| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DeathAndTaxes
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 124
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 5:39 am Post subject: /me thinks too much buggy stuff is getting into non-~ arch's |
 |
|
Seems like plenty of people are getting the good ole 'firefox crashes for no apparent reason' problems these days. For me, .93 worked really well, but 1.0PRx crashes left and right. Stuff is getting put in and then pulled back out of gentoo-dev-sources far too often (supermount and framebuffer anyone?).
Is it just me, or did I not read that the "x86" was supposed to be sorta "stable" while the "~x86" was supposed to be more leading/bleeding edge? I'd rather not have functionality that I've come to depend on disappear and then reappear only to disappear again later. I used to run a box on "~x86" but then I compiled a bad compiler about a year and a half ago and it was a major deal, so I switched to "x86" to avoid this sort of thing.
Am I alone, or do other people get the impression that we're really not saving "x86" for the stable, tested stuff in order to avoid falling a single step behind other distros/maintainers?
Just a thought... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pythonhead
Developer
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 1801
Location: Redondo Beach, Republic of Calif.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:24 am Post subject: Re: /me thinks too much buggy stuff is getting into non-~ ar |
|
|
| DeathAndTaxes wrote: | Seems like plenty of people are getting the good ole 'firefox crashes for no apparent reason' problems these days. For me, .93 worked really well, but 1.0PRx crashes left and right.
|
You're talking about beta software which by definition is known to be buggy and you're testing it. There are plenty of people who have never had 1.0PRx crash (like me). We have plenty of beta-only packages in portage. Should we never mark them stable? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Uh, I think you pretty much made my argument. Beta software probably shouldn't be marked as stable, right? Am I missing something here?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pythonhead
Developer
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 1801
Location: Redondo Beach, Republic of Calif.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:41 am Post subject: Re: /me thinks too much buggy stuff is getting into non-~ ar |
|
|
| DeathAndTaxes wrote: |
Is it just me, or did I not read that the "x86" was supposed to be sorta "stable" while the "~x86" was supposed to be more leading/bleeding edge? |
You said "sorta", not me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pythonhead
Developer
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 1801
Location: Redondo Beach, Republic of Calif.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DeathAndTaxes wrote: | | Uh, I think you pretty much made my argument. Beta software probably shouldn't be marked as stable, right? Am I missing something here? ;-) |
If you started removing all the beta and alpha software you have installed right now, you'd probably have a very hurting machine.
I don't know how many packages are beta or alpha only, but I bet there is an awful lot of them marked stable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc7
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
Posts: 133
Location: AC-Germany
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pythonhead wrote: | | DeathAndTaxes wrote: | | Uh, I think you pretty much made my argument. Beta software probably shouldn't be marked as stable, right? Am I missing something here? |
If you started removing all the beta and alpha software you have installed right now, you'd probably have a very hurting machine.
I don't know how many packages are beta or alpha only, but I bet there is an awful lot of them marked stable. |
why removing beta... isn't that what ~arch is supposed to be used for -> if you want beta/testing/extreme bleeding edge: use ~arch ???????
EDIT: with /etc/portage/packages.keywords you can even choose single unstable packages without getting problems in your regular update procedures
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 5:39 pm Post subject: Re: /me thinks too much buggy stuff is getting into non-~ ar |
|
|
| Pythonhead wrote: | | DeathAndTaxes wrote: |
Is it just me, or did I not read that the "x86" was supposed to be sorta "stable" while the "~x86" was supposed to be more leading/bleeding edge? |
You said "sorta", not me. |
You said "beta", not me.
I think Doc7 understands this just as well. We don't want to be running the stuff that isn't tested thoroughly (which as we understand it, is what "~x86" is supposed to do), and there are plenty of threads in the forums about firefox PR stuff in "x86" being buggy. The stuff in "x86" is *supposed* to be relatively stable, and I'm just saying that often it is not. Sorry to pick on the firefox maintainers, but they're just an example of what I'm talking about. Despite there being many reports of bugs, the PR releases still managed to get into "x86" instead of keeping them in "~x86" where they probably belong UNTIL these relatively common bugs get worked out.
I'm just pointing out that some package maintainers declare their stuff suitable for "x86" before it's actually ready. Don't take it so frickin' personally.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
didl
Retired Dev
Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1106
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 5:57 pm Post subject: Re: /me thinks too much buggy stuff is getting into non-~ ar |
|
|
| DeathAndTaxes wrote: | | The stuff in "x86" is *supposed* to be relatively stable, and I'm just saying that often it is not. |
I disagree! I have been running a mixed x86/~x86 system for over a
year now and it has been stable like a rock. It could very well be that your
cflags are too agressive/inapropriate for your box and that this causes
instabilities. Configurability - in my humble opinion - makes GENTOO
such a great distro; but it can backfire if you're not careful.
