Re: Debian conference in the US?
> > If your countrymen share that sort of attitute it explains why the > > USA is in so many wars. > > Yeah. We rarely suffer fools gladly. Stop it, you're killing me. People from the USA describing others as fools. One only has to look at the dross in US newspapers and TV news bulletins to understand the level of understanding that most Americans have of the world outside their own trousers. Matt.
Re: Debian conference in the US?
Michael Banck wrote: > /me invokes azeem's law[0]. This thread has ended. > [0] Whenever Matt Ryan enters a Flamewar, no more non-value can be added > to it and therefore the thread will die. I'm not sure why you see my input as non-value? Surely its not the fact that a bunch of tightly wound geeks don't like what I preach? If so, please try living outside of the flock and rebel against the herd mentality. As for your rule, please review my thread on "Daft Internet Stuff" for a run-down on my view of such things. Matt.
Re: stop abusing debconf already
>Enough already. > >Folks, if you don't stop abusing debconf with useless notes that belong >in README.Debian and config file overwriting, I will stop maintaining >it. > >Stop slapping incorrect uses of debconf in everywhere. Feel free to run >any package using debconf by me before you upload it, or take the time >to understand yourself how things should work. Great, helpful input to the debate. Let me see... 1) Toys 2) Pram 3) Throw 4) Profit? Matt.
Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness
Personally I use the ask-about-overwrite question in debconf because the last time this thread came up the only sensible solution was put forward in the attached email. Now, I'm all for a better solution when it is determined what that is, *but* I'm not for a witch hunt based on what was seen to be previous best practice. Matt. --- Begin Message --- On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 07:40:00PM +1000, Jason Henry Parker wrote: > [1] : Actually the file in question was a conffile as well as being > edited by debconf, but whatever. Herein lies the problem, as I see it. This is a common policy violation because maintainers often want this functionality, but it clashes with policy, or is not addressed. With old-style use of conffiles, package maintainers simply provided a default conffile, which they could update from time to time, and the USER was responsible for merging in their local changes. This was easy on package maintainers, but hard on users. Some packages cannot supply a reasonable default configuration for all users, and/or would like to make the user's life easier by asking a few questions and generating a configuration file. In the pre-debconf era, this would be done by a config script, a la exim or magicfilter. Once the config file was generated, it would be left alone forever. The user could reconfigure at any time by running the script. If the config file format changed or some such, the user is responsible for re-running the config script and generating a new config file. In this age of debconf, we now have standard tools for asking the user questions (debconf) and reconfiguring a package (dpkg-reconfigure). In order to use these mechanisms successfully, we need some way to peacefully coexist with the user's manual changes. The key change is that package configuration via these tools is done _by maintainer scripts_, rather than by supplying a default conffile or running a script. Policy specifically forbids the editing of conffiles by maintainer scripts ([1] (must not), [2] (should not)). Now, maintainer scripts using debconf have these options: 1. Hide in a hole, and do things the old way. 2. Only generate an initial configuration, and leave it alone forever thereafter (the configuration file may be a conffile). This is a waste of good infrastructure, and leaves the user feeling cheated. If they want to use that same slick process to create a new configuration, they must remove and reinstall the package. 3. Always overwrite the configuration (the configuration file is NOT a conffile). This may seem appropriate for some packages, for which there is a 1:1 mapping between debconf questions and configuration options, but does not allow the user to preserve their local changes (a bad thing). 4. Try to merge the user's changes into the configuration file (the configuration file is NOT a conffile). This is, in my opinion, almost always a bad idea. Regardless of how few lines such a hack adds to the maintainer scripts, this is not guaranteed to stay simple. If a config file format changes, for example, the maintainer scripts may be required to be able to parse both config file formats and convert between them. This means that the maintainer script's parser must be smarter than the program's own (which can only read one of the formats). Some programs, which use an ancient config file format that is unlikely to ever change, can get away with this, as can programs with very simple name=value shell-alike config files. But I still don't like it. 5. Ask the user whether or not to overwrite their configuration file (the configuration file is NOT a conffile). This is