|
OP you should have used Ubuntu
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:I'm saying that the traditional way to provision a system using packages is broken and wrong, since it involves a lot of client-side shell scripts running as root, and is slow. Suspicious Dish posted:Really, the core idea about packages is just wrong and bad. Packages have shell scripts that run as root when you install them, and you wouldn't believe the idiotic things that actually go in them that are running on your system as root when you type "yum install butts" or "rpm -Uvh butts.rpm". There are also a whole class of packages (the new Click packages) that are flat-out prohibited from having maintainer scripts, except those automatically generated by debhelper. These are ideal for "apps" that have no business running weird root code.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
Also Ubuntu is in that awkward stage right now where we're near the release of a new LTS and so no one wants to backport fixes to earlier releases because in a month we'll all be telling people to just upgrade to 14.04. And ubuntu-gnome in 13.10 wasn't a real release yet it was like 2 people putting it together as a prototype. 14.04 ubuntu-gnome is actually like a real derivative.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Wait, what? You tell your customers running old LTSes that you aren't going to backport patches to it and to upgrade to the newest LTS as soon as it's available? This isn't necessarily out of laziness either -- a lot of what users might consider "normal fixes" require new upstream versions of dependent libraries. Which, in turn, requires upgrading to a newer stable LTS release. quote:How is that in any way an LTS? I backport patches to RHEL5 every week. It loving sucks, but I do it because that's the contract the customer signed. I think the thing to understand here is that "most" of Ubuntu is community developers and the universe archive (and stuff inherited from Debian), it's not the Canonical employees supporting Main. So when I talk in generalities I'm not talking about the stuff you pay for.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:The issue is that they're still running scripts as root that make untracked changes to your operating system. Yes, that could be updating a font or icon cache, but you're still left with files on your system with no way to rollback. quote:Well, you can repair it, but that means digging through poo poo in /etc/ that nobody should ever care about. Why the gently caress are config file migrations done with sed and awk in Ubuntu? I do agree in principle that package installs shouldn't make changes to files in "permanent" areas of the filesystem (this is in part why we have FHS) unless they can be equivalently removed upon package removal. That's one reason why configuration slowly moves from conf files to various .d folders where each package can dump something instead of appending to a file. ShadowHawk fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:ubuntu is broken the moment you enable universe/multiverse. the non-canonical repos are a shitshow of unpatched and/or hilariously broken "community" packages that replace debian packages at random. of course, all the software people actually want to use is in those known-bad repos Just today I made one of those "random changes" to the debian winetricks package. The debian maintainer had decided to include a patch he authored that prevents the program from running unless you give it the --gui command line option. No, he didn't update the .desktop launcher to include that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:My mantra is "any patch not upstream or backported from upstream is bad". The Debian guy was an idiot and reverting back to upstream through your patches is fine. The second exception is the pulseaudio patches I apply to Wine. This is a fairly significant change. Upstream does not believe in them and has been doing a sound rework for years and years and it still doesn't work as a native pulse backend, which is absolutely needed by some users I've met firsthand (and generally appreciated by all users, somewhat regular complaints about wine sound dropping have basically disappeared since I did this move). But in winepulse's case, it's cause I've got a developer actively maintaining the patches who helps me maintain the Wine package (and I helped him get him a job at Canonical so I know he'll stick around) Orphaned non-upstream patches should generally die though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:And I know that debbugs is a gigantic pile of incredible fun, but you should probably file a bug about that in the Debian package if you haven't already.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:question: Have you heard of wine-pipelight and will the patches in there ever make it to upstream Wine?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
oval office AND PASTE posted:arch really hasn't broken itself in a long time (check the front page, all the announcements there are all pretty minor) Might I ask what Ubuntu packages you needed to get from PPAs provided by users that have been since banned from Launchpad?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2014 09:55
|
|
|
oval office AND PASTE posted:it compiles as the user and then installs through sudo, it even prompts and asks if you'd like to check the PKGBUILD script for maliciousness. basically, it's 100% like doing it manually.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Tray icons are bad and pretty much everybody is looking forward to getting rid of them. They had the good sense to ban everything that isn't Wine from the systray though 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:create a tiny little window called GAY BABY JAIL for windows notification area icons
