| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mv
Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 6749
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 5:30 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Naib wrote: | | There was no indication in what exists now could be leverage to manage /usr or /<root> |
If you are aware that this is not related, then why do you post it in this thread, even as a reply to a question which obviously refers to the latter?
| Quote: | | so please don't spin this to perpetuate your own views. |
I posted no view at all - in fact, I have no opinion about the political topic of this thread - but I just summarized some technical facts to avoid misunderstandings which obviously already occurred if you look at szatox's reply to your posting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 1clue wrote: | | Surely if there is no discussion about this in upstream communities there should be. There are to pretty large camps on this issue, and it seem prudent to accommodate both groups. |
The thing is, the way to do that is simply to leave well enough alone, as the existing setup supports both (as proven by Duncan's "use-case" on the list.)
What distribution X decides to do is up to them, since it may well be for specialised use-cases (or not.)
This does not suit Gentoo, the meta-distribution, at all.
Trying to impose the simplest-possible-config on everyone is cack-handed, at best: one size does not fit all, and never has.
That is why (UNIX and) Linux is about choice (and always has been.)
It's funny though, how "everything must be as simple as possible" when it comes to PATH, which is hardly new to anybody, but "everyone must use an initrd" and simple is not best.
All it seems to come down to is: everyone must do what RedHat does, however dumbass it may be for their installations.
No, thanks.
Support the admin and the user: do not constrain them a priori to one limited conception of how their machines should be laid out.
Quite apart from how useless that is, it simply is not your place as a software-developer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
axl
Veteran
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1144
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hmmm. Wasn't the "s" in "sbin" supposed to be "service" binaries. As in those binaries that only root uses? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@steveL,
It seems we may actually agree on something finally.
Frankly I can see myself on both sides of this discussion.
On real hardware, I definitely like a separate /usr partition and Do Not Like when people say I can't have one.
On VMs, my typical install is a single partition with maybe some shared or tmpfs going on. In which case I could really care less where stuff lands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
axl
Veteran
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1144
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
my 2 cents. not that anyone should care.
it makes great sense to me to put all libs in one place. no point in having a long LD thingie. makes compilation and finding libs a pain. but it should NOT be /usr/lib|32|64. it should simply be /lib|32|64.
and it makes great sense to me to keep bins and sbins (where S stands for service. or superuser) separate. bins are simple apps for users. sbins are those bins that can affect the system. either by hardware or software. those that only root can use.
also makes sense to me to keep console apps, separate from X apps. and for a lot of years i hoped upstream devs would finally get it.
now they seem to reinvent the wheel instead of using this vestigial organ "/usr" for something practical. like delimitation between console and X.
can't wait to see evolution and chrome in /bin and to call #!/usr/bin/sh. Makes perfect sense.
On the other hand, there are tons of apps that work in console and install in usr. Now that i think about it, I realize how much that bothers me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6053
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| axl wrote: | | Hmmm. Wasn't the "s" in "sbin" supposed to be "service" binaries. As in those binaries that only root uses? |
System Binaries.... Although Pottering and co are re-defining the "s" to mean "statically-linked" binaries and "because we prefer dynamic linked we can get rid of the redundant sbin directory"
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
axl
Veteran
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1144
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | | axl wrote: | | Hmmm. Wasn't the "s" in "sbin" supposed to be "service" binaries. As in those binaries that only root uses? |
System Binaries.... Although Pottering and co are re-defining the "s" to mean "statically-linked" binaries and "because we prefer dynamic linked we can get rid of the redundant sbin directory" |
i see. i thought /opt was for that.
EDIT: and this creates a different outlook all together. so now we dont just merge usr with /, while keeping /usr, but we also merge sbin with bin.
why? there has to be a logic behind it. people suggesting that should be solved uptream... it think they are right.
Last edited by axl on Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| axl wrote: | | it makes great sense to me to put all libs in one place. no point in having a long LD thingie. |
Eh? LDFLAGS etc have nothing to do with it at runtime; /etc/ld.so.cache already saves the lookup time.
| Quote: | | makes compilation and finding libs a pain. |
No, it really doesn't; for a start pkgconfig, secondly learn build-systems properly. They are a whole area of development work, that starts with understanding Unix and the shell, as does userland coding. ##workingset and #bash
| Quote: | | but it should NOT be /usr/lib|32|64. it should simply be /lib|32|64. |
If you don't understand nor care about the split, that's fine.
