From: Earle Martin
Date: 10:34 on 06 Nov 2006
Subject: yum and its stupid config files
Yum. The Fedora package manager. Feature of hates past and surely
hates future. Today, it is my hate.
A Linux distribution has many thousands of files. Nevertheless, they
are generally organised in reasonable groupings [1]. Yum, however, has
its configuration files organised as follows:
/etc
|-- yum
| |-- pluginconf.d
| | `-- installonlyn.conf
| `-- yum-daily.yum
|-- yum.conf
|-- yum.conf.bak
`-- yum.repos.d
|-- atrpms.repo
|-- dag.repo
|-- dries.repo
...
Yes, although there is an /etc/yum directory, the yum.conf file (_and_
backup copy) float next to it in /etc itself; and then there is
_another_ directory, /etc/yum.repos.d, wherein yum's knowledge of
repositories resides. The net result is that I can't easily
tab-complete the path to various parts of the yum config and have to
remember how it's arranged, which is fucking stupid. Would it have
been _too_ hard for whatever team of monkeys filled with crack it is
that writes this application to have put everything in /etc/yum? IS
THAT TOO FUCKING OBVIOUS FOR YOU?
Talking of /etc/yum.repos.d (proof of my point: my fingers just tried
to type /etc/yum/repos.d), it contains one file per repository,
because they are written in what appears to be .ini format and are
INCREDIBLY VERBOSE. Here's a snippet:
[core]
name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch
#baseurl=http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/$releasever/$basearch/os/
mirrorlist=http://fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors/fedora-core-$releasever
enabled=1
gpgcheck=1
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora
file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY
Yes, it's doing some kind of crap involving interpolation of variables
from who-knows-where. Note the nice use of an "enabled" flag, but also
a line being commented out. What does that mean? I haven't got a clue.
But what I do know is that you're fucked if you expect to be able to
add repositories with a single line of text, apt-style. CRAP FOUNTAIN.
[1] Or not? Place your hates now!
From: Bill Page Date: 11:20 on 06 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files You may or may not be interested in google's "Sponsored Link" Boot.ini - PCbeginner.com - Fix It Yourself. Easy for PC Beginner! Thanks, evil robots reading my mail! On 11/6/06, Earle Martin <hates-software@xxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > Yum. The Fedora package manager. Feature of hates past and surely > hates future. Today, it is my hate. > > A Linux distribution has many thousands of files. Nevertheless, they > are generally organised in reasonable groupings [1]. Yum, however, has > its configuration files organised as follows: > > /etc > |-- yum > | |-- pluginconf.d > | | `-- installonlyn.conf > | `-- yum-daily.yum > |-- yum.conf > |-- yum.conf.bak > `-- yum.repos.d > |-- atrpms.repo > |-- dag.repo > |-- dries.repo > ... > > Yes, although there is an /etc/yum directory, the yum.conf file (_and_ > backup copy) float next to it in /etc itself; and then there is > _another_ directory, /etc/yum.repos.d, wherein yum's knowledge of > repositories resides. The net result is that I can't easily > tab-complete the path to various parts of the yum config and have to > remember how it's arranged, which is fucking stupid. Would it have > been _too_ hard for whatever team of monkeys filled with crack it is > that writes this application to have put everything in /etc/yum? IS > THAT TOO FUCKING OBVIOUS FOR YOU? > > Talking of /etc/yum.repos.d (proof of my point: my fingers just tried > to type /etc/yum/repos.d), it contains one file per repository, > because they are written in what appears to be .ini format and are > INCREDIBLY VERBOSE. Here's a snippet: > > [core] > name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch > #baseurl=http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/$releasever/$basearch/os/ > mirrorlist=http://fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors/fedora-core-$releasever > enabled=1 > gpgcheck=1 > gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora > file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY > > Yes, it's doing some kind of crap involving interpolation of variables > from who-knows-where. Note the nice use of an "enabled" flag, but also > a line being commented out. What does that mean? I haven't got a clue. > But what I do know is that you're fucked if you expect to be able to > add repositories with a single line of text, apt-style. CRAP FOUNTAIN. > > > [1] Or not? Place your hates now! > > -- > Earle Martin > http://downlode.org/ > http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/ >