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:I'm actually curious: are system tray icons in Windows just the exact same thing? A window you can draw onto by receiving WM_PAINT messages and such? Because if so, yeah, we need to figure out what to do with Wine, because XEmbed is the only way you can emulate something like that. 1) Behave differently on left and right click 2) Draw something that's not a menu 3) Draw non-standard (or even non-rectangular) bits of interface on the screen without bringing up an actual window 4) Be a service launched at login 5) Be the only way to quit (or sometimes interact with at all) a running application 6) Have their own color and theming scheme independent of the system So, yeah, you need XEmbed "legacy" support for Wine. And maybe lovely Java apps.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:That was an actual thing that a coworker said to my face. In Ubuntu we don't strictly have "the UX guys" or "the Security guys". Especially when that's tied to employment, you end up with people believing that they have their own little silo to protect. Worse, sometimes people think that something within another silo is somebody else's problem -- even benignly not wanting to step on other's toes. Instead, everyone with upload rights is just a developer and can upload any package to Universe or to Main+Universe. Sure, there are people who work on particular things (eg me and Wine), and there are people who even get paid to work on certain particular things (eg most Canonical staff), but part of our process and organization makes everything feel like a shared burden.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Yeah ShadowHawk, you must trust your community members a lot if they have the keys to the kingdom. Developer who has gone through Ubuntu membership process and Developer membership process makes package update, signs it with his GPG key. He uses dput to upload it, then Launchpad compares his signature with his upload rights. If they match and he is uploading to the current development alpha, the package gets accepted into the -proposed repository. Once there, it needs to build and pass automated tests for it and all reverse-dependencies (ie, upload libfoo then the tests for package bar that depends on libfoo need to still pass). If it does, then an archive admin can click the button for pushing it into the actual archive (and not just -proposed). When we freeze the archive near release, there is also additional process that gets more burdensome as the release is closer and the package is more important (default install packages within a week of release need release team approval, for instance). There are similar "soft freezes" that happen earlier in the cycle that one can get exceptions to, like feature freeze and UI freeze. For stable release updates, ie the ones actually used by millions of people, we have more process around verification and so on designed to prevent regressions, as regressions in a stable release are really bad.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Beefy Miracle was basically a joke from our team about how dumb release names were in general. They finally stopped naming releases and I'm happy. Although this has the downside of about 30% of the posts about Ubuntu consisting of random alliterative release name "suggestions"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:i wish everyone just ignored the name and used the version number everywhere
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
double sulk posted:do u want 2 work w/shadowhawk? FMguru posted:y
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Today's containers have slightly less overhead costs than full VMs. That's about it if you don't put more work into them. You probably don't want to bother. In theory though with some effort your containers can get other savings over VMs, such as mounting a common shared-on-host-disk read only file system. With one kernel opening files for multiple containers you'd get more caching. Using containers as a way to get some sort of security by narrowing the scope of damage is a different use case, but VMs can do that just as well (possibly better depending on how much you trust the actual containerization).
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:physical media has drm too so linux hippies are criminals wanting to watch blurays illegally on a linux
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
api call girl posted:on the other hand, debian even I won't endorse debian politics
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Debian still ships my software with patches that are broken. I still get bug reports upstream for crashes that those patches cause upstream, and I have personally asked the maintainers of the packages to remove their patches many times over. I do not like shipping broken software to users, and it's extremely exhausting to have to explain to users that it's out of my control. I spent quite a long time trying to get into Debian "official" but there was already a (bad) maintainer and I just sorta gave up on it. Ubuntu then started to exist and I got welcomed with open arms. There's a reason Ubuntu's Wine packages are well maintained and Debian's aren't. It's just a lot simpler and nicer to contribute to Ubuntu, and we get poo poo done. I think another good story to tell here would be the multiarch transition. It was in a stable Ubuntu release about a year and a half before Debian, cause we actually could just knuckle down and do it for our versions of packages. It would take that year and a half for our patches to slowly filter their way back into Debian and for a proper multi-arch release to come out. Multi-arch is something Wine very much needs, so it gave me yet another reason to basically ignore Debian for a year. I don't have too many excuses to not actually make Debian versions of my packages left, though, especially with SteamOS. But man it'll be an extra hassle (Debian doesn't even have a PPA system like launchpad does...the closest is a service provided by OpenSuSE of all things).