Just don't expect others to care about your naif opinion on it. ;)
| Quote: | | and it makes great sense to me to keep bins and sbins (where S stands for service. or superuser) separate. bins are simple apps for users. sbins are those bins that can affect the system. either by hardware or software. those that only root can use. |
..or only sysadmins are likely to want to use, agreed.
The proposal is entirely ludicrous, and betrays a deep lack of understanding of how UNIX/POSIX systems have operated so successfully for so long.
| Quote: | also makes sense to me to keep console apps, separate from X apps. and for a lot of years i hoped upstream devs would finally get it.
now they seem to reinvent the wheel instead of using this vestigial organ "/usr" for something practical. like delimitation between console and X. |
Ah but that does work, in the sense that no X-based apps install to '/' instead of '/usr'.
The other way round is another matter, as..
| Quote: | | On the other hand, there are tons of apps that work in console and install in usr. Now that i think about it, I realize how much that bothers me. |
..console apps can use bloated deps too ;) Which is the entire point of a minimal rootfs: it's the basis for tight linkage, and building an initrd, or iow early-userspace collaboration, whatever the use-case for a specific machine we might be working on.
| Quote: | | can't wait to see evolution and chrome in /bin and to call #!/usr/bin/sh. Makes perfect sense. |
I do hope that was a joke. ;) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6053
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| axl wrote: | | Naib wrote: | | axl wrote: | | Hmmm. Wasn't the "s" in "sbin" supposed to be "service" binaries. As in those binaries that only root uses? |
System Binaries.... Although Pottering and co are re-defining the "s" to mean "statically-linked" binaries and "because we prefer dynamic linked we can get rid of the redundant sbin directory" |
i see. i thought /opt was for that.
EDIT: and this creates a different outlook all together. so now we dont just merge usr with /, while keeping /usr, but we also merge sbin with bin.
why? there has to be a logic behind it. people suggesting that should be solved uptream... it think they are right. |
/opt is for optional installations. like binary, closedsource, self-contained packages.
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 1clue wrote: | | It seems we may actually agree on something finally. |
Hallelujah ;) That it's up to the admin how they lay out their machine.
| Quote: | | Frankly I can see myself on both sides of this discussion. |
No that's not both sides of the discussion; it's simply a user of either setup, separate partitioning for a physical machine, and one virtual partition for VMs, much like a directory for a chroot or jail.
The discussion is whether forcing every Linux distribution to use one big bindir for everything is a good basis for future cross-distro (and thus cross-userbase) collaboration.
As I've pointed out on so many occasions, a rootfs distinct from /usr, is the central collaborative point for all of it.
So, no, getting rid of the idea, is not a good collaborative basis: it's a terrible move to make, counter-productive for the stated pretext^W aim.
We all use different setups at different points; don't let that be how you decide "which camp" you are in (that's how you're being led to think, not of the subject but your own use-case.)
We reserve the right to use whatever setup we like, whenever we like.
Really this thread should be titled s/usr/bindir/
Last edited by steveL on Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
axl
Veteran
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1144
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | I do hope that was a joke.  |
more like an anecdote. it was just my 2 cents.
I think separating X apps from console apps with this vestigial /usr organ is a good way to make life easier for newcomers in linux. It's a wonderful idea for all unixes. just as separating bins from sbins. and you could have that /usr/sbin for stuff that works in X that only root uses. This would make some sort of sense. I mean, for someone that would want to interact with my system. My kid is asking this sort of question. That's what i mean with my 2 cents.
the LD thing. I know about multilib and that separation. but other then that, from my point of view, having /lib|/usr/lib|/usr/local/lib|/opt/lib/stuff is too much. try that on a raspberry pi.
thing is, i run very fast machines, and very slow machines. the one i am posting from uses tmpfs as root because why not. 64Gb of DDR4 ram. but my slowest is painfully slow. painfully slow. and this sort of stuff matters.
