Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 01:33, Ciaran McCreesh napisał: > The thing is, at any given time there are probably a hundred or more > bugs assigned to arch teams with people whining for attention. At least > two thirds of those whines are unhelpful and serve no purpose. > Filtering out the legitimate calls for attention would take even more > time away from fixing the things. > > So, unless you can recruit somebody *good* to let the arch teams know > which bugs should be prioritised, the only thing that increasing > communication would do is decrease the number of bugs that get fixed. I'm not a dev but I suppose i got resolution for that problem. Lets make another subproject (don't know how to name it properly) in bugzilla in which there will be only bugs affected by security flaw. That bugs will have highest priority from every other ones. And devs would have to look at them firstly -- Paweł Madej (Nysander) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Global USE flags (Was: mplayer global use flag)
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 05:23:50PM +0200, arfrever wrote: > In connection with latest globalization of mplayer USE flag I would like to > ask for globalizing cairo, openexr and udev USE flags. These flags are used > by enough amount of packages. I vote for a 'libnotify' global USE flag. It is used now by 11 packages in use.local.desc and does the same thing in all of them - Allows popups via libnotify (or dbus+notification-daemon, which amounts to the same thing). -- Jim Ramsay Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox) pgppPbZjuRCvZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:46:25 -0500 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | I'm actually going to agree with jakub here. I wouldn't even say | they need to fix the bug; but just acknowledge that they even read it | or paid attention or "hey we are working on it" or "hey we don't give | a flying rats ass." | | There is a minimal level of communication that is required between | groups, otherwise nothing gets done and you *will* get people | breaking your arch tree or pulling your keywords, because if you | having commented on the bug ever then most sane people would probably | assume you don't care. The thing is, at any given time there are probably a hundred or more bugs assigned to arch teams with people whining for attention. At least two thirds of those whines are unhelpful and serve no purpose. Filtering out the legitimate calls for attention would take even more time away from fixing the things. So, unless you can recruit somebody *good* to let the arch teams know which bugs should be prioritised, the only thing that increasing communication would do is decrease the number of bugs that get fixed. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:33:26 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): | > | What on earth are you talking about here? And why almost 6 months | > | is not enough for someone to respond on a bug with a simple | > | "we'll only support newer versions and don't care about MySQL | > | 4.0.x any more, go drop it"? | > | > Priorities. The arch teams could be too busy dealing with other bugs | > that matter more or too busy dealing with noise bugs. | | Sorry, taking 1 minute to respond on a bug after being poked for a | couple of months is not a matter of priorities, but mere politeness | and common sense. Seriously, you can't work productively with other | people if they can't be bothered to write one sentence for months. There are an awful lot of bugs requiring an awful lot of attention... I'm actually going to agree with jakub here. I wouldn't even say they need to fix the bug; but just acknowledge that they even read it or paid attention or "hey we are working on it" or "hey we don't give a flying rats ass." There is a minimal level of communication that is required between groups, otherwise nothing gets done and you *will* get people breaking your arch tree or pulling your keywords, because if you having commented on the bug ever then most sane people would probably assume you don't care. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:33:26 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): | > | What on earth are you talking about here? And why almost 6 months | > | is not enough for someone to respond on a bug with a simple | > | "we'll only support newer versions and don't care about MySQL | > | 4.0.x any more, go drop it"? | > | > Priorities. The arch teams could be too busy dealing with other bugs | > that matter more or too busy dealing with noise bugs. | | Sorry, taking 1 minute to respond on a bug after being poked for a | couple of months is not a matter of priorities, but mere politeness | and common sense. Seriously, you can't work productively with other | people if they can't be bothered to write one sentence for months. There are an awful lot of bugs requiring an awful lot of attention... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Stop reading here
Everything else below is ugly. -- Chris White Gentoo Developer aka: xx (Scissors Were Here) xx pgpSSQTAPnIyc.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] oracle use flag masking
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 To whomever added the oracle use flag, Please mask it on all architectures Oracle doesn't support on Linux. Or better yet, mask it everywhere and only unmask it on the architectures that support Oracle. Thanks, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFRnz9dKvgdVioq28RAqmwAJ4n6oLGOjHGJXdzROkU+Bx39MnteQCfT0Da NLiEFWp0PwItWOVL6PMRK8A= =bz8I -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Econf
On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 22:44 +0100, KLessou wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have to make a Live ebuild (from a CVS repository). But econf don't
> find the configure script.
>
> >> !!! no configure script found .
>
> The configure file is into ${WORKDIR}/package/, I have defined ${S}
> here, but no result.
Set S globally (not in src_unpack).
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
> Sorry, but this mailing list is not really the best place for "just for > fun" bash foo. I suggest you take it somewhere else. Actually that was a question which whitespaces are allowed in IUSE, so I think it's not the worst place for it. Especially if you count the number of flame senseless posts on this list. -- Piotr Jaroszyński Gentoo Developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: > Just for fun(=I wouldn't use it in ebuild/eclass): Sorry, but this mailing list is not really the best place for "just for fun" bash foo. I suggest you take it somewhere else. -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 Developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
> And this is the point: Your definition of 'works' is (in my eyes) at > least sloppy. If it doesn't work for all sensible cases, it shouldn't > be labelled as 'works'. Does "dirty portage-specific hack" mean "That's my bulletproof solution for that problem"? I didn't mean that and I hope that's obvious. > This is why we discourage bugreports w/p prior contact on IRC. And I discourage saying "doesn't work" w/o saying what is specifically not working esp. if the goal, at the first glance, is reached. It leads nowhere and is just stupid. "It's not safe, don't you ever do it plz!" would be much better if you for example don't have time to give the details. -- Piotr Jaroszyński Gentoo Developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Econf
Hello, I have to make a Live ebuild (from a CVS repository). But econf don't find the configure script. >> !!! no configure script found . The configure file is into ${WORKDIR}/package/, I have defined ${S} here, but no result.
Thanks for advance if you have any idea. -- ~| klessou | ~More about this ebuild :My file /usr/local/portage/dev-libs/pwlib/pwlib-
1.11..ebuild
An extract of my code :
Code:
# Copyright 1999-2006 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
# $Header: $
inherit cvs eutils flag-o-matic multilib
IUSE="alsa debug ieee1394 ipv6 ldap oss sasl sdl ssl v4l v4l2 xml"
DESCRIPTION="Portable Multiplatform Class Libraries used by several VoIP applications"
HOMEPAGE="http://www.ekiga.org"
ECVS_SERVER="openh323.cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/openh323"
ECVS_MODULE="pwlib"
ECVS_AUTH="pserver"
ECVS_USER="anonymous"
ECVS_PASS=""
ECVS_CVS_OPTIONS="-z9 -r ptlib_unix"
LICENSE="MPL-1.1"
SLOT="0"
KEYWORDS="-*"
[...]
src_compile() {
[...]
S="${WORKDIR}/pwlib"
econf \
--enable-plugins \
$(use_enable v4l2) \
$(use_enable v4l) \
[...]
$(use_enable sasl) \
$(use_enable xml expat) \
${myconf} \
|| die "Error: econf failed!"
[...]
The configure file is here :
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 307K oct 18 18:08 /var/tmp/portage/pwlib-1.11./work/pwlib/configure
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
Am Montag, 30. Oktober 2006 22:19 schrieb Piotr Jaroszyński: > > Whitespace. Not space. > > > > E_IUSE=$'foo\tX' > > Ok, you are right here. Sorry for saying that you don't know what you > are talking about, it seems you do. But don't assume that everyone > else don't. And for future you could be more specific, "Doesn't > work", esp. If something do work(not the right way tho, but the goal > is reached), is not enough. You wouldn't like to read such bug And this is the point: Your definition of 'works' is (in my eyes) at least sloppy. If it doesn't work for all sensible cases, it shouldn't be labelled as 'works'. > reports about paludis, would you? This is why we discourage bugreports w/p prior contact on IRC. Danny -- Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): > | What on earth are you talking about here? And why almost 6 months is > | not enough for someone to respond on a bug with a simple "we'll only > | support newer versions and don't care about MySQL 4.0.x any more, go > | drop it"? > > Priorities. The arch teams could be too busy dealing with other bugs > that matter more or too busy dealing with noise bugs. Sorry, taking 1 minute to respond on a bug after being poked for a couple of months is not a matter of priorities, but mere politeness and common sense. Seriously, you can't work productively with other people if they can't be bothered to write one sentence for months. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:46:33 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): | > | As you have might have noticed, they already have a newer version | > | stable. But apparently asking them to respond on a bug within 5 | > | months is way too much. :P | > | > Well yes, since there's no clear link between bugs and packages. | > Things can get stabled incidentally and for reasons other than the | > ones in one particular bug. | | Eh? Stabilizing for multiple security issues [1] is "incidental"?! Stabling for multiple local denial of service security issues can be done incidentally when stabling for a data loss fix (which I'm not claiming is the case for one particular package, but merely giving as an example demonstrating what "incidental" means). | What on earth are you talking about here? And why almost 6 months is | not enough for someone to respond on a bug with a simple "we'll only | support newer versions and don't care about MySQL 4.0.x any more, go | drop it"? Priorities. The arch teams could be too busy dealing with other bugs that matter more or too busy dealing with noise bugs. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