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:debian's wine maintainer conformed to policy and paid attention to mailing lists. you ignored all that inconvenient stuff and poo poo out totally monolithic packages with a thousand dependencies. Debian's more of a loose confederation of package maintainers running their own fiefdoms than a coherent system.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
As someone who spends about 90% of his development time cleaning up Debian-inherited messes, I seriously don't understand the endorsement for it that keeps getting cargo-culted around here. The whole point of Ubuntu was to polish up Debian and release it on a regular basis, and it still does that. If you're saying to stay away from Ubuntu cause you don't like the default desktop and don't want to install a different one but can somehow manage the debian install process that forces you to then lol
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:p.s. shipping 6-month-old debian unstable doesn't count as "releasing" anything. it's already old and broken on day one, because debian's rolling release has been progressing while ubuntu faffs about with ad-supported desktops
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:what you call "mess" I call "policy". you poo poo out half baked non-compliant packages for a hobby. once, for a few months, a startup paid you for this dubious service. you, and people like you, are the problem with ubuntu, shadowhawk. gently caress the community repos. seriously. such a loving cesspool. like here you were thinking debian's standards were perfect and that the political model of having 1000 separate maintainers who can each veto constructive changes must be the one true way then reality comes and they can't ship a useful version of wine for years, half of them defect to double as Ubuntu developers, and major important architectural changes like the multiarch transition lag 2 whole years behind Ubuntu So then you fall back on the "standards" argument. Blind compliance to "standards" was the original justification behind splitting Wine into 12 different packages with names like libwine-oss that had to each be manually installed if you wanted arbitrary apps to work. For actual human users, though, just about every interesting app would break entirely due to this "helpful" feature. And why does this standard exist in Debian? So system administrators who knew exactly what they were doing could theoretically save about 15 kb of disk space by reducing the installation footprint of software that upstream never intended to be split. I'm sorry but that's really stupid. But, again, you have my sympathies. It's not easy to have your worldview shattered, especially when it was a very well ordered one.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:the key thing is that if you don't like a standard, you don't just poo poo out a substandard package, upload it, and call it a day. you have to, you know, convince other people it's a good idea and discuss it in appropriate venues and fix the standard quote:ubuntu's community repos mop up all the people too stupid or obstinate to meet the (minimal) qualifications to upload to debian
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Ubuntu and Debian are both terrible. Why doesn't Wine themselves publish binaries for Linux? Is it an actual real amount of work for you, ShadowHawk? If you meant "Linux in general", it's because the binaries really do need to be built differently for each distro due to differences in the 50+ dependencies and so on.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:lol what software do you write but after doing this and "real" software engineering on different projects and companies, it's the same drat thing just different languages and metadata to be fair it's a bit closer to devops than "I'm just a programmer" software development because you actually have to care about stuff like deployment and building and installability and so on
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Sure, but why can't that be automated and written by the Wine team? It can't be more than an hour of work. http://paste.ubuntu.com/7491257/ Everything in there that isn't "new upstream release" is a real problem that required some amount of work to fix. I've automated Wine daily package builds in the past it's no big deal (and Launchpad will soon support actually doing this properly in a way that can also run the Wine test suite).
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
(and do note that's just one package, I've touched a whole lot of other poo poo as well as prompted others to fix issues in other packages I've ran into, it's all one interconnected system)
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
theultimo posted:is this where i come in and say i work with codeweavers for fixes on games for mac and linux using crossover?
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
pram posted:wish youd write a wrapper to translate your posts into the garbage translating posts into garbage is pretty easy I just click the quote button under your name
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
pram posted:seems like that joke could have been implemented better
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
theultimo posted:not sure, i started pretty recently, working with ken thomas on improving x11 mac intergration and dx10 patches.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
hey is this the point in the conversation where someone is wishing debian had more regular releases so problems like this wouldn't happen so often
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:debian has perfectly good regular releases. i am recommending one of the rolling releases.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
To be clear Debian doesn't really have the infrastructure or organization to do or support stable releases properly. They do, however, have the ability to incorporate growing amounts of automated testing and phased migrations which you absolutely need if you're going to even attempt rolling releases. I'll note that a lot of the testing infrastructure is big in Ubuntu (this is the sort of stuff that benefits both projects when Ubuntu devs put on their Debian hats).
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:you really don't sense the irony in your shitposts do you Debian's ok, Ubuntu is better.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 06:16
|
|