From: Thomas Matelich Date: 17:17 on 06 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files I got one for "MINIX 3 is a new reliable - www.minix3.org - free operating system. Smaller than Linux. Try it. It's free!" wonder what kinda package manager it uses. On 11/6/06, Bill Page <bill.page@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > You may or may not be interested in google's "Sponsored Link" > > Boot.ini - PCbeginner.com - Fix It Yourself. Easy for PC Beginner! > > Thanks, evil robots reading my mail! > > On 11/6/06, Earle Martin <hates-software@xxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > > Yum. The Fedora package manager. Feature of hates past and surely > > hates future. Today, it is my hate. > > > > A Linux distribution has many thousands of files. Nevertheless, they > > are generally organised in reasonable groupings [1]. Yum, however, has > > its configuration files organised as follows: > > > > /etc > > |-- yum > > | |-- pluginconf.d > > | | `-- installonlyn.conf > > | `-- yum-daily.yum > > |-- yum.conf > > |-- yum.conf.bak > > `-- yum.repos.d > > |-- atrpms.repo > > |-- dag.repo > > |-- dries.repo > > ... > > > > Yes, although there is an /etc/yum directory, the yum.conf file (_and_ > > backup copy) float next to it in /etc itself; and then there is > > _another_ directory, /etc/yum.repos.d, wherein yum's knowledge of > > repositories resides. The net result is that I can't easily > > tab-complete the path to various parts of the yum config and have to > > remember how it's arranged, which is fucking stupid. Would it have > > been _too_ hard for whatever team of monkeys filled with crack it is > > that writes this application to have put everything in /etc/yum? IS > > THAT TOO FUCKING OBVIOUS FOR YOU? > > > > Talking of /etc/yum.repos.d (proof of my point: my fingers just tried > > to type /etc/yum/repos.d), it contains one file per repository, > > because they are written in what appears to be .ini format and are > > INCREDIBLY VERBOSE. Here's a snippet: > > > > [core] > > name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch > > #baseurl=http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/$releasever/$basearch/os/ > > mirrorlist=http://fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors/fedora-core-$releasever > > enabled=1 > > gpgcheck=1 > > gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora > > file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY > > > > Yes, it's doing some kind of crap involving interpolation of variables > > from who-knows-where. Note the nice use of an "enabled" flag, but also > > a line being commented out. What does that mean? I haven't got a clue. > > But what I do know is that you're fucked if you expect to be able to > > add repositories with a single line of text, apt-style. CRAP FOUNTAIN. > > > > > > [1] Or not? Place your hates now! > > > > -- > > Earle Martin > > http://downlode.org/ > > http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/ > > >
From: Peter da Silva Date: 11:54 on 06 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files Of all the things that I learned to hate about Red Hat's package manager (and Linux package management in general) - most details of which time has mercifully blanked - that must be the most trivial.
From: Daniel Pittman
Date: 12:26 on 06 Nov 2006
Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files
Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> writes:
[... insane yum configuration files ...]
> Of all the things that I learned to hate about Red Hat's package
> manager (and Linux package management in general) - most details of
> which time has mercifully blanked - that must be the most trivial.
My luck is less good; one of my clients does hosting and the best option
for doing virtual Linux machines is based on RPM distributions, and best
supports them.
What I hate the most about yum, right now, is the way it can manage to
eat an hour of CPU time on an insanely fast CPU, plus 146MB of memory,
trying to work out what it needs to install for around a hundred
packages.
Except, of course, that I hate the fact that it can do about one thing,
install a package. If it wasn't already. Because having anything else,
like reinstall or search or whatever work would be too hard.
Oh, and except for the fact that it randomly ignores signals so that you
can't kill during the hour it spends working without sending SIGKILL.
Once we get to the part that actually /matters/, though, when it is in
the middle of installing packages -- then it listens to SIGINT. Oh,
yes, it listens.
Then it dies and craps all over the RPM database because the process was
interrupted.
At least the virtualization thing works so the cleanup from that was
four command, giving me a fresh and working RPM based distribution
installed.
Oh, RPM, how I loath you. The Debian package manager sucks, BSD ports
suck, Windows Installer in all the SQL riddled glory sucks, but somehow
RPM manages to eclipse them all.
