From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-GM-THRID: 6524973730788016128 X-Received: by 10.28.153.87 with SMTP id b84mr866721wme.19.1521151668078; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:07:48 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: isar-users@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.223.209.5 with SMTP id a5ls1555641wri.3.gmail; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:07:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELsGhaEPdeN5SnDSBQhodeYooJrew80jSvhadCIwalQiURKxFeUwbjaE6D+tJnhptAqZS8vD X-Received: by 10.223.136.108 with SMTP id e41mr1120234wre.17.1521151667499; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:07:47 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1521151667; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=JxVndJBuN40hSGM81PGnj0eruJfssDpn9PYlQ95bS/+P7191bJHNzPRgFnLwrQiwlM VPik1k+9W70uTmyrnDjOoGKtu84zNo4xsitcgjirxPrLlig/mSX1wcGyv8rDR4cuvIq1 p1QbWgayoZ9+XIZ5gSNfMqcDiKfVS8x51/wRkHOuIKlqtRMZa9falKdt3IinMGpNCL20 5WnbNF7zu9SdLuubNAQicc5asJ6Ar+sR4ol0d9sAxKYuVk5+3DWVDBsxnMDWr+TtQOqd sAbkclzmx1dmIoC4lsyT0mV8ZGxn/FVkkjDprRuPv8KCDSA8XyD4iBOQ+QSDlbGTDB5Z sdJw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date:to:from:subject:message-id :arc-authentication-results; bh=k99/7yT12mi1gHFK0Nci2ZvaNKvU90j4s8+BTWuvlYY=; b=Ko1cOx90+xTk5Pnr21JU6kKZpPBOlb7XXq88plx8f0VA5Ib2VFVyIgU8wGN/w9NiC9 DbQl0/KvWr9YmkS/nMhQNE59sk3HsNlhRgM2FKJL5m8wCkfdbPVkJ+zr9yUcl/MGJJoU ++oeLVO1Xc0zadmelYWDp/g4SUNqndE6KugA9/RM05CrBJBX8XESlpCnVTfpm7S4AdL5 /6d5qx+ZGtgTCr4HLLwKwkE8L/YT4XkKCf6UM3bdxz9f/jbjkHuPgH8hFbpjFFGXcWPi iFK/Uqlq0OOJE2m8GkX1TckOJk/rl71jCLDp+V+U0bPAv2FAYE2j6zCUWqSeSXli0TiM FPyQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 212.18.0.9 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ch@denx.de) smtp.mailfrom=ch@denx.de Return-Path: Received: from mail-out.m-online.net (mail-out.m-online.net. [212.18.0.9]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a139si2254wma.4.2018.03.15.15.07.47 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 212.18.0.9 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ch@denx.de) client-ip=212.18.0.9; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 212.18.0.9 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ch@denx.de) smtp.mailfrom=ch@denx.de Received: from frontend01.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.182]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 402N4g0w0Lz1r1yh; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 23:07:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (dynscan1.mnet-online.de [192.168.6.70]) by mail.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 402N4g0Ztxz1qqyb; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 23:07:47 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mnet-online.de Received: from mail.mnet-online.de ([192.168.8.182]) by localhost (dynscan1.mail.m-online.net [192.168.6.70]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CgIdj3vpNcUb; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 23:07:44 +0100 (CET) X-Auth-Info: oywDt26j+32HEGh6YmuoinLICtx4PvEpiszRNPH62J8= Received: from Orrorin (dslb-088-067-180-155.088.067.pools.vodafone-ip.de [88.67.180.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 23:07:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <1521151658.16621.311.camel@denx.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] implement isar-bootstrap using debootstrap From: Claudius Heine To: Alexander Smirnov , Claudius Heine , Jan Kiszka , isar-users@googlegroups.com Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 23:07:38 +0100 In-Reply-To: <29de9170-10ee-2ad9-38ed-feeed561d6f0@ilbers.de> References: <20180307164457.31933-1-claudius.heine.ext@siemens.com> <20180307164457.31933-2-claudius.heine.ext@siemens.com> <11d20fad-e1bc-2e0d-e227-2c4ddc512dcb@ilbers.de> <1521021141.16621.86.camel@denx.de> <1521036867.16621.120.camel@denx.de> <29de9170-10ee-2ad9-38ed-feeed561d6f0@ilbers.de> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-kb/XPy5LABDIMwG7f/cK" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-TUID: +3X+yfCCAvU+ --=-kb/XPy5LABDIMwG7f/cK Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Alex, On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 11:58 +0300, Alexander Smirnov wrote: > @Claudius: > For me is very annoying when my question is ignored after explicit=20 > re-posting. So let's be polite and keep conversations here free of > emotions. Read the following text without any emotions, apart from the paragraphs where I added the applicable ascii-emoji: First, I already answered your question indirectly here: >> If the distro-specific bootstrap mechanism builds its 'bootstraped >> root file system' from a bunch of binary packages or directly from=20 >> source is implementation and distro specific. So the distinction=20 >> only makes sense in the upstream project but not here, since we are=20 >> just using what the upstream distributions provides for general=20 >> consumption. Short: I don't agree with the presumptions in this question, therefor I cannot answer it sensible. And second I don't like responding to attempts at manipulation, like you did with this loaded question: > My question, why it's so important to use initially ambiguous term, > which may lead to potential confusing for Debian users? Maybe that is just a misunderstanding, but maybe we should go through it piece by piece and then look at it as a whole, so you can understand what I mean: > My question, why it's so important "why it's so important" reads accusatory, not neutral and together with the following parts of this sentence colors the rest of your question in a negative light. > to use initially ambiguous term, Here you are presuming my guilt by implying that I have chosen an 'ambiguous term' on purpose. I don't think 'isar-bootstrap' or 'bootstrap' is ambiguous in this context. Since generating an initial root file system for linux distributions is called 'bootstrapping the linux distribution' and that is exactly what is done here, so its not ambiguous for me. That debian has two methods of doing it also doesn't matter. Since that is an implementation detail and can be easily looked up. The end result is that we have some kind of minimal root file system that we can use to install our customization on top. > which may lead to potential confusing for Debian users? "may lead to potential confusing" Is it or is it not? That sounds like you are just making things up and spread FUD. It sound like "this code could potentially cause your computer to catch fire and explode". If I would have called something 'debootstrap' that formats your hard drive, then yes, I see that this causes confusion and even more. I don't see why a name like 'isar-bootstrap' or its containing task 'do_bootstrap' could confuse any Debian user that uses Isar. And even if that "may lead to potential confusing" them, it will clear up fast when they just take a look into the 'do_bootstrap' implementation. Also, since Isar is a completely different Project than Debian, people will have other expectations and might be positively surprised that something with 'bootstrap' in its name still does what they have expected it to do ;) So then look at the whole question again and try to answer it: > My question, why it's so important to use initially ambiguous term, > which may lead to potential confusing for Debian users? If I would nitpick then that isn't even a question, its a statement that this is your question. Also, how am I supposed to answer it? (Hold on, this us a rhetorical question and I don't expect an answer.) The answer is obvious. Its like questioning: Why do you think it is right to kill everyone? Maybe I should just reply to this questions and yours: That is not my intention. I'm not sure that this is what you wanted to hear, but your question can now be considered answered. Since that is