On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:01:44 +0200 Jeroen Roovers <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 18:18:43 +0000 > [email protected] wrote: > > > (In reply to Jeroen Roovers from comment #5) > > > No, you broke it for HPPA users and for devs working on mpv. > > > > Yes, HPPA only because of the comment in package.use.mask; no > > problems for devs. > > "Breaking the tree" in this case quite literally means "using repoman > commit --force" because repoman would not otherwise let you do > that[a]. As I explained to you in comment #5[b] you should have > simply dropped the keywords instead of messing with the profiles and > you should have notified the affected arch teams (all of them): Yes, I will drop the HHPA keyword in the future, that was a mistake; as for notifying the arches, that was planned so why do you repeat that? > > > Sometimes you may need to remove a keyword because of new > > > unresolved dependencies. If you do this, you *must* file a bug > > > notifying the relevant arch teams."[1] > > > > For all arches Nikoli planned to do this (#gentoo-desktop; to avoid > > filing duplicate, I didn't); he delayed this, but this should not > > form a problem since the temporary masks are in place. It does on > > HPPA, as I am not permitted to remove the keyword on the USE flag. > > > > > *After* you broke the tree. > > > > The comment literally says to file a bug instead of touching it; so, > > yes, as a result of what I am requested to do by that comment the > > tree breaks for HPPA. > > You didn't file a bug report and you committed a broken ebuild. Because I prefer not to file a duplicate, Nikoli planned to file it; this was decided in #gentoo-desktop. > > That's what the file is designed to solve; and as far as I can tell, > > only HPPA does it different so as I'm new to doing this on the HPPA > > arch I'm not sure what you want instead. We did plan to do what was > > intended; so, why is it atrocity? > > > > We should pursue consensus on consistent USE masking on the > > profile.use.mask [1] thread as two different methods of which one > > undocumented doesn't make much sense; anyhow, that's outside the > > scope of this bug. > > As it has been discussed on this mailing list endlessly, there already > is a consensus: > > 1a) you drop the affected keywords, unless > 1b) this causes you to drop (many) more keywords on revdeps, in which > case you can package.(use.)mask the relevant bits > 2) you inform the affected arch teams Please provide a reference to this consensus. > Step 2) could easily be done well in advance of 1/a). In the > media-video/mpv case, nothing was stopping you from doing the most > easy, single-line-of-code change to fix the issue, which was to drop > the affected keywords. Instead you chose to edit a multitude of files > in profiles/ without notification to the arch teams. Or committing the same effort to package.use.mask; which appears to be fine for all other architectures but an exception on HPPA, which does not appear to have consensus, so that's where the breakage comes from. One can also edit the package.use.mask in the base file, which I have learned as per the thread [1] below; so it doesn't have to be multitude. As said before numerous time, the notification was planned; since your architecture is the only one instructing me to do an exception as per the comment, it broke. For the others there is no need for urgency, because of the temporary mask the Portage tree is not broken for them; it might have caused the delay, because Nikoli might have not been aware of HPPA breaking, which might have been an error in communication on our side. Sorry for that too, I'll prefer to file the bugs myself in the future... > > [1] > > http://gentoo.2317880.n4.nabble.com/best-way-to-use-profiles-and-package-use-mask-td16465.html > > Well, you read my response there. Nothing has changed. devmanual > hasn't changed either. What is your point here? Consistency. Such that HPPA members do not need to yell "atrocity" at people; your reply and comment in package.use.mask are red herrings. Please handle small mistakes like this is a professional way, I'm all fine with you having a certain vision and using it on your architecture. But if it is undocumented and/or does not have consensus then please do not expect people to be able to do the right thing right away, or to suppose they agree with your vision of dropping a whole keyword as opposed to dropping a keyword on an USE flag. Human errors and conflicts happen due to the unawareness of certain undocumented exceptions that exist; since our efforts are limited, we can't be expected to know every single undocumented exception out there. So, I have done exactly what was stated in the comment... Yes, I've made a small mistake; due to an exception I haven't heard of. P.S.: It is interesting to see the effects of AutoRepoman beating people to filing bugs, maybe I should write AutoNotifyman as a response to not having the chance to file the bug in a reasonable time frame. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : [email protected] GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