Daniel
From: Matt McLeod
Date: 01:37 on 07 Nov 2006
Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files
On 11/6/06, Daniel Pittman <daniel@xxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Except, of course, that I hate the fact that it can do about one thing,
> install a package. If it wasn't already. Because having anything else,
> like reinstall or search or whatever work would be too hard.
There are many things to hate about yum, but it can do searches.
Oh, and back to the original hate, CentOS at least has the configs in
a slightly more sane setup. From the manpage:
FILES
/etc/yum.conf
/etc/yum/repos.d/
/etc/yum/pluginconf.d/
/var/cache/yum/
yum.conf should probably move into /etc/yum, but otherwise it isn't
quite as nutso as the variant being complained about.
I do however second the CPU+memory-eating hate. I expect it's doing
dep-tracking in some very naive way. It is however still better than
up2date was, which counts as "damning with faint praise" in my book.
Matt
From: Sean Conner Date: 03:34 on 07 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files It was thus said that the Great Matt McLeod once stated: > On 11/6/06, Daniel Pittman <daniel@xxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > >Except, of course, that I hate the fact that it can do about one thing, > >install a package. If it wasn't already. Because having anything else, > >like reinstall or search or whatever work would be too hard. > > There are many things to hate about yum, but it can do searches. [root@netmon ~]# yum search rrd Searching Packages: Setting up repositories update 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 base 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 addons 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 Reading repository metadata in from local files gpg-pubkey.None 443e1821-421f218f installed Matched from: —–BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK—– Version: rpm-4.3.3 (beecrypt-3.0.0) mQGiBEIfIY8RBACIjFavOQNbs4bjTtOblq4X5/oxuTJtv41nfqSFNeUAQke0qoxxAUlBesWx DsOXp5VppgNEA07hGjPvzoxabLAsTccQplvHMNzmRezyukYrSTVR/F7gywpvlhaAFkL9jZxo dXzWKk2cmBLVWvuyzlLEUBeijm2amyEHcIGAczxPawCgmVcM9WpA6SOKivd9qTXK2XP+9BUD /2xV4OR4L7q8CSiaDMwPLo6P6D6VDc9LpVy16WmuiYPFJIcIpp309biKZhGZgd+gHDhld9EJ cZ3A2v43GY/xCdJqZ7Uh5QIGDafnil872AbMIBYpcOpvAshTM10S3Qj06pIQE47oONZT5A80 O/hn+Yd8ySCEswpbWCmtAxnciNw3A/0Qk/bKrhT6J9Um2JhMfxx/nB80mM+Jlsn58B8i4sjr IVdzc3b45Y2wbXN3uVGuvvAFolAco3cpVy3oY1wMVuh8UlJFNESmxZL/Z7BXyKhiKUZrNxEv Qt9OtD1Fd36ur8Ky8zFE5GL903Nx/dEVBvIDq2/2K3Wy9Yq3YIC0PW7fkrQlQ2VudE9TLTQg a2V5IDxjZW50b3MtNGtleUBjZW50b3Mub3JnPohfBBMRAgAfBQJCHyGPBQkSzAMABAsHAwID FQIDAxYCAQIeAQIXgAAKCRClPQurRD4YISH0AJ9zmx2JPGt8ELKo3aE0YoGg6EYipwCdH3kR VJHQtDeRs/5v5Ghn92XZS4KITAQTEQIADAUCQh8hxAWDEswCywAKCRA4whYWOWygpCumAJwO seF0mAV+j/0kGrKXf/FKboFScgCdEITVqtB1CCyn+q+IqnCmgEF8rYy5Ag0EQh8hqhAIAKwN u60J+AnfVjNk0eN26sKBQOHFVQX9M3bdNBVWruocb7dro6DG4daPVB66ZI9RqBusll0jz5nU hBO3GZ3rn/KLVhMO2uCtvdcwWYtY6188lO6lOm3aYadIqafcPPiiLnF3zm/E8hI/trbPpaoW 1dFBOiSlOY4bSpSCnTuHYd5fjYu77wQhnSsl19XfqwuvHQKW1vhXCaM2GrsLA5tgjLOlJhYJ 4yPY2LToyxoWC/JMMM0Vwi7BaVoa/G2uamC6sL5f6KXei5QftemUvw1uM/2fkLbuHtwETq6Z