done now, I follow with my responses to some other parts of your mail: > It's not only about internal class names, this series introduces=20 > 'do_bootstrap' task that is visible to user and will be a part of=20 > documentation. I don't expect many people building on top of isar-bootstrap, since that is now pretty much the core internals of isar. People will build their customization based on the output of isar-bootstrap, not isar- bootstrap itself. > If you use deboostrap, it's ok to name tasks/recipes/etc > respectively (do_debootstrap, ...). But in some cases it uses 'qemu-debootstrap' ;) (Nitpicky again, sorry) Now we have a general name for all the bootstrap mechanisms 'do_bootstrap' and then if the need arise we can change 'do_bootstrap' to some kind of 'virtual' task and have different implementations like 'do_bootstrap_deb_binary', 'do_bootstrap_deb_source', ... For now we have one, because we only support one bootstrapping mechanism or distribution. That is the reverse direction of your suggestion, but this way we have some kind of meta-tasks names already, and changing it later can be done more transparent. > My position is simple: I read patches and if I've found something=20 > unclear, I'm trying to understand what was the reason going this way. That is a good position. And review generally really helps. Here are some suggestions for me to improve the current situation. First, please stay measured. Arguing a long time about minor things like variable names, while there might be many other places in the actual code that could be improved is not. For instance I did like your suggestion to add '--homedir' to gpg, more of that please. In general more suggestions with measurable improvements and less emotions like apprehensions about possibly confusing someone. Second, please more 'trying to understand' instead of forcing your view onto others via questions and or statements. Only after you understood the view point of others you can really critique them. So ask questions first (best in a neutral, open and honest way), after you understood the developers view point and code you can make suggestions for improvements while stating you objective reasons for it. Also appreciating and praising good code occasionally will help a lot spreading a positive and cooperative atmosphere in the project. :) Maybe take a look at [1] and especially [2]. I left some parts of your message out, but I hope that I have made myself implicitly clear how I stand on the other parts of your message. If something is still unclear, then please ask. Cheers, Claudius [1] https://mtlynch.io/human-code-reviews-1/ [2] https://mtlynch.io/human-code-reviews-2/ P.S. For me this kind of discussion now borders more on entertainment than work and I don't think that this is a good sign. ;) --=20 DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-54 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: ch@denx.de PGP key: 6FF2 E59F 00C6 BC28 31D8 64C1 1173 CB19 9808 B153 Keyserver: hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net --=-kb/XPy5LABDIMwG7f/cK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEb/LlnwDGvCgx2GTBEXPLGZgIsVMFAlqq7qoACgkQEXPLGZgI sVMDKw/7BRcYbe9jMXzZ7YE0G//4cAHbJFr62z+k+zZ1yd+sBLXCsIw1EpRAoAIo m2OzhlacqY/PvKh+QXjtIGKFC5OzrJWYX1QVV9pKQs8sxJzkPGVIzMaDNU9eK4XB oE+/KHQNnnyqj4TAb0kSSDfoSog2z+iN5Xlg4h+1k+9CurHeyWPFlkVSZB601otO dbn5V4NRT9zmRdUAbn/akXeYQ37ufHqwh0xe5l3YI2QwrkQpiXkQt+DydDcrbdI9 MZOKr6O03JZvU4TOwKbwdISNFj3jnanQwH9nHWvZO+88aXny1h/BdImSMZ+UG4tz 5QYUfj4N6Uoj0cXUicGKKpwiuRyZ/7Rz3/DM5nI6oEwPvTcmeSuKr4IWYjMNmDY9 RddOIH6G5+nnZcqHfvv6wEkZ05U1mKtTOBcFbpK5x55XPdhYoTi+KlxRys8OvHYI WESKWBHz1xD2zaTzRkeWxi1F4VNrt9Do8g7gPGuC3hQ2bqMpyld2MhJxhj/4tgrS 68IERqcv6yZPz+jIJkROhrfeVVruq6Q0+vuQIxiPHhJz6/DbPJhBI+U68oIJJoK7 5pBUeEro7woQntY3+citVAXkQ8VHq+I7Mng2hqus/TRB3rzPYxGRSBiFaHSQ+ftp lOdEkhLVT8/a7gJSC/9uL5uK0UbwBwEJmCap+q+gsULg5lnaciE= =wWv0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-kb/XPy5LABDIMwG7f/cK--