the approach taken by xserver-xfree86. One of the questions asked of the user is (in effect) whether their configuration file should be under their control, or that of the maintainer scripts. If the user opts to have their config file generated for them, manual changes are not preserved and their configuration is freshly generated (in the correct format) based on their answers. If the user opts to write their own config file, the maintainer scripts will leave it alone until the user changes their mind. Option #5 best meets the goals of both users and package maintainers. Its only problem is one of elegance. First, the code and templates to ask the user about each config file and how it should be handled must be duplicated in every package that takes this approach. Second, the packaging system does not know about these configuration files, so the user might have some difficulty determining which package owns it, or how it is managed. This functionality should, I think, be integrated into the packaging system, like the current conffile mechanism. A configuration file should be able to be tagged as either user-managed (behaving exactly as a current conffile) or script-managed. The user should be able to, at any time, switch between these
Re: stop abusing debconf already
> Or maybe realize that Joey might perhaps know what he's talking about > with regard to debconf ... you could go find the text of his talk at the > last Debian Conference if you like. I realise he has an opinion on how things should be done. Depending on your own viewpoint this may be more influential than others as he is the author of the tool. As far as I'm concerned I'll use debconf how I please and if that's against the 'pure' view of others (ie/ *never* call it a registry) then its just hard luck. Policy is what matters not the opinion of some jumped up developers! Matt.
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
> Now I hope you stop with your trolling and consider speaking > respectfully to us. I am pretty sure that if you emailed the maintainer > of the package and pointed out the facts to him, he would revert the > change. Dude, You really need to calm down. Twice now recently you have opened your mouth and stuck your foot in when there really wasn't any need to. Take a Valium and do something less stressful. Matt.
Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness
> Secondly, this isnot a witch hunt. What is being done is that > a policy violation in older practice is being pointed > out. Alternatives are being discussed; a witch hunt would have > involved mass RC bug filings. The TEX discussion is definitely in witchunt territory. Maintainers (on the whole) try to make the best job they can of the packaging of their programs. What is not helpful is when a developer gets a bad case of NOMUS (Not On My UNIX System) and goes off on one about how perfectly the world would be if everyone agreed with their narrow definition of the 'correct' way to do things. The recent /run debate was another example of this virulent disease taking hold amongst the vocal developer cabal. Diversity is what keeps the human race going... Matt.
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
> > Dude, > > > > You really need to calm down. Twice now recently you have opened your > > mouth and stuck your foot in when there really wasn't any need to. Take a > > Valium and do something less stressful. > > Are you talking to me? You are the one with the foot hanging out of your mouth so by a process of elimination it has to be you. Really we don't need to alienate upstream software authors with flame responses. Point out that he can file a bug and leave it at that. Matt.
Re: stop abusing debconf already
> Conside rthis: when considering input from a ``jumped up > developer'' who has demonstrated competence and has put in the effort > like Joey Hess, and has intituted a couple of major changes in how > Debian works, and an unknown twit, guess who am I going to listen to? Yawn. I don't know and I doubt you would listen if I did. It doesn't really matter. Everyone has an opinion and I have voiced mine. Perhaps I should be censored to avoid my rambling encroaching into your computer? Just because they have put some effort into the project does *not* make them infallible - all it makes them is a good coder, nothing more. Emboldening them with further super-powers is ridiculous. Matt.
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
> Heh. First you bad mouth Joey Hess. And now you go up against > Ben Collins. And both times you take what I consider impolitic > stances that show poor judgment (even ignoring the fact that you > are, with nothing whatsoever to back it up) some of the most > respected developers in Debian. > > I applaud this masterly demonstration of a nadir of cluelessness. > > I suppose this is accomplishment of a sort. Ignore me then if I don't rate in your view. On the other hand you could try to educate me, but I guess I'm too dumb for that. Perhaps if you removed the Debian prune from your ass I may take some notice. A Linux distribution is not worth getting so excited over in the grand scheme of things! Matt.
Re: stop abusing debconf already
> No offense, but I think you joined the wrong project, then. No offence taken. I joined when Debian wasn't run by anal retentives. Sure there was the whole free software part - but not the SS Nazi version of free software that is being prompted recently. I have to say that I'm beginning to think that your assessment is right and I should find a more liberal bunch of Linux fanatics to join with. Matt. BTW: Remember at the end of the day it is only a Linux distribution, nothing more, nothing less.
Re: stop abusing debconf already
>Um, no. *Policy* says that it may not be used as a registry. [SNIPPED LONG DIATRIBE THAT DOES NOT PROVE THE ABOVE STATEMENT] Sure, you delete the registry things should still work. Did I say anything different? You are making a long tenuous link to prove your point which I don't subscribe to. Unless we have a formal definition of 'registry' in policy as well we can argue this forever as to what is the right way to view it. Perhaps not taking a Windows centric view would help? >I'm not sure why you think Joey's expertise doesn't qualify him to make >pronouncements about the use of debconf. Unlike you, he at least gets >the answer right. Well I don't agree on the right answer bit and I never said he wasn't right (in some people views). All I said was he answer was not the gospel on this issue. Matt.
Re: stop abusing debconf already
> BTW the opinion of this jumped-up developer is "please don't send me > private copies of posts to mailing lists". Thanks. Apologies, 'reply-all' is not clever enough in Outlook Express to evaluate the sender preference on being copied on list emails. Any suggestions for a MUA that can perform this feat are appreciated. Altering top posts based on preference would be an advantage as well. Matt.
Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness
> > What is not helpful is when a developer gets a bad case of NOMUS > > (Not On My UNIX System) and goes off on one about how perfectly the > > world would be if everyone agreed with their narrow definition of > > the 'correct' way to do things. The recent /run debate was another > > example of this virulent disease taking hold amongst the vocal > > developer cabal. > > Really a flaw in the NM process. Don't we require peopel to > acknowledge the importance of policy nowadays? Please. I assume we are both adults (I am at least). Therefore we should be able to have a sensible debate without getting too heated about it. > Right. The hell with policy, since following policy is mind > less conformance. I never suggested to throw out policy (perhaps you should revisit my email). All I said was that this was prior best practice and now we might make a change. Do not burn everyone for trying their best to make things easy for users just because someone has a bee in their bonnet over this issue. Eventually someone (MDZ seems to be starting this again) will come up with a sensible solution (that doesn't predepend on some configuration program bloat) that will deal with this. Then we can all move over to using that and everyone will the happy again. Matt. Note: That's happy until the next time someone gets all fussed up over the wrong location for a configuration file.
Re: stop abusing debconf already
> > Apologies, 'reply-all' is not clever enough in Outlook Express to > > evaluate the sender preference on being copied on list emails. Any > > suggestions for a MUA that can perform this feat are appreciated. > > Any mailer that honours the Mail-Followup-To: header that I set would do > nicely. There are plenty of these in Debian, such as the one I'm using. As another developer has pointed out, I'm not running Debian on this box. There are plenty of other email clients for Windows, but I suspect that all of them are going to be somewhat lax in following follow-up headers in email. Those that potentially do are most likely not going to support IMAP at the same time. Despite is parentage, OE is quite acceptable for day to day use. Again, if anyone knows of another client that supports both requirements I'll give it a go. Matt.
Re: stop abusing debconf already
> True, however it seems clear that he is not running Debian. This is the case as you have noticed. > (the irony is almost too much to bear) Why? I have 5 PC's here (at home) and 4 of them run Debian (mixture of stable, testing and unstable). I have one Windows box that I use for email and web browsing as I happen to like OE and IE for these tasks. All the backend services (DNS, NFS, POP, IMAP, SMB, HTTP) are run on the Debian servers. It works well and I see no reason to change the way I use it. Should I have to run Debian (to continue to be a developer?) on every box I have or can I make an informed decision on the best way to support my work? Matt.
Re: stop abusing debconf already
> > No offence taken. I joined when Debian wasn't run by anal > > retentives. Sure there was the whole free software part - but not > > the SS Nazi version of free software that is being prompted > > recently. I have to say that I'm beginning to think that your > > assessment is right and I should find a more liberal bunch of Linux > > fanatics to join with. > > Oooh, is that a promise? Anything we can do to facilitate that? Get some policy in place that allows you to throw out people who you don't agree with or don't like would do it one way or another. Matt.
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
> The difficulty of their character unfortunately often seems to correlate with > the important of their software. ;) So even if the upstreams sometimes heats > up easily, please spend extra patience on them for the sake of the users. > Pretty please.. I'd really hate to lose something like Reiserfs from Debian > just because of a few unpolite mails back and forth. It's also worth considering that perhaps there is a language difference (does Hans have English as a first language?) that make it seem that the email seem harsher than it really is. Many Europeans are naturally very honest with what they say and at first this comes across as been rude/blunt etc (especially to people who rarely consider the world outside there own borders). Matt.
Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
> Ah, pissing contest. OK, I have been building TeX since 1989, > when we used to buy tapes and compile TeX on a dozen Unix systems at > the university. This was before TeTeX, before Debian, and even Before > Linux. So, I have 14 years of experience with TeX -- how much more do > I need to have to reach the exalted levels of experience you have > with the system? There is a reason that more enlightened business do not run a LIFO policy when making redundancies these days. This is because length of service is not a measure of how good an employee is. There will always be smart people who after a short length of time exceed the performance of there more experienced colleagues. Matt.
Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness
> Perhaps it would, if it had not come on the tails of a string of unwarranted > insults against other developers (most of whom seem to agree with my ideas > on the technical subject under discussion). The closest I got to an insult was accusing Manoj of having a prune up his rear. In comparison I have been called most names under the sun in both public and private responses to my emails. This matches with my assertion that a minority of people get too excited when their precious Debian is perceived to be under attack or not technically pure enough (another issue not directly related to this thread). All I have said to date is that the overwrite question was suggested in the past by another developer as a way of dealing with the problem when it came up before. Some of us implemented the suggestion and it seems no one has had a problem with it until now (I have had no bug reports on this). There are other suggestions now that may accomplish the same thing (though I don't like the XML or UCF stuff as they add dependencies) and when the dust has settled I'm sure I will implement the recommendation put forward. Matt.
Re: stop abusing debconf already
> I would like to point out that support for the Mail-Followup-To header > is not required. It is sufficient that the mail client lets you edit the > headers before sending the mail. This works in all mail clients I'm > aware of, even if some of them make things a bit awkward. Trouble is I need to know what the sender of the email, I'm replying to, wanted in regards to getting copies of the response to both list and direct. One could manually parse the email headers and set the reply appropriately but this is a rather onerous task when replying to a large number of emails. Matt.
Jumped up developers [Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness]
Unfortunately your choice is rather weak and doesn't back up your argument so I feel obliged to continue the thread a bit further (plus its giving my brain some exercise). [Oh yeah, the quotes are from some developer who's name I've promised not to use in my emails] > ...and telling Ben Collins to "take a Valium" after what appeared to be a > pretty even-handed message Unless he's a lunatic who has to take valium to keep some control I don't see what's wrong with that. Many people would use a similar analogy to indicate to someone they need to crank it down a notch or two. > ...calling Joey Hess "jumped up" and being generally rude in response to a > justifiably exasperated message about a long-standing problem, which was > accompanied by a standing offer to assist any developer with interfacing > with debconf Nope, I never did such a thing. Read the message properly to see what was said. The message specifically refers to the "view of others" and state my intention to ignore "jumped up developers" (note the plural). I did however state I wasn't necessarily going to stick my hand in the fire on the word of soneone else. > ...and stating that you'll "use debconf how [you] please and if that's > against the 'pure' view of others [...] then its [sic] just hard luck". > > The first two being insulting to the developers involved, and the third > being insulting to the spirit of cooperation and consensus that the project > as a whole depends on. And the bit that the "jumped up developers" don't seem to understand is the co-operation and consensus. I constantly see comments on how we should restrict the number of maintainers, how we need to make sure everyone's packages measures up to some indication of worth and importance and how if you have not got stuck in with some technical solution in the dim and distant past then your opinion isn't worth jack. My vision of inclusiveness means that everyone gets a say whether its liked it or not. There are no ranks in Debian, no one gets paid (AFAIK) and so no view is more or less valid than another. I think a small minority of developers can easily get identified as pushing their own agendas if we did an informal poll on this list. Those are the one's I have issue with and will continue to say so. Most likely a strong feeling to respond to this message will promote you to the top of the list 8-) Matt.
Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian
[Some dude called Manoj (I think) did produce such utterances recently] > You may be enured to unsubstantiated accusations of > plagiarism, theft, idiocy, and worse, but please allow me the right of > umbrage at such. I apologise for accusing Manoj of having a prune up his rear. It's clear to me now that this was a disservice to prunes and in fact it's a thesaurus thats lodged there and is giving him delusions of having a large vocabulary. Matt.
Daft Internet Stuff [Re: Returning from "vacation". (MIA?)]
[He who should not be named wrote] > That .sig is problematic beyond just its content; it is 12 lines long and > adds almost 1kb to each of your messages (probably longer than the contents > of many messages). Refer to RFC 1855 or any other netiquette document for > further information. With statements such as this: Never send chain letters via electronic mail. Chain letters are forbidden on the Internet. Your network privileges will be revoked. Notify your local system administrator if your ever receive one. You can tell this is great advice these days. Like almost all the Internet/Usenet etiquette and behaviour things it only serves 1 purpose - to make the people spouting it look like old fools when 99.999% of the users these days don't give a damn about the 'rules' dreamt up by academics in 1985! Matt.
Re: Daft Internet Stuff [Re: Returning from "vacation". (MIA?)]
Emile van Bergen wrote: > So what do you propose then, to drop everything just because you > cynically point out that a lot of rules are being violated today? What I'm saying is that (a lot of) these rules are archaic and irrelevant in today's Internet world. Firstly I doubt any of the people who violate the rules are even aware what an RFC is or what it's for - and if they did they probably wouldn't care. Does it matter to the sender that they put a couple of extra lines in their signature and this *may* cause a few extra seconds download time for the recipient? Is forwarding a chain letter going to get them cut off by their ISP? Will their computer explode if they type their message in CAPITALS? The answer to these is no, and I hazard a guess that 'abuse' of any of these rules would end up at the same conclusion - it's not relevant to me therefore I'll dismiss it. Society evolves and with it rules change, we need to accept this and see what evolves - if it turns out to be bad then limits will have to be applied, but I'm not seeing a complete state of anarchy break out yet... Matt.
Re: Daft Internet Stuff [Re: Returning from "vacation". (MIA?)]
Josip Rodin wrote: > Right now we're getting really damn close to anarchy, when everyone and > their dog has the means to entirely obliterate everyone else's mailbox with > unwanted whatever-they-have-to-say, and sometimes even obliterate their > computer (with viruses). We have the ability to annialte each other on the highways (and to a certain degree we do), but its a rick of being involved for the benefits it brings you. It would be nice to make everyone drive well, but they don't and they won't play nice with your email either. > The only way the rules need to evolve is to make things that annoy all > decent users punished properly, rather than effectively ignored. At present there is no one who is going to step in and do that. You can on a limited basis (rules for mailing lists etc) but as a general point you are going to be hard pressed to limit crap in your inbox and still participate fully with others on the Internet. Matt.
Re: Daft Internet Stuff [Re: Returning from "vacation". (MIA?)]
Neil McGovern wrote: > These are all valid points, however, I still don't want to read HTML > e-mail in mutt. You are figting a losing battle. If the MUA that someone uses is set-up to send HTML (rich test, whatever) email then you are highly unlikely to get them to change it. Some devices (cable TV email?) may not even be able to turn it off. Whatever the arguements are for running a lean mean email client its probably going to have to cope with HTML email or you are going to have to limit who you interact with! > Asking people to blindly follow a set of rules, doesn't as you say work. > However, if someonbe does send me an e-mail, I send one back explaining > why HTML e-mail is bad and wrong due to a) compatability and b) > bandwidth issues. Yes, but then if the majority of clients can send/recive HTML email, who has the compatibility problem? > It then doesn't happen again, as people realise why the 'rules' were set > up in the first place. Maybe, I suspect not though. Matt.
Re: Daft Internet Stuff [Re: Returning from "vacation". (MIA?)]
Andreas Metzler wrote: > Hello, > Which does not matter at all. "This memo does not specify an Internet > standard of any kind." having it distributed as RFC is just a > convenience, because searching for "rcf1855" on google will find > perfect hits en masse. Hello, Finding it is not the problem. As I stated "and if they did they probably wouldn't care" means that its one thing to read it, but what if they don't act on it? Matt.
Re: Daft Internet Stuff [Re: Returning from "vacation". (MIA?)]
Josip Rodin wrote: > Well, yeah, sure, but the highway analogy doesn't apply. There isn't a > single technical reason why I as a random person need to ever be in any > sort of contact with a spammer to keep the system running. There was no mention of spammers in the thread! While they are prone to sending HTML emails its a general comment on people usage of the Internet. If you can limit yourself to contacts who are technical enough to understand the arguments why you don't like it then you can maintain the pretence that it doesn't exist. Those who have to communicate on a wider basis (perhaps for work?) cannot afford to drop mail to /dev/null and so will have to get used to it I think. Matt.
Re: Daft Internet Stuff [Re: Returning from "vacation". (MIA?)]
Emile van Bergen wrote >I also don't understand the phrase "today's Internet world". You mean >with the hordes running Outlook and shopping on the clickable amazing >discoveries / quantum shopping / tell sell channel that's the WWW? Yes. If you have to interact with them to any great extent then its hard to cut yourself off from those that don't follow the 'rules'. >How does that make sane email communication standards less relevant? It doesn't, but then those hordes may not agree with your view of which standard to follow if they don't know of the RFC (in this case) and just go with the MUA default settings. >Again, I ask: what's the alternative you are proposing? What do you >want? I'm putting forward the viewpoint that the 'rules' are archaic and quoting them may not get the response you want/expect. If you can then drop email to NULL: for those people then thats fine but others may not be so lucky. I find it hard to get worked up with any of the "anti-social" behaviour that goes on (yes, even spam) because its more useful to have access to the Internet with all its warts than to avoid some of the interaction that acompanies it. >It seems you just want to send HTML mail, and not feel sorry for it. Never said I wanted to and the thread was wider scoped than just HTML email. Matt.
Re: Daft Internet Stuff [Re: Returning from "vacation". (MIA?)]
Emile van Bergen wrote: > However, I fail to understand why you want people to refrain from > bringing the netiquette under the attention of the people they are > receiving email from. Never said they should refrain. I do think that it's a waste of time though. > IOW, if everybody just tries to accomodate some reasonable wishes as > stated by the other party as far as is possible without effort (and > including a text/plain part is no effort, not forwarding virus hoaxes is > no effort, but proving to a robot that you are not *is*), there is no > need to drop any netiquette rules. You don't need to drop any rules that you are happy with and comply with yourself. Just don't expect anyone else to do so. > In short, I still fail to see your point. I don't like school boy rules and I thought I'd tell everyone. The netiquette stuff (and others) are a pretty exclusive policy as there are such a myriad of rules that can be broken that its use is more to make the other party look stupid compared to the technical knowledge of their accuser. Matt.
Re: Daft Internet Stuff [Re: Returning from "vacation". (MIA?)]
>As opposed to plowing through your idiotic screed about how people >shouldn't have high standards, which is clearly not a waste of time >since it has important implications for how all developers maintain >their packages, right? Seems you couldn't resist helping me by extending the thread? But thanks anyway for the useful input on this. BTW, I didn't start off by telling someone off for a minor infraction of a few extra lines of text in their email. To illustrate further how barmy this .sig rule is, you can have many lines of crap in the body of the email, but woe-be-tide you if you put some of the in the signature at the end. [Insert witty riposte about how crap this thread is here...] >Maybe it's because people who don't understand netiquette really do look >stupid. Perhaps, but then this comment does support the elitist accusation. Matt.