yUZlsL1H5K5G4h+GDVByBF6Y2P1csi7oXK13sdzhkewLaMjmah8ABAsH/3zhD0Gy1jlMs9dG KSi9kq3jcUE/4o3vvjOPbxqT9psJu0jMEAfUVCWX9BWgZXyE2u+nBxcYAnNyqdmQzs6wTgJW GeGKpyC1jIKtO888RpPShvXtt/aNF4LaoielWZY9xu5oYEhnmBoww3VTbVxFNaPjglZOWnTx WfysHwG0H/dnXMp1sJjfdNsiB7zNniRRurlIiy0xhQSkDLe4tUr9Q9u4ztZKbwVX/fBzJC/u 4Smi4VYx+HfOAP3OqzcGKNcb68GpIVo31RUQq1JqpPSM5U41kW8u+S5n+zhjZsb/Ix3ks18g I8wz5u5yzfGacqp65NLisqVeOKEf/MQ1xWytG4SITAQYEQIADAUCQh8hqgUJEswDAAAKCRCl PQurRD4YIXC1AKCF3t5xKJnEXJfgvhvldOzDIFjajwCgkX/MZI0O0SxYQAc2hEQJqCI/LJV= =Qsai —–END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK—– [root@netmon ~]# (Um ... what? Let's try it again ... ) [root@netmon ~]# yum search rrdtool Searching Packages: Setting up repositories Reading repository metadata in from local files No Matches found [root@netmon ~]# -spc (Sucks to be me ... )
From: Matt McLeod Date: 03:41 on 07 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files On 11/7/06, Sean Conner <spc@xxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > It was thus said that the Great Matt McLeod once stated: > > There are many things to hate about yum, but it can do searches. > > [root@netmon ~]# yum search rrd [finds gpg keys, but nothing relevant] > [root@netmon ~]# yum search rrdtool > Searching Packages: > Setting up repositories > Reading repository metadata in from local files > No Matches found > [root@netmon ~]# > > -spc (Sucks to be me ... ) Apparently. yum searches repositories. 'rrdtool' isn't in any of the ones it was searching in your example so it's no great shock that it can't find it. I get the same gpg-pubkey package when I run the same thing on my CentOS box, but I also get a vast horde of RRD-related packages too as I've got yum looking at the DAG repository. If you want to search the local RPM database use 'rpm' not 'yum'. Matt
From: Sean Conner Date: 03:51 on 07 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files It was thus said that the Great Matt McLeod once stated: > > yum searches repositories. 'rrdtool' isn't in any of the ones it was > searching in your example so it's no great shock that it can't find > it. > > I get the same gpg-pubkey package when I run the same thing on my > CentOS box, but I also get a vast horde of RRD-related packages too as > I've got yum looking at the DAG repository. > > If you want to search the local RPM database use 'rpm' not 'yum'. No, I want to install RRDTool. I don't want to muck around with RPMs, yum, apt-get, emerge, or anything else that will keep me from what I want to do, which is getting RRDTool installed so I can get Cacti installed so I can get on with my job of monitoring a client's network. I don't mind that yum couldn't find RRDTool (well, I do because now I'm in dependancy hell) but I was amazed (confounded, speechless) that a search for "rrd" returned "gpg keys". What's up with that? -spc (And I'm guessing that the author and or maintainer of this list doesn't believe in setting *or* munging Reply-To:---a personal hate of mine, but I've seen both sides of the argument on this topic ... )