i think, ultimately no linux distro should accommodate me and my crazy ideas. I should do that. The point of a distro is to make sort of a socialist version for everybody. easy to modify. easy to accommodate. gentoo ALWAYS did it's best to be flexible. therefor, i dont see why it should follow fedora. but, it could make a simple useflag overwrite thingie to put your binary wherever you want.
some people would have a problem with it, especially with the default, but i would not mind writing my own file like /etc/package/package.bin_paths where i could overwrite the defaults. and i would go according to my schema. for instance php/ssh/apache/proftpd/cyrus/postfix sit in root. not in usr. i would put all X stuff in usr. FOR MY SYSTEM if i had that... gentoo flexibility.
I'll put it this way. if you want to put the stuff together u can just move them and create links. that would not break the system. well... depends on the system.
but if you want to keep various degrees of separation, it would be a nice feature of portage if you could specify PER package where u want bins and libs to go. either separate or together. it would solve other vestigial stuff on weird archs like pi when you have libs in opt even though you dont want them there. and each admin makes his own system.
gentoo has a unique chance here to lead in the industry. just by implementing a feature in portage and allowing us, users to decide what schema to adopt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| axl wrote: | | i would put all X stuff in usr. FOR MY SYSTEM if i had that... gentoo flexibility. |
Please, show me which X apps you have which install to '/'.
(I'll absorb the rest later.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
axl
Veteran
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1144
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | axl wrote: | | i would put all X stuff in usr. FOR MY SYSTEM if i had that... gentoo flexibility. |
Please, show me which X apps you have which install to '/'.
(I'll absorb the rest later.) |
i never said i have X apps in root. I think you heard that i would move these X apps that are in root to usr. what i meant is that i prefer usr to be separate to distiguish X apps. i said i dont want them in root. in fact i like mac's approach of making an graphical application folder that points you to all applications. and having a link in there to X11sbins. or as mac calls it, uhm... i forgot. what is it? settings? configuration? i dont know. sorry.
i said i dont like console apps sitting in usr. i want them in root. in fact i specified a few of them. that if given the choice by portage, i would move them to root.
i WOULD merge libs, but not apps. for simple user stupid reasons. again, i think a simple portage feature would make gentoo the most flexible distro and make everyone happy. package.bin_paths and package.lib_paths or something of the sort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ant P.
Watchman
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 6920
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | Please, show me which X apps you have which install to '/'. |
Not to get too involved, but that was interesting to try and figure out for myself:
| Code: | | ldd /{bin,sbin,lib}/* | sed '/^\S/d; s/\S\+)$//' | sort | uniq |
The output of that is pretty short, and apart from 2 exceptions (/bin/mail is a disaster and cfdisk wants /usr/lib/libfdisk.so.1), all fits outside of /usr/ too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
axl
Veteran
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1144
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ant P. wrote: | | cfdisk wants /usr/lib/libfdisk.so.1 |
and slang in some environments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saellaven
l33t
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 648
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| axl wrote: | | steveL wrote: | | I do hope that was a joke. |
more like an anecdote. it was just my 2 cents.
I think separating X apps from console apps with this vestigial /usr organ is a good way to make life easier for newcomers in linux. It's a wonderful idea for all unixes. just as separating bins from sbins. and you could have that /usr/sbin for stuff that works in X that only root uses. This would make some sort of sense. I mean, for someone that would want to interact with my system. My kid is asking this sort of question. That's what i mean with my 2 cents. |
If someone wants a separate directory for X apps, let them make one. Every other user shouldn't be forced to use the same setup someone else decided was best for their own use case.
| Quote: |
the LD thing. I know about multilib and that separation. but other then that, from my point of view, having /lib|/usr/lib|/usr/local/lib|/opt/lib/stuff is too much. try that on a raspberry pi. |
Again, don't constrain every other system to the limits of a particular system.
| Quote: |
i think, ultimately no linux distro should accommodate me and my crazy ideas. I should do that. The point of a distro is to make sort of a socialist version for everybody. easy to modify. easy to accommodate. gentoo ALWAYS did it's best to be flexible. therefor, i dont see why it should follow fedora. but, it could make a simple useflag overwrite thingie to put your binary wherever you want. |
The people behind systemd, the usr merge, etc all want to confine you to their one true way (tm) of doing things. They complain that having the flexibility to adapt a system to your particular needs is bad - every system must conform to their arbitrary and capricious whims.
