gcc 4.5.0 out in a week, which I'm pretty sure wasn't all that ready. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.com

Angel Velásquez

3:24 p.m.

Dear Caleb, Do you know that there is some human intervention in the process to make these packages? those humans who are in the process called devs, trusted users, etc .. If you want the last version of _perl_ (or any other package) and it's not on the repos yet, you can compile yourself, share it with the pkgbuilds (if you want), or just wait until this or those human(s) have a free time to make the package(s) and do the tests, or you want a broken package but _updated_ ?. So, following that list of possible actions, _complaining_, because we don't have the last version of XX package won't do anything and is the last action that you should take, is wrong, and be sure that doesn't make any pressure for the guy who is on charge to package it :). So, you have two options, wait until the release, or compile yourself .. complains please send it to /dev/null :) Thanks.. P.S: When KDE and gcc were released on the time, I didn't found a mail of you saying a something like 'congratulations'.. if you will complain .. you should be grateful when the things works as you're expected (specially if these things are for free -even if you pay you will have to wait btw-). -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com

Caleb Cushing

4:37 p.m.

2010/7/29 Angel Velásquez :

Do you know that there is some human intervention in the process to make these packages? those humans who are in the process called devs, trusted users, etc .. If you want the last version of _perl_ (or any other package) and it's not on the repos yet, you can compile yourself, share it with the pkgbuilds (if you want), or just wait until this or those human(s) have a free time to make the package(s) and do the tests, or you want a broken package but _updated_ ?.

Just so you know.... I volunteered to be a junior dev and was rejected. I have ~400 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&L=2&K=xenoterracide packages on the AUR. I file out of date packages on on Arch every day. I think I filed ALL the rebuild bugs (for perl- packages ) for 5.12. I've been running it for 3 months. I think I've done everything I /can/ to get this rolled out. The fact is the small, very small amount of work that has yet to be done... I can't do. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.com

Angel Velásquez

5:52 p.m.

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Caleb Cushing wrote:

Just so you know.... I volunteered to be a junior dev and was rejected. I have ~400 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&L=2&K=xenoterracide packages on the AUR. I file out of date packages on on Arch every day. I think I filed ALL the rebuild bugs (for perl- packages ) for 5.12. I've been running it for 3 months. I think I've done everything I /can/ to get this rolled out. The fact is the small, very small amount of work that has yet to be done... I can't do.

Wow, you surely are my hero... Do your own perl package distribution, and .. as I said I didn't found any e-mail giving thanks to the devs when kde and gcc was released, so I just hope that you will do that in the future as the complainings that you gave us today :) Mental note: do not feed a troll That means, that this is my last e-mail on this thread. Cheers! -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com

Allan McRae

30 Jul 30 Jul

12:06 a.m.

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Caleb Cushing wrote:

Just so you know.... I volunteered to be a junior dev and was rejected. I have ~400 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&L=2&K=xenoterracide packages on the AUR. I file out of date packages on on Arch every day. I think I filed ALL the rebuild bugs (for perl- packages ) for 5.12. I've been running it for 3 months. I think I've done everything I /can/ to get this rolled out. The fact is the small, very small amount of work that has yet to be done... I can't do.

The goal of Arch Linux is not to package things faster than everybody else. The goal of Arch is to make the distribution that the developers want to use. It just happens that Arch developers like having most things packaged quickly so that is what we do. If we happen to be delayed updating something, it is either because no developer has the time to update it or no developer particular cares about updating it. We develop this distribution in our own free time so will get to things when we want to, not when demand dictates it. And yes you have filed bugs about rebuilds, and yes you applied to be a junior dev. However, your demanding attitude in repeated emails with regards to this update means that we would much rather have a delayed perl release that have you on the developer team. We rate not being an ass much high than technical skill when selecting people when selecting people to "work" with. Allan

mike rosset

1:23 a.m.

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Allan McRae wrote:

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Caleb Cushing wrote:

...
Just so you know.... I volunteered to be a junior dev and was rejected. I have ~400 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&L=2&K=xenoterracide packages on the AUR. I file out of date packages on on Arch every day. I think I filed ALL the rebuild bugs (for perl- packages ) for 5.12. I've been running it for 3 months. I think I've done everything I /can/ to get this rolled out. The fact is the small, very small amount of work that has yet to be done... I can't do.

The goal of Arch Linux is not to package things faster than everybody else. The goal of Arch is to make the distribution that the developers want to use. It just happens that Arch developers like having most things packaged quickly so that is what we do.

If we happen to be delayed updating something, it is either because no developer has the time to update it or no developer particular cares about updating it. We develop this distribution in our own free time so will get to things when we want to, not when demand dictates it.