From: Earle Martin Date: 14:10 on 07 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files T24gMDcvMTEvMDYsIFNlYW4gQ29ubmVyIDxzcGNAY29ubWFuLm9yZz4gd3JvdGU6Cj4gSSB3YXMg YW1hemVkIChjb25mb3VuZGVkLCBzcGVlY2hsZXNzKSB0aGF0IGEgc2VhcmNoIGZvciAicnJkIiBy ZXR1cm5lZCAiZ3BnCj4ga2V5cyIuICBXaGF0J3MgdXAgd2l0aCB0aGF0PwoKSXQgYXBwZWFycyB0 byBoYXZlIGJlZW4gdGhpczoKCk1hdGNoZWQgZnJvbToK4oCU4oCTQkVHSU4gUEdQIFBVQkxJQyBL RVkgQkxPQ0vigJTigJMKVmVyc2lvbjogcnBtLTQuMy4zIChiZWVjcnlwdC0zLjAuMCkKWy4uLl0K RlFJREF4WUNBUUllQVFJWGdBQUtDUkNsUFF1clJENFlJU0gwQUo5em14MkpQR3Q4RUxLbzNhRTBZ b0dnNkVZaXB3Q2RIM2tSCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIF5eXgoKWWVzLCBpdCBh c3N1bWVkIHlvdSB3YW50ZWQgdG8gc2VhcmNoIGZvciBtYXRjaGluZyBzdHJpbmdzIC9pbnNpZGUg YQpibG9jayBvZiBlbmNyeXB0ZWQgdGV4dC8uIEhvdyBpbmNyZWRpYmx5IHN0dXBpZCBvZiBpdC4K Ci0tIApFYXJsZSBNYXJ0aW4KICAgICAgICAgICAgaHR0cDovL2Rvd25sb2RlLm9yZy8KaHR0cDov L3B1cmwub3JnL25ldC9lYXJsZW1hcnRpbi8K
From: Juerd Date: 14:13 on 07 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files Earle Martin skribis 2006-11-07 14:10 (+0000): > FQIDAxYCAQIeAQIXgAAKCRClPQurRD4YISH0AJ9zmx2JPGt8ELKo3aE0YoGg6EYipwCdH3kR > ^^^ That's "urR", not "rRD". I wonder in which wonderfully amazing way your software screwed up this time.
From: Simon Wistow Date: 14:24 on 07 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 03:13:49PM +0100, Juerd said: > Earle Martin skribis 2006-11-07 14:10 (+0000): > > FQIDAxYCAQIeAQIXgAAKCRClPQurRD4YISH0AJ9zmx2JPGt8ELKo3aE0YoGg6EYipwCdH3kR > > ^^^ > > That's "urR", not "rRD". I wonder in which wonderfully amazing way your > software screwed up this time. Err, it's urRD Which contains rRD. Unless I'm misreading your post.
From: Earle Martin Date: 14:44 on 07 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files On 07/11/06, Juerd <juerd@xxxxxxxxxxx.xx> wrote: > Earle Martin skribis 2006-11-07 14:10 (+0000): > > FQIDAxYCAQIeAQIXgAAKCRClPQurRD4YISH0AJ9zmx2JPGt8ELKo3aE0YoGg6EYipwCdH3kR > > ^^^ > > That's "urR", not "rRD". I wonder in which wonderfully amazing way your > software screwed up this time. Get out of the wrong side of bed this morning? Paste error, compounded by Google Mail using a proportional font for the compose mail box.
From: Juerd Date: 15:07 on 07 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files Earle Martin skribis 2006-11-07 14:44 (+0000): > >That's "urR", not "rRD". I wonder in which wonderfully amazing way your > >software screwed up this time. > Get out of the wrong side of bed this morning? No, I don't need that to hate software :) > Paste error, compounded by Google Mail using a proportional font for > the compose mail box. Ahh! Right, the historical proportional font screwup. See? Hateful software once again.
From: Earle Martin Date: 15:41 on 07 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files On 07/11/06, Juerd <juerd@xxxxxxxxxxx.xx> wrote: > > Paste error, compounded by Google Mail using a proportional font for > > the compose mail box. > > Ahh! Right, the historical proportional font screwup. See? Hateful > software once again. Compounded with my having copied it out of an xterm by cursor-highlight-selecting it and pasted by middle-clicking, which is just too good to work as I expect it to every time. Yecch.