> Whitespace. Not space. > > E_IUSE=$'foo\tX' Ok, you are right here. Sorry for saying that you don't know what you are talking about, it seems you do. But don't assume that everyone else don't. And for future you could be more specific, "Doesn't work", esp. If something do work(not the right way tho, but the goal is reached), is not enough. You wouldn't like to read such bug reports about paludis, would you? -- Piotr Jaroszyński Gentoo Developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
Hello Piotr
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 09:40:28PM +0100, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> E_IUSE=${E_IUSE// X } - deletes every X with whitespace around it.
What happens if someone uses newlines, horizontal tabs, vertical tabs or
any other whitespace character instead of spaces? Boom.
Greets,
Michael
--
Gentoo Linux developer, http://hansmi.ch/, http://forkbomb.ch/
pgpSlhXIWsrp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
> E_IUSE=${E_IUSE// X } - deletes every X with whitespace around it.
This should be E_IUSE=${E_IUSE// X / }.
--
Piotr Jaroszyński
Gentoo Developer
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): > | As you have might have noticed, they already have a newer version > | stable. But apparently asking them to respond on a bug within 5 months > | is way too much. :P > > Well yes, since there's no clear link between bugs and packages. Things > can get stabled incidentally and for reasons other than the ones in one > particular bug. Eh? Stabilizing for multiple security issues [1] is "incidental"?! [1] http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2006-1516 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2006-1517 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2006-1518 http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=132146 What on earth are you talking about here? And why almost 6 months is not enough for someone to respond on a bug with a simple "we'll only support newer versions and don't care about MySQL 4.0.x any more, go drop it"? -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:30:56 +0100 Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Why there is always *someone* who wants to win a pink elephant in the | last word contest? We want to be damned sure that neither you nor anyone else is going to persist with this kind of stupidity. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
> | > Just what do you think will happen when another eclass sets
> | > IUSE="Xaw3d"?
> |
> | Specially for you and your pink elephants:
> | E_IUSE=${E_IUSE// X }
> | E_IUSE=${E_IUSE#X }
> | E_IUSE=${E_IUSE% X}
>
> No go. Arbitrary whitespace is allowed.
I thought that you really know what you are talking about, but now I have no
doubts that you don't:
E_IUSE=${E_IUSE// X } - deletes every X with whitespace around it.
E_IUSE=${E_IUSE#X } - deletes X if there is one at the beginning
E_IUSE=${E_IUSE% X} - deletes X if there is one at the end
No more X left.
--
Piotr Jaroszyński
Gentoo Developer
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
> ...yet. Past Portage releases don't have it. Future Portage releases may > not. Other package managers don't. Using it at all is to intentionally > screw around with things that ebuilds should not know or need to, is > asking for trouble, and will have a certain group on your back as soon > as they find out (not just the paludis developers either). Especially so > when a correct solution has already been posted in this thread. Didn't I say that's a portage specific dirty-hack and rather a curiosity?! It came to my mind b/c spyderous tried setting IUSE="". It can make someone read ebuild.sh code and see why that doesn't work - only better. Why there is always *someone* who wants to win a pink elephant in the last word contest? -- Piotr Jaroszyński Gentoo Developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:50:06 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): | > | > | 5 months of no response from the arches says something is | > | > | wrong on their side. | > | > | > | > Or it tells you where their priorities lie... | > | | > | Sure. So they don't need the keywords nor the package. | > | > No no. They might need the package, just not necessarily a | > particular version. | | As you have might have noticed, they already have a newer version | stable. But apparently asking them to respond on a bug within 5 months | is way too much. :P Well yes, since there's no clear link between bugs and packages. Things can get stabled incidentally and for reasons other than the ones in one particular bug. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:04:47 +0100 Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > Yes, I do want to bet. You don't have a clue what you're talking
| > about and you don't have a clue how to use bash substitution
| > correctly.
|
| Have you bet that you won't be kicked from gentoo also?