BTW: I have yet to crash firefox  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aja
l33t
Joined: 26 Aug 2002
Posts: 705
Location: Edmonton, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think this thread betrays some confusion about the use of arch and ~arch keywords. (I try to avoid the "stable" and "unstable" monikers as they add to the confusion, but I am losing that particular nomenclature battle).
My understanding (and I will be corrected, I am sure, if I am wrong), is that those keywords are used to mark the relative known stability of a given ebuild. In other words, an ~x86 ebuild is in a testing status for whether it reliably installs the package in question.
In general, a x86 vs ~x86 status does not necessarily say anything about the stability of the package in question - just about the ebuild (although, obviously, many devs will decline to remove the ~ if the package is know to be really lousy, but I think that is a choice, not a policy). If package x is a horribly, crufty, throroughly unstable PITA, it can still have its ebuild marked with a x86, if the ebuild reliably installs it without causing secondary system damage . If you have a problem with x, you should take it to the upstream developers who maintain the applications, not the gentoo devs that maintain the ebuild. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pythonhead
Developer
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 1801
Location: Redondo Beach, Republic of Calif.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:25 pm Post subject: Re: /me thinks too much buggy stuff is getting into non-~ ar |
|
|
| DeathAndTaxes wrote: | We don't want to be running the stuff that isn't tested thoroughly (which as we understand it, is what "~x86" is supposed to do), and there are plenty of threads in the forums about firefox PR stuff in "x86" being buggy.
|
We don't use the forums to determine if something is stable, and its beta software anyways, you should know its buggy. There has never been a stable (non-alpha/beta) release of Firefox.
| Quote: |
The stuff in "x86" is *supposed* to be relatively stable, and I'm just saying that often it is not.
|
Its beta software, it has bugs. Stable means it installs correctly with our ebuilds, its not a guarantee that we have fixed all the upstream maintainer's bugs.
| Quote: |
Sorry to pick on the firefox maintainers, but they're just an example of what I'm talking about. Despite there being many reports of bugs, the PR releases still managed to get into "x86" instead of keeping them in "~x86" where they probably belong UNTIL these relatively common bugs get worked out.
|
Read the ChangeLog for the package you're complaining about. It says why it was marked stable.
| Quote: |
I'm just pointing out that some package maintainers declare their stuff suitable for "x86" before it's actually ready. Don't take it so frickin' personally. :-) |
I'm not taking it personally, I don't maintain Firefox. Theres exactly one bug I could find for the Firefox version you're complaining about that has to do with crashes, and you aren't the one who took the time to report it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kallamej
Administrator
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 4981
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moved from Portage & Programming as it is not a support request.
_________________
Please read our FAQ Forum, it answers many of your questions.
irc: #gentoo-forums on irc.libera.chat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spb
Retired Dev
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 2135
Location: Cambridge, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| To answer the point about Firefox: 1.0_pre got pushed stable because it fixed a fairly serious security flaw in 0.9.x. Having the security holes fixed in the latest stable version is reckoned to be more important than having it as stable as possible, and with good reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Archangel1
Veteran
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Posts: 1212
Location: Work
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
The x86 tree and cohorts aren't meant to be totally stable anyway are they? I mean, obviously they're better than ~x86 etc, but they're not stable like Debian stable, where every last wee bug has been hammered out but the package is 18 months old.
And this is Gentoo, if a package is b0rked then kick it off and emerge an earlier version - all pretty easy really. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Halcy0n
Developer
Joined: 17 Sep 2003
Posts: 1682
Location: Freehold, NJ
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Archangel1 wrote: | | The x86 tree and cohorts aren't meant to be totally stable anyway are they? I mean, obviously they're better than ~x86 etc, but they're not stable like Debian stable, where every last wee bug has been hammered out but the package is 18 months old. |
I really hope this isn't the general attitude. If I'm running x86 on my server, I expect it to just work. Sure, there are going to be bugs, but I would not want a known piece of buggy software installed on my system without me explicitly saying so, which is the case when you emerge firefox.
_________________
Mark Loeser
http://www.halcy0n.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kamagurka
Veteran
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 1026
Location: /germany/munich
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:02 pm Post subject: Re: /me thinks too much buggy stuff is getting into non-~ ar |
|
|
| Pythonhead wrote: | | DeathAndTaxes wrote: | Seems like plenty of people are getting the good ole 'firefox crashes for no apparent reason' problems these days. For me, .93 worked really well, but 1.0PRx crashes left and right.
|
You're talking about beta software which by definition is known to be buggy and you're testing it. There are plenty of people who have never had 1.0PRx crash (like me). We have plenty of beta-only packages in portage. Should we never mark them stable? |
exactly. is there a problem with just leaving release candidates marked ~? when the gold release comes out, you can mark that stable.
_________________
If you loved me, you'd all kill yourselves today.