From: Dave Vandervies Date: 14:59 on 07 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files Somebody claiming to be Juerd wrote: > > Earle Martin skribis 2006-11-07 14:10 (+0000): > > FQIDAxYCAQIeAQIXgAAKCRClPQurRD4YISH0AJ9zmx2JPGt8ELKo3aE0YoGg6EYipwCdH3kR > > ^^^ > > That's "urR", not "rRD". I wonder in which wonderfully amazing way your > software screwed up this time. I think in this case it was actually your software that screwed up. The original post has the right characters marked as shown by my (monospaced font) mailreader, so the most likely suspect is your mailer's quoting code failing to preserve the alignment. dave
From: jrodman Date: 16:38 on 07 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 09:59:09AM -0500, Dave Vandervies wrote: > Somebody claiming to be Juerd wrote: > > > > Earle Martin skribis 2006-11-07 14:10 (+0000): > > > FQIDAxYCAQIeAQIXgAAKCRClPQurRD4YISH0AJ9zmx2JPGt8ELKo3aE0YoGg6EYipwCdH3kR > > > ^^^ > > > > That's "urR", not "rRD". I wonder in which wonderfully amazing way your > > software screwed up this time. > > I think in this case it was actually your software that screwed up. > The original post has the right characters marked as shown by my > (monospaced font) mailreader, so the most likely suspect is your > mailer's quoting code failing to preserve the alignment. If you're serious that the carets (is that what they're called) really land on rRD in your monospaced view of the text, then I'm honestly curious where the screwup is that your display is different from mine. I'm _hoping_ this one is really not a software error, there are some basic pieces of functionality I expect software to usually get right, like transmitting data without modification. -josh
From: Martin Ebourne Date: 16:48 on 07 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote: > If you're serious that the carets (is that what they're called) really > land on rRD in your monospaced view of the text, then I'm honestly > curious where the screwup is that your display is different from mine. FWIW (really not a lot), on my screen the ^^^ was off by one character as you described, but only in the /original/ email. Since you replied to it the ^^^ (now on quoted lines) has consistently lined up as it was originally intended. Anyone got a good conspiracy theory on this one? Cheers, Martin.
From: David Cantrell Date: 16:52 on 07 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 04:48:09PM +0000, Martin Ebourne wrote: > FWIW (really not a lot), on my screen the ^^^ was off by one character > as you described, but only in the /original/ email. Since you replied > to it the ^^^ (now on quoted lines) has consistently lined up as it > was originally intended. > > Anyone got a good conspiracy theory on this one? It's the Evil "Belgian" Cabal, manipulating our email so that we argue pointlessly amongst ourselves instead of directing our energies towards their destruction.
From: Chris Cantrall Date: 16:55 on 07 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files At Nov 7, 2006 8:38 AM (PST), jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote: > I'm _hoping_ this one is really not a software error, there are some > basic pieces of functionality I expect software to usually get right, > like transmitting data without modification. From Gmail's "Show original" option: > FQIDAxYCAQIeAQIXgAAKCRClPQurRD4YISH0AJ9zmx2JPGt8ELKo3aE0YoGg6EYipwCdH3kR > ^^^ And as displayed in-browser by Gmail: > FQIDAxYCAQIeAQIXgAAKCRClPQurRD4YISH0AJ9zmx2JPGt8ELKo3aE0YoGg6EYipwCdH3kR > ^^^ . . . What the frell? ... Oh my Dear and Fluffy Lord, the font in Gmail's cute little text box is variable-width. And when it's all copy'n'pasted to notepad, the carets for both versions line up under "urR". Time to beat at Gmail until it displays only fixed width fonts, everywhere. /me wanders off to find a large percussive maintenance tool.
From: Rafael Garcia-Suarez Date: 17:00 on 07 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files On 07/11/06, Chris Cantrall <chris.cantrall@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > What the frell? ... Oh my Dear and Fluffy Lord, the font in Gmail's > cute little text box is variable-width. And when it's all > copy'n'pasted to notepad, the carets for both versions line up under > "urR". Time to beat at Gmail until it displays only fixed width > fonts, everywhere. Some google searches with carefully selected keywords will reveal tricks to hack firefox via a CSS to force fixed width fonts in gmail. (but this has its share of hate -- you're dependent on any changes google makes to the css, and you might screw up innocent sites that use the same class ids)
From: Chris Cantrall Date: 17:18 on 07 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files On 11/7/06, Rafael Garcia-Suarez <rgarciasuarez@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > On 07/11/06, Chris Cantrall <chris.cantrall@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > > What the frell? ... Oh my Dear and Fluffy Lord, the font in Gmail's > > cute little text box is variable-width. And when it's all > > copy'n'pasted to notepad, the carets for both versions line up under > > "urR". Time to beat at Gmail until it displays only fixed width > > fonts, everywhere. > > Some google searches with carefully selected keywords will reveal > tricks to hack firefox via a CSS to force fixed width fonts in gmail. > (but this has its share of hate -- you're dependent on any changes > google makes to the css, and you might screw up innocent sites that > use the same class ids) The above mess is included to demonstrate how broken gmail is internally. Rafael and I are both using gmail (assuming he's not POPing to gmail), and the gmail-wrapping of both my first message and his reply are totally broken in my reply. The above quote is 73 characters, and this text-area is 63 characters wide; that might have something to do with it. My short term solution to gmail is to tell Firefox to use a fixed-width font everywhere. Thanks for the CSS tips, that'll look much better than Lucida Console everywhere.