| Quote: |
gentoo has a unique chance here to lead in the industry. just by implementing a feature in portage and allowing us, users to decide what schema to adopt. |
unfortunately, there is a significant faction of devs, with williamh leading the charge publicly, that want to turn gentoo into a srpm clone of RH. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
axl
Veteran
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1144
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| also dont look where your ncurses libs are. some are here. some are there. the logic is that the shared ones are in root. the c++ ones are in usr. and ncurses is ... pretty basic. why are the c++ ones in usr? what possible good does that do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
axl
Veteran
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1144
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| saellaven wrote: | | Again, don't constrain every other system to the limits of a particular system. |
actually the only SOLUTION i proposed was a simple portage flag to change path. MY reasoning for my 2 cents, is that i dont want my raspberry userland in opt. i stand by that. i called it naively package.bin_paths/package.lib_paths.
this is the gentoo way. change it in make.conf or /etc/portage. make your own version. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | I was trying to suggest that we need to find a way to slay the two headed monster that Gentoo has become. So we organise along the lines of a traditional corporation. To do that, the authority/responsibility tree must be headed by a body with legal standing. |
Neddy ... sorry to butt in ... that "body with legal standing" sive "authority" exists, the issue is that de facto governance doesn't emanate from it ... even though the contract (via the charter) is to bind agents to that governance. The weakness of the charter is the vagueness in and around the question of "interven[tion]", this clause has the effect of debasing the charter, because such a charter can't both establish a chain of agency, and at the same time lop off its own head.
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | It can't 'just happen' as the current technical leadership has its own rules which are incompatible with the legal requirements that any corporation needs to follow. |
You need to ask yourself one question, is some person, or group of persons, granted the right to form councils, make rules, etc, etc. The only subject I see defined in the charter is "the community", and where "the development process" is concerned that might as well refer to me as to this council, or "developers". No where is anyone chartered to govern, or at least no one other than "the community". The fact that there is a "technical" body means absolutely nothing, none of this is granted by the charter ... we users could do the very same thing with equal authority, and while such functional groupings provide some ad hoc method of organising, settling opinion, etc, none of them constitute a governing body. That fact needs impressed on "developers", they are simply agents of the community, and the terms of the charter doesn't grant them any special status. If the foundation is placed in an awkward position by the current organisational structure, or needs to restructure it in some way (in order to fulfil its mandate) then it should exercise its power, and do so (otherwise it is effectively failing to fulfil its obligations). So, it can "just happen", the foundation is invested with all the necessary powers to make it happen, the problem is how such "intervention" is understood, and how the council, etc, would react.
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | Agreeing within Gentoo that the council answers to the trustees cannot happen without significant changes to the constitution of the council. So much so, that it would not be recognisable as the current council. |
The council can disagree all it likes, it is only a quasi organisation, the fact that it has assumed the role of governance is primarily due to it having been allowed to do so. The trustees are required to assure that any body operating as agents of the community is in fact doing that, and in that regard is subject to the trustees.
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | The trustees have a legal obligation to 'appoint competent persons'. Lets dwell on that 'appoint competent persons' ... lots of questions follow but no answers. Where do (council) elections fit into appointments? The 'competent' requirement means anyone who can discharge the responsibilities of the role. That does not restrict appointments to Gentoo devs. |
The charter is a form of appointment, and "the community" is being granted the right to take on the task of organising its functioning ... that is fairly non-problematic, even for quasi-bodies such as the council. The problem starts when such bodies are governing without a mandate, or only consist of non-representative persons of some small part of "the community" (ie, developers). There is no reason why the council can't be "competent", and so fulfil the trustees legal obligation, but the question is whether they actually represent the community, and so fulfil the obligations of the charter.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krinn
Watchman
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7470
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the trustees protect the foundation, what are they protecting if they are not protecting the gentoo project? The foundation exist only because the project exists, if your task is to protect the foundation, you de-facto get also the protection of the project itself.
It's like if anyone is saying : "i have the task to protect the head of that person", and when the person is about to jump under a train : "we couldn't do anything, we're only protecting the head and not the corpse" ; hey can't you see you will have no head to protect once that body has been under a train???
So if nobody has the task to protect the body, and you are in charge of protecting the head, sorry, but you are also in charge of protecting the body just to do your task ; protecting the head.
So until council have a legal existence, any technicals or not, decisions made fall under trustees power.
It's not trustees that should be scared council have no legal existence, but council members that should be scared it could be closed without notice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Naib"] | axl wrote: | | System Binaries.... " |
Yes, that's what I remembered from UNIX, but didn't trust my memory. It was long ago. I started using UNIX when AT&T was THE Telephone Company. I remember clearly a seminar where they were explaining their new programming language called C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54420
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
khayyam, krinn,
I agree with all of that.
When I said "just happen" I meant overnight with no further thought or other changes.
Feel free to join the Foundation and become trustees.
If you look at the history of Gentoos metastructure, its never been fixed until it was demonstrably broken.
The top level project leads, which were left in charge and without a leader when drobbins left, eventually failed to resolve technical issues.
The council emerged from that as a solution to an immediate problem.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonathan183
Guru
Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 318
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2016 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We all have our own idea what the future of Gentoo should be, and all have our own use cases. Comming up with a set of rules which work in all cases and are not open to abuse is almost if not impossible.
Choosing to support a particular option in preference, in some cases excluding other options will happen from time to time. Making a particular change is sometimes the right thing to do, and sometimes ends up being the wrong thing to do.
Recognising when such changes are being made is important, and in such cases a good justification for making the change needs to be made. There should also be a reasonable attempt at considering alternatives by the people suggesting the change, with reasons why the alternatives are not preferred. This should be followed by a suitable time for alternative views/approaches to be identified before a decision is made on the best approach.
Resolving disputes where there are differing views on the best approach and preventing repeated resubmission of the same change with no real difference from when it was considered last time round are needed.
There does not seem to be a requirement for people proposing the change to do the work to justify the change and consider alternatives. A can't be bothered looking at why it was rejected last time should go no further and be automatically rejected! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saellaven
l33t
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 648
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | khayyam, krinn,
I agree with all of that.
When I said "just happen" I meant overnight with no further thought or other changes.
Feel free to join the Foundation and become trustees.
If you look at the history of Gentoos metastructure, its never been fixed until it was demonstrably broken.
The top level project leads, which were left in charge and without a leader when drobbins left, eventually failed to resolve technical issues.
The council emerged from that as a solution to an immediate problem. |
The question is, what happens when the Council fails to do its job or becomes co-opted by a radical faction? The whole initramfs is a great example of them refusing to even consider the technical merits and completely ignoring the very valid existing patches to eliminate the problem entirely... williamh should be publicly embarrassed for his actions there (or for not knowing what constitutes a public API or pushing untested changes through a critical package like openrc ...), yet, he's allowed to remain on the Council and continues to ram these types of things through. I believe the only reason he's meeting any resistance now, is because of the push back a lot of us here initiated after that incident.
If the current Foundation will do nothing to stop a runaway Council from violating Gentoo's charter, and in fact, given that the charter was temporarily secretly "erroneously" modified without the Trustee's knowledge and consent during the recent migration, what good is it to become a Trustee? It appears to me that the inmates run the asylum.
Over the last couple years, I got too busy with other things to continue to maintain my preparatory fork of Gentoo, but maybe it's time to find the time to start dusting off that plan again... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54420
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2016 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
saellaven,
| saellaven wrote: | | If the current Foundation will do nothing to stop a runaway Council from violating Gentoo's charter, and in fact, given that the charter was temporarily secretly "erroneously" modified without the Trustee's knowledge and consent during the recent migration, what good is it to become a Trustee? It appears to me that the inmates run the asylum. |
It wasn't. The charter, along with most of the other GuideXML documents were auto migrated. The problem is/was with the conversion script.
The charter wasn't checked post migration and remained incorrect until it was brought to my attention here.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