And yes you have filed bugs about rebuilds, and yes you applied to be a junior dev. However, your demanding attitude in repeated emails with regards to this update means that we would much rather have a delayed perl release that have you on the developer team. We rate not being an ass much high than technical skill when selecting people when selecting people to "work" with.

Allan

I think everyone is missing the OP's point. Seems he has done a lot of work already to bring this version of perl to Arch. Work that is going to be done anyways by a Arch developer. If there is some technical reason to not except them. Then by all means just state the technical reasons maybe he can fix them. But this is not the first time I have seen this kinda of contradiction. If anyone has a bug or problem they are told to submit patches. When they have patches they then have to jump through so many hoops they never get submitted. Or they get flamed to the point they rather not contribute every again. I find it hard to believe that a distribution that contains how many thousands of opensource project in it's repositories. Has failed to adopt a more open development process then this. Regards, Mike

Allan McRae

2:23 a.m.

On 30/07/10 11:23, mike rosset wrote:

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Allan McRae wrote:

...
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Caleb Cushing wrote:

...
Just so you know.... I volunteered to be a junior dev and was rejected. I have ~400 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&L=2&K=xenoterracide packages on the AUR. I file out of date packages on on Arch every day. I think I filed ALL the rebuild bugs (for perl- packages ) for 5.12. I've been running it for 3 months. I think I've done everything I /can/ to get this rolled out. The fact is the small, very small amount of work that has yet to be done... I can't do.

The goal of Arch Linux is not to package things faster than everybody else. The goal of Arch is to make the distribution that the developers want to use. It just happens that Arch developers like having most things packaged quickly so that is what we do.

If we happen to be delayed updating something, it is either because no developer has the time to update it or no developer particular cares about updating it. We develop this distribution in our own free time so will get to things when we want to, not when demand dictates it.

And yes you have filed bugs about rebuilds, and yes you applied to be a junior dev. However, your demanding attitude in repeated emails with regards to this update means that we would much rather have a delayed perl release that have you on the developer team. We rate not being an ass much high than technical skill when selecting people when selecting people to "work" with.

Allan

I think everyone is missing the OP's point. Seems he has done a lot of work already to bring this version of perl to Arch. Work that is going to be done anyways by a Arch developer. If there is some technical reason to not except them. Then by all means just state the technical reasons maybe he can fix them.

The OPs point was that we should be embarrassed to have perl released after Mandriva has got it into their developmental repos. Note that we have had the same perl release in our "developmental" repo for ages the OP really was just being a wanker. My response, as it has been in all the previous emails on this topic is that it will get done when it gets done. We all have other things to do in life (including paid employment) and things get done when we get time. For many of us, things that we get paid for take priority. If I was being paid to work on Arch, then my priorities would change (my consulting rates are >100USD per hour if someone want to employ me...).

But this is not the first time I have seen this kinda of contradiction. If anyone has a bug or problem they are told to submit patches. When they have patches they then have to jump through so many hoops they never get submitted. Or they get flamed to the point they rather not contribute every again.

Just because you have submitted patches or bug reports (which _is_ very useful and appreciated), does not mean that our time will magically free up. It just means that we need to free up less time. The reason this particular thread got the response it did is that this is not the first such thread the OP has started and now we should apparently be embarrassed by another distro updating a package to their developmental repo.

I find it hard to believe that a distribution that contains how many thousands of opensource project in it's repositories. Has failed to adopt a more open development process then this.

What is not open? Everything we do is in the open. You can see every commit we make to SVN on the arch-commits list, all development discussion occurs on arch-dev-public. We are also quite open about doing this on a volunteer basis and that quite often other things take priority in our lives. I'm not sure what we could do to be more open but suggestions on that (in a separate thread) would be welcome. Allan

Caleb Cushing

2:28 a.m.

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Smith Dhumbumroong wrote:

I'd rather wait and let the devs sort out any/all problems with the new version of perl, or any software for that matter, before releasing it, rather than rushing to releasing it in order to "win" a nonexistent race.

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Allan McRae wrote:

The goal of Arch Linux is not to package things faster than everybody else. The goal of Arch is to make the distribution that the developers want to use. It just happens that Arch developers like having most things packaged quickly so that is what we do.

you know Allan... every time I hear what arch /is/ I hear something different. Arch /is/ a rolling distribution, it is not meant to be as stable as other distributions. This does not mean we release everything carelessly, and we generally have a good balance between 'stable' and 'current'. I'm generally not dissatisfied. My point by the way is that this could have been released to stable ~3 months ago. I really would like to not see Mandriva, Ubuntu, OpenSuse, and Fedora all have it in their stable distro's when we don't. As I've pointed out OpenSuse already has it in there stable 11.3. You can call me a wanker, and talk about your life all you want... but I volunteered to help, I know another that did too. We were turned down. I can't do what I don't have the 'privileges' to do, and neither can anyone else. There aren't any patches needed (so far as I can tell). The only thing left to do is rebuild community -dbd's and move everything to stable (so far as I can tell), if there's more no one has mentioned it. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.com

Ng Oon-Ee

3:42 a.m.