From: Earle Martin Date: 09:48 on 08 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files On 07/11/06, Chris Cantrall <chris.cantrall@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > The above mess is included to demonstrate how broken gmail is > internally. What mess? It looked fine. -- Earle (a gmail user)
From: Chris Cantrall Date: 17:13 on 08 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files On 11/8/06, Earle Martin <hates-software@xxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > On 07/11/06, Chris Cantrall <chris.cantrall@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > > The above mess is included to demonstrate how broken gmail is > > internally. > What mess? It looked fine. Hey, it looks better now. When I was composing that message, the compose box showed every 73 character line of the parent wrapped at around character 63 - and it looked quite ugly. But now it looks nicely wrapped. I guess Gmail silently wrapped the 73 char lines of the messages to the 63 displayed lines in the compose box. I would prefer that the composition text-area be as wide as the email message which is sent.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 18:35 on 07 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files * Rafael Garcia-Suarez <rgarciasuarez@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-11-07 18:05]: > Some google searches with carefully selected keywords will > reveal tricks to hack firefox via a CSS to force fixed width > fonts in gmail. Somewhat easier: install the Firebug and Stylish extensions. Firebug has an excellent live Inspector that makes it easy to correlate a dingus on the rendered page with the markup responsible for it, and Stylish makes it easy to apply custom CSS to some selection of sites. Since I installed Stylish I’ve done a quite a bit of site UI tweaking this way (I already had Firebug, since it’s by far the least hateful way of developing JS stuff), and I’m actually not hating it for the most part. Regards,
From: Sean Conner Date: 19:29 on 07 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files It was thus said that the Great jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx once stated: > > I'm _hoping_ this one is really not a software error, there are some > basic pieces of functionality I expect software to usually get right, > like transmitting data without modification. From statements like this, I suspect you've never encountered data mangled durring transmission (hey! Where did that greater than sign come from? [1]). -spc (I'm amazed stuff even works ... ) [1] Yes, I know where it comes from. It's an old old Unix problem.
From: Martin Ebourne Date: 20:06 on 07 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 14:29 -0500, Sean Conner wrote: > It was thus said that the Great jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx once stated: > > > > I'm _hoping_ this one is really not a software error, there are some > > basic pieces of functionality I expect software to usually get right, > > like transmitting data without modification. > > From statements like this, I suspect you've never encountered data mangled > durring transmission (hey! Where did that greater than sign come > from? [1]). > > -spc (I'm amazed stuff even works ... ) > > [1] Yes, I know where it comes from. It's an old old Unix problem. Maildir, no > From. How many decades did that take? Martin.
From: jrodman Date: 23:30 on 07 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 02:29:39PM -0500, Sean Conner wrote: > It was thus said that the Great jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx once stated: > > > > I'm _hoping_ this one is really not a software error, there are some > > basic pieces of functionality I expect software to usually get > > right, like transmitting data without modification. > > From statements like this, I suspect you've never encountered data > mangled durring transmission (hey! Where did that greater than sign > come from? [1]). By usually, I meant that programs which are _trying_ to pass things along unmodified usually succeed. There's only so many ways to get fread and fwrite wrong. I'm well aware that programs often don't try. -josh
From: John Sinteur Date: 06:04 on 08 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: yum and its stupid config files On Nov 8, 2006, at 12:30 AM, jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote: > There's only so many ways to get > fread and fwrite wrong. ORLY? read this and see if you are still sure of that: http://thedailywtf.com/forums/thread/99765.aspx
Generated at 10:26 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi