Re: [gentoo-dev] Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On 14:58 Wed 11 Jun , Donnie Berkholz wrote: Carefully note the Preparation sections. If they aren't completed, we will postpone the topic to the -council mailing list or the next meeting instead of waste time during the meeting doing things that should've happened in advance. Please respond with any suggestions, including suggested order of the topics by urgency (within old topics and new topics). Unfortunately not all of the topics were posted to the council meeting reminder thread, so it was hard to dig them out. amne talked to me and said he won't be able to post to any mailing lists before the meeting because he's at work, although he will be able to read them. I realize it was pretty late notice on the agenda, and the preparation+consequences is a new concept that we haven't all agreed on. The idea behind posting to the list in advance is twofold -- holding council members accountable for: 1) Knowing the relevant information, and 2) Participating in the source discussion if they have anything new to add, rather than bringing it up during the meeting. What we don't want is people speaking up at the meeting with previously unheard opinions or asking about already discussed topics, either of which often create prolonged discussions. The alternative to posting in advance is that you agree with an opinion that's already out there and will not bring up anything new during the meeting. That's my interpretation of people not posting, and that's perfectly fine. In the future, every council meeting should become little more than a time to hold a vote on predefined options for each topic. In fact, if we could get that far, we might not even need live meetings at all anymore It could all be on-list, or even using votify. Thanks, Donnie -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Donnie Berkholz schrieb: Status of PMS - ferringb said: I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes this side of'09. Preparation: Post your opinion to the -dev thread One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June 2+ hours before the meeting. After investing more than two hours to just read the Mails that popped up yesterday regarding this stuff, I'd say we can't really take this serious. The PMS maintainers were withholding information on compatibility issues they've seen. As such we can't be sure this will pop up again in the future and so I strongly suggest dismissing this as something official for gentoo. Best Regards Markus Ullmann Gentoo Council Member signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:36:18 +0200 Markus Ullmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After investing more than two hours to just read the Mails that popped up yesterday regarding this stuff, I'd say we can't really take this serious. The PMS maintainers were withholding information on compatibility issues they've seen. No, we were trying to get the pkgcore people to write some frickin' test cases for their code rather than continuing to screw up the process by incorrectly claiming support for an EAPI. You should instead be asking the pkgcore guys why they should be allowed to continue keeping a package in the tree when they're blatantly ignoring the EAPI process. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 55 - The Long Thread
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's a lot to be said about being stuck in the grand design mindset. I know many Gentoo, Portage, Exherbo, and Paludis developers are clearly coming to that point in their programming careers based on the comments on this thread and other threads. I would just like to caution everyone that they really need to get past this plateau in their programming careers and get on to the real mindset that matters in the future. The use case mindset. Georges Clemenceau once said : War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men. There surely is something to be said along these lines about software design and programmers. Denis. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] A unit-testing prototype
On 02:47 Mon 26 May , Donnie Berkholz wrote: A while back, vapier added some tests for the toolchain-funcs eclass to /usr/portage/eclass/tests/. I really like the idea, and I recently discovered an xUnit-style unit-testing framework for shell scripts called ShUnit2. I played with it a little and made a couple of prototypes. Take a look and see what you think. I've heard two positive comments on IRC and nothing else, so I'm proceeding with this. I'll be adding these to the existing /usr/portage/eclass/tests/, adding shunit2 to the tree, and beginning some work looking into unit tests for portage's bash code. Probably some for app-shells/bash would also be useful, since we seem to pretty consistently run into weird breakage on new versions. Thanks, Donnie -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: No, we were trying to get the pkgcore people to write some frickin' test cases for their code rather than continuing to screw up the process by incorrectly claiming support for an EAPI. That isn't what has been perceived. Whoever will take the portage specification will have to provide testcases while updating the spec, correctly split an version it to make implementation easier and behave properly. You should instead be asking the pkgcore guys why they should be allowed to continue keeping a package in the tree when they're blatantly ignoring the EAPI process. The eapi process is something not defined so they cannot do much about it, same for the portage people. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:52:13 +0200 Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You should instead be asking the pkgcore guys why they should be allowed to continue keeping a package in the tree when they're blatantly ignoring the EAPI process. The eapi process is something not defined so they cannot do much about it, same for the portage people. The EAPI process requires that any package manager that claims to support a particular EAPI really does. When someone releases a package manager that has significant bugs in new EAPI handling, we have to decide: * whether we can use the EAPI in the tree * whether we have to avoid the bits of that EAPI that are broken * whether we have to release a new EAPI n+1 that's identical to EAPI n, and completely ban EAPI n. Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If package manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible thing, the whole point of EAPIs is lost. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If package manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible thing, the whole point of EAPIs is lost. Thats a circular argument since portage and pkgcore developers are complaining about eapi definition and PMS management. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:12:47 +0200 Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If package manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible thing, the whole point of EAPIs is lost. Thats a circular argument since portage and pkgcore developers are complaining about eapi definition and PMS management. Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't? Please stop your incessant and gratuitous insinuations. Denis. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:24:14 +0200 Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't? Please stop your incessant and gratuitous insinuations. Then please explain what else Luca could possibly be implying with his incessant and gratuitous interjections. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:16:51AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:12:47 +0200 Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If package manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible thing, the whole point of EAPIs is lost. Thats a circular argument since portage and pkgcore developers are complaining about eapi definition and PMS management. Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't? When paludis hit the tree, it claimed to support eapi0. Did it fully? No, bugs existed. Via your logic, paludis should've never been in the tree. See the failing here? Bugs occur, you're claiming perfection is required when your own code hasn't met said standards. You're also dodging the fact that apparently you've known about eapi1 incompatibilities and intentionally withheld that information for the apparent purpose of discrediting pkgcore. You've been stating for a long while eapi1 support was broke- for the default iuse support months back, and ongoing- I get the very strong vibe you've been sitting on bugs for a long while. I've put up with lies from y'all for a long while- simplest gross example is the claims pkgcore devs were forking the format when in actuality paludis devs (you) were forking off exheres at the time of the accusation. I'm accustomed to that bullshit, and I stomach it because limited dealing with you benefits gentoo, at least as long as you wield the political hammer that is PMS. What's over the line however is that via your withholding of information, you intentionally allowing users to see breakage to try and discredit the competition. That's not acceptable in any form. Actual bug reports, for ebuild support bugs turn around (including release) for pkgcore is typically within same day. I give a *damn* about compatibility, even if it means enabling paludis to grow (thus providing more power for your insepid games). The fact that the -r0 incident occured out of the blue a month or two back isn't exactly heartening either- proving it was intentional breakage admittedly is not possible. However considering the behaviour displayed here, it's a pretty logical assumption to presume the -r0 was an intentional breakage for yet more discrediting BS. You pulled a pretty major no-no here, and the fact you can't admit it is pretty fricking sad. ~harring pgp7VMFyQ2dhh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] A unit-testing prototype
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:48:01 -0700 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 02:47 Mon 26 May , Donnie Berkholz wrote: A while back, vapier added some tests for the toolchain-funcs eclass to /usr/portage/eclass/tests/. I really like the idea, and I recently discovered an xUnit-style unit-testing framework for shell scripts called ShUnit2. I played with it a little and made a couple of prototypes. Take a look and see what you think. I've heard two positive comments on IRC and nothing else, so I'm proceeding with this. I'll be adding these to the existing /usr/portage/eclass/tests/, adding shunit2 to the tree, and beginning some work looking into unit tests for portage's bash code. Great! Thanks. I didn't try it because I was too lazy to put shunit2 in an overlay but had a look at the code. Tests cannot hurt, esp. for such widely used code that eclasses are. I'll probably use this to write tests for the couple of eclasses I maintain. Alexis. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:40:06 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't? When paludis hit the tree, it claimed to support eapi0. Did it fully? No, bugs existed. Via your logic, paludis should've never been in the tree. See the failing here? Bugs occur, you're claiming perfection is required when your own code hasn't met said standards. Except that there's no well defined way of testing EAPI 0. There is a well defined way of testing EAPI 1. That's not acceptable in any form. Actual bug reports, for ebuild support bugs turn around (including release) for pkgcore is typically within same day. I give a *damn* about compatibility, even if it means enabling paludis to grow (thus providing more power for your insepid games). If you care, why don't you write simple test cases? The fact that the -r0 incident occured out of the blue a month or two back isn't exactly heartening either- proving it was intentional breakage admittedly is not possible. However considering the behaviour displayed here, it's a pretty logical assumption to presume the -r0 was an intentional breakage for yet more discrediting BS. And you accuse us of spreading FUD? If anyone really wanted to break a package manager, there'd be much more spectacular ways of doing it... You pulled a pretty major no-no here, and the fact you can't admit it is pretty fricking sad. No, *you* 'pulled a pretty major no-no' by refusing to do basic testing, and the fact that you're trying so hard to make it look like someone else's fault is pretty fricking sad. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] A few questions to our nominees