On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 22:28 -0400, Caleb Cushing wrote: <snip>

The only thing left to do is rebuild community -dbd's and move everything to stable (so far as I can tell), if there's more no one has mentioned it.

Rebuilding, as far as I have observed, does take pretty long for more common packages, I guess perl would qualify? Its not like there's a separate build server that the devs would just send PKGBUILDs to.

Allan McRae

5:05 a.m.

On 30/07/10 12:28, Caleb Cushing wrote:

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Smith Dhumbumroong wrote:

...
I'd rather wait and let the devs sort out any/all problems with the new version of perl, or any software for that matter, before releasing it, rather than rushing to releasing it in order to "win" a nonexistent race.

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Allan McRae wrote:

...
The goal of Arch Linux is not to package things faster than everybody else. The goal of Arch is to make the distribution that the developers want to use. It just happens that Arch developers like having most things packaged quickly so that is what we do.

you know Allan... every time I hear what arch /is/ I hear something different. Arch /is/ a rolling distribution, it is not meant to be as stable as other distributions. This does not mean we release everything carelessly, and we generally have a good balance between 'stable' and 'current'. I'm generally not dissatisfied.

My point by the way is that this could have been released to stable ~3 months ago. I really would like to not see Mandriva, Ubuntu, OpenSuse, and Fedora all have it in their stable distro's when we don't. As I've pointed out OpenSuse already has it in there stable 11.3.

My point remains that same. It will get done when: 1) a developer cares enough about perl and 2) that developer has time to finish the update. Until a point of time you have a couple of options. Use the [testing] repo or, given you appear to know what you are doing, select individual packages to install from there. Or you could wait... I hear rumors of it being moved in the next few days, and certainly before we tackle the python rebuild in two weeks time.

You can call me a wanker, and talk about your life all you want... but I volunteered to help, I know another that did too. We were turned down. I can't do what I don't have the 'privileges' to do, and neither can anyone else. There aren't any patches needed (so far as I can tell). The only thing left to do is rebuild community -dbd's and move everything to stable (so far as I can tell), if there's more no one has mentioned it.

As I said earlier, I know you volunteered, and the bug reports you have file were useful, but with emails like the one starting this thread: On 29/07/2010, Caleb Cushing wrote:

mandriva beat us to a new version of perl http://jquelin.blogspot.com/2010/07/perls-state-in-mandriva-cooker.html how embarrassing.

the general impression I am left with is that you were not someone to bring on to the developer team to do this job, not because of lack of skill, but because of attitude. As I said earlier, attitude is often more important than competency. Allan

Ionuț Bîru

29 Jul 29 Jul

2:39 p.m.

On 07/29/2010 05:05 PM, Caleb Cushing wrote:

of perl http://jquelin.blogspot.com/2010/07/perls-state-in-mandriva-cooker.html how embarrassing.

perl freak </joke> -- Ionuț

Ray Rashif

11:41 p.m.

On 29/07/2010, Caleb Cushing wrote:

of perl http://jquelin.blogspot.com/2010/07/perls-state-in-mandriva-cooker.html how embarrassing.

I can see your dissatisfaction, and I empathise, but you don't have to be so vocal about it. There are at least a couple of avenues for you to ensure that users like yourself get what they want, when they want. The very foundation on which we have built our community suggests anything but a competition. Coming from an actively-contributing member, this isn't expected. Now, I once wrote a whimsical pseudo-history for our dearest community which would've perfectly enlightened anyone on this matter, but since the (controversial) forum topic has been buried deep within real tech-history (and I can't be bothered to look), I shall point our curious readers to the closest source for such knowledge: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Give_a_shit -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD

Loui Chang

30 Jul 30 Jul

12:43 a.m.

On Thu 29 Jul 2010 10:05 -0400, Caleb Cushing wrote:

of perl http://jquelin.blogspot.com/2010/07/perls-state-in-mandriva-cooker.html how embarrassing.

Congrats to them! How's that embarrassing?

5018

Age (days ago)

5019

Last active (days ago)

Download

16 comments

10 participants

tags

participants (10)

Allan McRae
Angel Velásquez
Caleb Cushing
Guillaume ALAUX
Ionuț Bîru
Loui Chang
mike rosset
Ng Oon-Ee
Ray Rashif
Smith Dhumbumroong