--Spider Jerusalem, the Word |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chunderbunny
Veteran
Joined: 31 May 2004
Posts: 1281
Location: 51°24'27" N, 0°57'15" W
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think aja has the riaght idea. "x86" packages aren't meant to be stable, they just have a stabel ebuild. Truth be told there is no "stable" arch in Gentoo since testing packages for complete stability takes an unholy amount of resources.
There is a very good reason why Debian unstable has packages which are so old, testing for stability simply takes a long time. This is one of the issues which GLEP 19 is supposed to address, namely having a "stable" portage tree for those who need ultra-stable systems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
perseguidor
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 278
Location: West Kingdom of Buenos Aires
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Archangel1 wrote: | | I really hope this isn't the general attitude. If I'm running x86 on my server, I expect it to just work. Sure, there are going to be bugs, but I would not want a known piece of buggy software installed on my system without me explicitly saying so, which is the case when you emerge firefox. |
I'm sorry if I just jump in the conversation, but that's exactly the point; you are saying it explicitly, as firefox is beta, and you know it .
I know it was probably just an example, but as examples go, this is quite relevant: Use mozilla instead, perhaps, or links/lynx.
The alternative would be having a x86 with half of the most used packages; not a single release of firefox should be there, of course, and you'll have to mark it explicitly in package keywords. If this is what you all mean, I'd say you have a point. But it would almost surely be an overkill, as far as real life stability goes; firefox is just a browser. If any of your browsing needs are crucial -I'm not saying they can't be, just mine aren't- you should switch to a non-beta-stage browser.
_________________
O make me a mask! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
perseguidor
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 278
Location: West Kingdom of Buenos Aires
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 6:02 pm Post subject: Re: /me thinks too much buggy stuff is getting into non-~ ar |
|
|
| kamagurka wrote: | | exactly. is there a problem with just leaving release candidates marked ~? when the gold release comes out, you can mark that stable. |
It seems viable, but that would be taking in the particular developer's measure of stability, isn't it? I'm not saying they are too quick to do releases, as this isn't MS we are talking about But having a ebuild-centered criteria makes it all coherent.
_________________
O make me a mask! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kamagurka
Veteran
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 1026
Location: /germany/munich
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IMHO, there should be a third flag. someting that "guarantees" that what you install is stable. without that, gentoo will never be viable on production-grade servers, and gentoo is just too good to be left out of that market segment.
_________________
If you loved me, you'd all kill yourselves today.
--Spider Jerusalem, the Word |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
allucid
Veteran
Joined: 02 Nov 2002
Posts: 1314
Location: atlanta
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kamagurka wrote: | | IMHO, there should be a third flag. someting that "guarantees" that what you install is stable. without that, gentoo will never be viable on production-grade servers, and gentoo is just too good to be left out of that market segment. |
There is no such thing as 'guaranteed stable' programs. Like he said earlier, firefox has never had a non-beta release so people are expected to have problems. Most problems associated with the new release are due to some files in the users .mozilla/firefox/ dir from previous versions of firefox that don't work with the new version.
If you are running a production level server don't install any beta software. It is up to the server administrator to make sure upgrades don't screw anything up.
Your suggestion sounds like a good idea but it would be difficult to implement. What packages go into this category? What requirements must they meet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Halcy0n
Developer
Joined: 17 Sep 2003
Posts: 1682
Location: Freehold, NJ
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woolsherpahat
Guru
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 347
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kamagurka wrote: | | IMHO, there should be a third flag. someting that "guarantees" that what you install is stable. without that, gentoo will never be viable on production-grade servers, and gentoo is just too good to be left out of that market segment. |
Agreed. There should be a Gentoo equivlent of Debian Stable. It doesn't matter if the packages are old as long as they're secure and stable, at least to me. Maybe there could be a +stable USE flag?
_________________
The Real OTW
"Blue skies and high fives" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spb
Retired Dev
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 2135
Location: Cambridge, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 10k1 wrote: | | Agreed. There should be a Gentoo equivlent of Debian Stable. It doesn't matter if the packages are old as long as they're secure and stable, at least to me. Maybe there could be a +stable USE flag? |
Read the post above yours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kamagurka
Veteran
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 1026
Location: /germany/munich
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Halcy0n wrote: | | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0019.html |
i'm not sure i understand what this is. is it a proposition? a planned feature? or merely an idea?
_________________
If you loved me, you'd all kill yourselves today.
--Spider Jerusalem, the Word |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Halcy0n
Developer
Joined: 17 Sep 2003
Posts: 1682
Location: Freehold, NJ
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kamagurka wrote: | | Halcy0n wrote: | | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0019.html |
i'm not sure i understand what this is. is it a proposition? a planned feature? or merely an idea? |
GLEP == Gentoo Linux Enhancement Proposals
So they are possible future features and or policies. If you look at the GLEP index, http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/ , you'll see ones that are already implemented and others that are drafts.
_________________
Mark Loeser
http://www.halcy0n.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Gentoo Chat