Oh, I think it's a pretty safe bet that *I* won't be kicked out of
Gentoo. But since you like that kind of argument, why do you love
Hitler?
| Normally I never quote in bash substitution, but I don't pay so much
| attention when I write something rather as a curiosity.
The quoting is not the issue.
| > Just what do you think will happen when another eclass sets
| > IUSE="X" and it's supposed to be kept?
|
| It depends, If it is inherited after x-modular It would be kept, but
| how about coming down on earth? We are talking about specific
| situation here and I doubt that smth inheriting x-modular would like
| to have X useflag - all in all that's the case here - such packages
| shouldn't have X useflag.
And this is the kind of short sighted thinking that leads to
maintenance nightmares later on. There are a lot of "I doubt"s and
"shouldn't"s here that don't apply to other solutions.
| > Just what do you think will happen when another eclass sets
| > IUSE="Xaw3d"?
|
| Specially for you and your pink elephants:
| E_IUSE=${E_IUSE// X }
| E_IUSE=${E_IUSE#X }
| E_IUSE=${E_IUSE% X}
No go. Arbitrary whitespace is allowed.
And now maybe you start to see why a *proper* solution is required.
| > Just what do you think will happen when Portage internals change?
| > This has happened several times with those variables?
|
| E_IUSE was added in 2.0.50-r10 or r11 and was never changed.
And the other E_ variables? Those have changed quite a bit.
| > Your solution is approximately on par with fixing a wobbly chair by
| > sawing off all four legs and then attaching what's left to a
| > crocodile. With the kind of idiocy you're spewing, do you really
| > wonder why people have no faith in Sunrise?
|
| You are great at comparisons - maybe you should be a poet like Homer?
| People would have more faith in you then.
I don't expect people to have faith in me. I expect people to read what
I say, think about it and then understand that I'm right.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:04:47 +0100 Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just what do you think will happen when Portage internals change? > > This has happened several times with those variables? > E_IUSE was added in 2.0.50-r10 or r11 and was never changed. ...yet. Past Portage releases don't have it. Future Portage releases may not. Other package managers don't. Using it at all is to intentionally screw around with things that ebuilds should not know or need to, is asking for trouble, and will have a certain group on your back as soon as they find out (not just the paludis developers either). Especially so when a correct solution has already been posted in this thread. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): > | > | 5 months of no response from the arches says something is wrong on > | > | their side. > | > > | > Or it tells you where their priorities lie... > | > | Sure. So they don't need the keywords nor the package. > > No no. They might need the package, just not necessarily a particular > version. As you have might have noticed, they already have a newer version stable. But apparently asking them to respond on a bug within 5 months is way too much. :P -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:09:56 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): | > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:28:29 -0800 "Robin H. Johnson" | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > | To generalize on Francesco's email, how long should developers | > | wait for minority arches to mark stuff stable, after a security | > | bug, and then a reminder more than 4 months later? | > | > Indefinitely. There's no harm leaving ebuilds around. | | Joking, right? Who's gonna maintain the vulnerable, broken, dead | cruft? You? If there's any 'maintaining' to be done, they switch to the newer version. If a herd goes around 'maintaining' old ebuilds on a regular basis, however, then they're doing something wrong. | > | 5 months of no response from the arches says something is wrong on | > | their side. | > | > Or it tells you where their priorities lie... | | Sure. So they don't need the keywords nor the package. No no. They might need the package, just not necessarily a particular version. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Your solution is approximately on par with fixing a wobbly chair by sawing off all four legs and then attaching what's left to a crocodile. +1 for creativity and making me literally laugh out loud -- Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project Today's lesson in political correctness: "Go asphyxiate on a phallus" -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:28:29 -0800 "Robin H. Johnson" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | To generalize on Francesco's email, how long should developers wait > | for minority arches to mark stuff stable, after a security bug, and > | then a reminder more than 4 months later? > > Indefinitely. There's no harm leaving ebuilds around. Joking, right? Who's gonna maintain the vulnerable, broken, dead cruft? You? > | 5 months of no response from the arches says something is wrong on > | their side. > > Or it tells you where their priorities lie... Sure. So they don't need the keywords nor the package. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:21:46 +0100 Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > And it doesn't work. | | Wanna bet? Of course you must put it in the x-modular.eclass, but I | thought that's quite obvious as spyderous was talking about adding | IUSE="" to that eclass. Yes, I do want to bet. You don't have a clue what you're talking about and you don't have a clue how to use bash substitution correctly. Just what do you think will happen when another eclass sets IUSE="X" and it's supposed to be kept? Just what do you think will happen when another eclass sets IUSE="Xaw3d"? Just what do you think will happen when Portage internals change? This has happened several times with those variables? Your solution is approximately on par with fixing a wobbly chair by sawing off all four legs and then attaching what's left to a crocodile. With the kind of idiocy you're spewing, do you really wonder why people have no faith in Sunrise? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Monday 30 October 2006 17:26, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> Anyone got any ideas? The only one I have is to add significant missing
>> functionality to font.eclass and switch every font package over that
>> instead of x-modular.eclass.
>
> if [[ ${CATEGORY} == "media-font" ]]; then
> fonteclass="font"
> endif
>
> inherit foo bar autotools ${fonteclass}
This is the best idea so far. I think I'll go with some variant of it.
Thanks,
Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
> And it doesn't work. Wanna bet? Of course you must put it in the x-modular.eclass, but I thought that's quite obvious as spyderous was talking about adding IUSE="" to that eclass. -- Piotr Jaroszyński Gentoo Developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:44:30 +0100 Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > I really want to use font.eclass in x-modular.eclass to get rid of
| > a lot of code duplication and more possible bugs. Problem is, it
| > brings in IUSE=X for every single X package. I cannot figure out
| > how to prevent this. Setting IUSE="" after the inherit in
| > x-modular.eclass is not enough.
| E_IUSE=${E_IUSE//"X"}
|
| But that's a dirty portage-specific hack ;]
And it doesn't work.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Dreaded herd tag
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 11:09:53AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 08:28 +0200, George Shapovalov wrote: > > Wanna guess how many of those happen to be stale? > > I would suspect fewer than you think. As an example, I have a few > packages which belong to no herd, but have me listed as maintainer. > Many of the no-herd packages are the same. Not being grouped with other > packages doesn't mean it is unmaintained. I agree. All my rox stuff (rox-base/* and rox-extra/*) kind of fits into many different herds. Or no herd. Or maybe its own new herd. > So this bears the question, what is the proper solution? > > Make optional? > Force the maintainer's email into for packages without a herd? Or force each maintainer of herdless packages to create their own special herd. Which I may end up doing with my rox packages anyway. -- Jim Ramsay Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox) pgpzXvQNKPJtw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
> I really want to use font.eclass in x-modular.eclass to get rid of a lot
> of code duplication and more possible bugs. Problem is, it brings in
> IUSE=X for every single X package. I cannot figure out how to prevent
> this. Setting IUSE="" after the inherit in x-modular.eclass is not enough.
E_IUSE=${E_IUSE//"X"}
But that's a dirty portage-specific hack ;]
--
Piotr Jaroszyński
Gentoo Developer
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
On Monday 30 October 2006 17:26, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Anyone got any ideas? The only one I have is to add significant missing
> functionality to font.eclass and switch every font package over that
> instead of x-modular.eclass.
if [[ ${CATEGORY} == "media-font" ]]; then
fonteclass="font"
endif
inherit foo bar autotools ${fonteclass}
this should do it, I suppose... it's cache static so should work, but it's
untested.
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK, Ruby ...
pgp6zzuIt4ZQV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Dreaded herd tag
понеділок, 30. жовтень 2006 17:49, Olivier Crete Ви написали: > > Should we also disallow adding new no-herd/maintainer-needed ebuilds? > > (As the apparent use of maintainer-needed is to track the ebuilds already > > in the tree that need some love). > > Isn't adding an ebuild without setting oneself or one's herd as the > maintainer already forbidden? Yes, but since we are talking now about changing rules I am trying to get as much spelled out as makes sense. Sorry, just being too pedantic here :). George -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Dreaded herd tag
On Mon, 2006-30-10 at 17:40 +0100, George Shapovalov wrote: > понеділок, 30. жовтень 2006 17:16, Chris Gianelloni Ви написали: > > allow valid devs, and maintainer-needed in maintainer. > Should we also disallow adding new no-herd/maintainer-needed ebuilds? > (As the apparent use of maintainer-needed is to track the ebuilds already in > the tree that need some love). Isn't adding an ebuild without setting oneself or one's herd as the maintainer already forbidden? -- Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
On Mon, 2006-30-10 at 08:26 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Alternate subject: On the sudden appearance of USE=X for tons of stuff
>
> I really want to use font.eclass in x-modular.eclass to get rid of a lot
> of code duplication and more possible bugs. Problem is, it brings in
> IUSE=X for every single X package. I cannot figure out how to prevent
> this. Setting IUSE="" after the inherit in x-modular.eclass is not enough.
>
> Anyone got any ideas? The only one I have is to add significant missing
> functionality to font.eclass and switch every font package over that
> instead of x-modular.eclass.
Isnt it possible to define something like I_AM_X=1 in x-modular.eclass
and in fonts.eclass have a if [[ -z "${I_AM_X}" ]]; then IUSE="X";
DEPEND="current depends"; else DEPEND="as if X use flag was forced"; fi
and replace the use X with a use X || [[ -z "${I_AM_X}" ]]
--
Olivier Crête
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo Developer
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Dreaded herd tag
понеділок, 30. жовтень 2006 17:16, Chris Gianelloni Ви написали: > Well, we enforce the maintainer tag if herd is no-herd. Then, we only With this explicit requirement I think it should be Ok. > allow valid devs, and maintainer-needed in maintainer. Should we also disallow adding new no-herd/maintainer-needed ebuilds? (As the apparent use of maintainer-needed is to track the ebuilds already in the tree that need some love). George -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass
Alternate subject: On the sudden appearance of USE=X for tons of stuff I really want to use font.eclass in x-modular.eclass to get rid of a lot of code duplication and more possible bugs. Problem is, it brings in IUSE=X for every single X package. I cannot figure out how to prevent this. Setting IUSE="" after the inherit in x-modular.eclass is not enough. Anyone got any ideas? The only one I have is to add significant missing functionality to font.eclass and switch every font package over that instead of x-modular.eclass. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Dreaded herd tag
On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 03:05 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Saturday 28 October 2006 02:46, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 08:11:37AM +0200, George Shapovalov wrote: > > > One of the reasons herds were introduced was to explicitly see what > > > packages lack maintenance. It is possible for the ebuild to be in the > > > herd, but be supported by the developer not on the herd. See the > > > tag. Also, there can be one-dev herds. > > > > I have a number of specialized packages that I maintain, such as > > sys-block/qla-fc-firmware, that cannot be classified as any existing > > herd, and are specialized enough inventing a new herd for them would not > > really help. > > declaring no herd for maintainership here makes sense ... requiring a > tag and forcing it to "no-herd" keeps things explicit ... That's what I think is best. > on the topic of finding unmaintained packages: > if there is no herd and no maintainer, should we just cut metadata.xml ? or > do we recommend people to stick in no-herd ? the former would > help with people sticking in bogus things like a maintainer of bug-wranglers > (really maintainer-needed would make more sense) ... Well, we enforce the maintainer tag if herd is no-herd. Then, we only allow valid devs, and maintainer-needed in maintainer. That should resolve the problem. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Dreaded herd tag
On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 08:28 +0200, George Shapovalov wrote: > Wanna guess how many of those happen to be stale? I would suspect fewer than you think. As an example, I have a few packages which belong to no herd, but have me listed as maintainer. Many of the no-herd packages are the same. Not being grouped with other packages doesn't mean it is unmaintained. So this bears the question, what is the proper solution? Make optional? Force the maintainer's email into for packages without a herd? -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Scheme herd team needs some love
Matthew Kennedy wrote: No one is working on the Scheme herd in Gentoo. [EMAIL PROTECTED] includes only me, but I'm not doing anything with Scheme and don't really care to either. Several of our Scheme implementations in Portage are out of date, (chicken, gambit, drscheme, bigloo and, dare I mention, guile). drscheme is not unmaintained or out of date, I am maintaining it. It has only one open bug, which is an enhancement request for a feature that doesn't compile in the current version. A quick search found a bug in one of it's deps that was assigned to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for some reason (the metadata.xml has the package assigned to no-herd). -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Breaking your box with dbus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Just a heads up... This is part of the reason that dbus > .9x is still p.masked. We are moving from dbus-core back to dbus - dbus will NOT be a meta package for dbus > .9x. It will be the core daemon. You should be depending on either just the bindings you need (which will depend on dbus itself, or the bindings and dbus itself.) This is just an informative email, so that people know, even though its p.masked as I am sure it will cause some people some issues. Steev, on behalf of the Gentopia team. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFRhr81c+EtXTHkJcRAliDAJ9+RobEZoyOdiu42cTvftMl1LFgeQCfdYgc 2GxUmFXw3Pn6nwgezJpMMvo= =VFQY -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: New developer: Christian Faulhammer (opfer)
Tach Christian, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Christian Heim schrieb: > Its my pleasure to introduce to you Christian Faulhammer (also known as > opfer), our latest addition helping with xemacs and the x86 monkeys. Please! Don't! Not XEmacs! Pure GNU Emacs, nothing more, nothing less! > While he's unplugged from his 'puter, Christian is trying to judge > handball games (you heard right, he's a referee) and he is enjoying > cycling (*juck*). Cycling is good to be in shape when running from the crowd after matches. > Enough of me trying to be a funny person, Yes please...go on with recruiting but leave out humour...you are German. I would like to thank Christian (phreak), Andrej (my mentor Ticho), Joshua Jackson and all the devs that helped me on IRC. Especially all people from project Sunrise, because commiting there is a good training for the "real" tree. Chris White: But no American beer please. Vlastimil: Now I can nag you even more for Java things. Thanks for Jabref again. Tobias, Lars: Yes, I will attend some hours at LWE in Cologne. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] qadeps(?) - useful(?) tool for deps qa
> qlist ${CPV} | scanelf -L -n -q -F '%n #F' | tr , ' ' | xargs qfile -C |
> sort -u
>
> This oneliner does more or less what checkrdeps does ...
Didn't know it's so simple. Idea of my script was to also show on which level
and by what these rdpes are satisfied, which can help keeping your rdeps
clean.
> The main problem is that it will _not_ work without using --as-needed...
Nothing is perfect. It still helps a bit.
> > - Checks for system packages in dependencies.
>
> This might be intentional, currently the QA policy about this is not clear.
> See bug #151758 . I don't want to see dependencies over zlib removed for
> instance, you can easily find a way to reproduce packags failing to merge
> because zlib is broken, and emerge -e world does not merge them before zlib
> (the same applies to paludis and pkgcore as far as I can tell).
I didn't say that's always wrong, for example auto* often need exact version
dep. It's more like head-up. Same goes to suspicious rdeps like sed or
doxygen, which can be easily set with RDEPEND=${DEPEND}.
> As I said on that bug, IMHO system dependencies should be stated unless
> obvious (libc, gcc, binutils), problematic for porting (findutils,
> net-tools) or creates circular deps (shadow).
IMHO this should be fixed in portage. If not why would we have system packages
at all?
Comming back to my script - I will be rewriting it in python anyway to learn
this nice lang and how portage really works.
--
Piotr Jaroszyński
Gentoo Developer
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
On Monday 30 October 2006 14:23, Ferris McCormick wrote: > I might be mistaken, but I believe sparc responds pretty quickly to > security bugs, either by taking the requested action or by explaining > why the requested action is impossible (i.e., build problems). Yes, the Sparc team is rather quick - even among security-wise supported architectures. None of the archs cc'ed to the bug in question is security-wise supported. We communicate this is our vulnerability policy¹ page - a bit too hidden for my taste. Carsten [1] http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/vulnerability-policy.xml pgpuk28mu5vmO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:28:29 -0800 "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | To generalize on Francesco's email, how long should developers wait | for minority arches to mark stuff stable, after a security bug, and | then a reminder more than 4 months later? Indefinitely. There's no harm leaving ebuilds around. | 5 months of no response from the arches says something is wrong on | their side. Or it tells you where their priorities lie... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] firefox-2.0
I wouldn't do it until mplayerplug-in works on it. I just realized it doesn't, last night. lot of people would probably be upset if it were stabilized. but they couldn't watch movies. On 10/29/06, Josh Saddler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Michal Kurgan wrote: > Hello! > > Recently new firefox-2.0 was released. > I (and probably many other users) am interested when this new version would > be unmasked and stabilized. If there are any problems, what are they and what > to expect if i would force installation now? Is there any roadmap or timeline > for stabilization already? > > Thanks in advance for any answers. > There's no need to rush stabilization; being overly hasty leads to broken systems. If you want it, it's in ~arch, so go get it. Our own documentation gives a guideline of 1 month without outstanding problems/open bugs. A quick search for "firefox 2.0" in Bugzilla shows a few open bugs: http://tinyurl.com/yjoy3w -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 00:28 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 07:49:22PM -0700, Jason Wever wrote: > > Please triple check what you want to commit and verify that you don't do > > any of the following (which are punishable by death): > > > > 1) remove the last ebuild that is keyworded for a given arch, especially > >when resulting in broken dependencies. > > > > 2) remove the last stable ebuild for an architecture > > > > 3) remove the last testing ebuild for an architecture when there is no > >stable ebuild available after the removal > > To generalize on Francesco's email, how long should developers wait for > minority arches to mark stuff stable, after a security bug, and then a > reminder more than 4 months later? 5 months of no response from the > arches says something is wrong on their side. > I might be mistaken, but I believe sparc responds pretty quickly to security bugs, either by taking the requested action or by explaining why the requested action is impossible (i.e., build problems). > I think that usage statistics might point out that there are nobody even > using these specific ebuilds that are proposed for removal. > Regards, -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
On 10/30/06, Jason Wever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Please triple check what you want to commit and verify that you don't do any of the following (which are punishable by death): 1) remove the last ebuild that is keyworded for a given arch, especially when resulting in broken dependencies. 2) remove the last stable ebuild for an architecture 3) remove the last testing ebuild for an architecture when there is no stable ebuild available after the removal Consider yourself warned. Violation of any of these will cause the jforman death goat squad to be dispatched to your location for a discreet hit. For repeat offenders, public executions will be had, with Spanky hosting. 1) Would it be a good idea for repoman to detect these when scanning for QA issues ? 2) Would it be a good idea for repoman to alert QA (and possibly the jforman death goat squad) in real time when a dev commits such violations (and others) ? This could enable other devs to act right away and avoid havoc to spread too far. Denis. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] The (lack of) use of herds
On Monday 30 October 2006 10:26, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > A single person doesn't constitute a team [1]. More than one person > does... > > [1] Unless you're SpanKY. You forget that vapier also works with SpanKY ;) -- Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo/Linux Developer (baselayout, networking) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Last rites for media-sound/bpmdj
As per summary, bpmdj is currently not actively maintained in Gentoo, the ebuild has a few problems itself, I fixed a few issues before, but I don't use it nor I can test it myself (-amd64). If noone steps up, it will removed next month. Stefan, you filed the bump request, if you're using this software feel free to take over maintainership and cancel these last rites. -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK, Ruby ... pgp3lrYrDg3Nw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] The (lack of) use of herds
On 29/10/06, Richard Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/28/06, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I'd go further and question the whole herd concept. It also gives users the impression that there is an entire "team" of people maintaining a package,when in fact it might be just one or two people. A single person doesn't constitute a team [1]. More than one person does... Best, Elfyn [1] Unless you're SpanKY. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 07:49:22PM -0700, Jason Wever wrote: > Please triple check what you want to commit and verify that you don't do > any of the following (which are punishable by death): > > 1) remove the last ebuild that is keyworded for a given arch, especially >when resulting in broken dependencies. > > 2) remove the last stable ebuild for an architecture > > 3) remove the last testing ebuild for an architecture when there is no >stable ebuild available after the removal To generalize on Francesco's email, how long should developers wait for minority arches to mark stuff stable, after a security bug, and then a reminder more than 4 months later? 5 months of no response from the arches says something is wrong on their side. I think that usage statistics might point out that there are nobody even using these specific ebuilds that are proposed for removal. -- Robin Hugh Johnson E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpKmk2uLyg9u.pgp Description: PGP signature