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: Hello, looks like every nominee wants the council to be more technical so I have a few technical questions for you: 1. GLEP54 Just for fun I took some of the ideas about alternative management of the issue and specified the features it makes it worth changing (better management and automated snapshot generation from the live ebuild). http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero/glep/liveebuild.rst I'd like to see some comment on it (I put it in glep form just now so it isn't exactly perfect) lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] A few questions to our nominees
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:05:01 +0200 Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just for fun I took some of the ideas about alternative management of the issue and specified the features it makes it worth changing (better management and automated snapshot generation from the live ebuild). http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero/glep/liveebuild.rst I'd like to see some comment on it (I put it in glep form just now so it isn't exactly perfect) * ordering for _pre is wrong. * How are you planning to handle reinstalls? Should installing world always reinstall live things? Never? Or what? * How are live ebuilds selected by the package manager? * What's the filename for live ebuild for SVN trunk/? What about live ebuild for SVN branches/0.26/? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thursday 12 June 2008 08:36:18 Markus Ullmann wrote: After investing more than two hours to just read the Mails that popped up yesterday regarding this stuff, I'd say we can't really take this serious. The PMS maintainers were withholding information on compatibility issues they've seen. As such we can't be sure this will pop up again in the future and so I strongly suggest dismissing this as something official for gentoo. Ciaran already explained about that, but even if you don't agree with the reasoning, that's no reason to shut down a project that will benefit Gentoo as a whole. If you have a problem with the content of PMS, then as I already said, please file bugs or send patches. As the history shows, we are willing to change Paludis and PMS to match Portage behaviour, when we become aware of any discrepancies. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] eapi1 bug/pkgcore sucks thread [was EAPI-2 - Let's get it started]
On 12 Jun 2008, at 04:16, Brian Harring wrote: Why the exherbo/paludis/PMS folk decided to go this route to report, I'm not quite sure aside from assuming they're just griefers. s-exherbo/paludis/PMS-pkgcore-g and: http://fpereda.wordpress.com/2008/05/03/on-cooperating-and-paludis-vulnerability/ Except this one wasn't a lie. I wish there were more cooperation between all of us. But looks like it is impossible with some of your people. - ferdy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] A unit-testing prototype
Donnie Berkholz a écrit : I've heard two positive comments on IRC and nothing else, so I'm proceeding with this. I'll be adding these to the existing /usr/portage/eclass/tests/, adding shunit2 to the tree, and beginning some work looking into unit tests for portage's bash code. Could you let us know of your progress here or on your blog? I'm interested in maybe writing a couple tests for the gnome2* eclasses. Thanks for your work on this :) Cheers -- Rémi Cardona LRI, INRIA [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] eapi1 bug/pkgcore sucks thread [was EAPI-2 - Let's get it started]
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 07:16:05PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 07:00:16PM +0100, David Leverton wrote:
On Thursday 12 June 2008 02:46:03 Jim Ramsay wrote:
David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since at least one ebuild has already been modified specifically to
work around the bug, I'd say it's pretty real.
For those of us trying to play along at home, which one is this?
http://tinyurl.com/4w4t69
Few things I'll note about this stupid, stupid mess- looks of it,
paludis folk have known about this for a while. In other words, folk
bitching about 'improving' QA intentionally sat on a bug for the sake
of mocking, bug which according to them ebuild devs have supposedly
worked around (yet to see it, but it's viable).
Useful to the whole, I'm sure. Same folk in control of PMS for those
playing the home game, politics over QA seemingly.
So what was the bug? Aside from having to walk the full eapi-1 bugs,
(ebuild referenced wasn't of use), majority of which actually *is*
tested in pkgcore (unlike portage which makes one wonder why pkgcore
is targeted), the fault is a simple defaulting of an unset var being
missed in implementing an undocumented spec (honestly, where is eapi1
spec?).
Literally, the BS of the last day all comes down to inability to state
the following:
=== modified file 'pkgcore/bin/ebuild-env/ebuild-functions.sh'
--- pkgcore/bin/ebuild-env/ebuild-functions.sh2007-11-12 01:17:24
+
+++ pkgcore/bin/ebuild-env/ebuild-functions.sh2008-06-11 22:24:16
+
@@ -236,7 +236,7 @@ src_compile
{
if [ ${EAPI:-0} == 0 ] ; then
[ -x ./configure ] econf
-elif [ -x ${ECONF_SOURCE}/configure ]; then
+elif [ -x ${ECONF_SOURCE:-.}/configure ]; then
econf || die econf failed
fi
if [ -f Makefile ] || [ -f GNUmakefile ] || [ -f makefile ]; then
I'm not quite sure how you're trying to present this, but are you really
trying to say that EAPI 1 isn't documented? I myself found this in
pms.pdf in 2 minutes(it's section 10.1.3). I wouldn't exactly say it's
because it was missed in implementing an undocumented spec.
pgpcHKJFXxnuK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: What to do for better support?
Hi, Takashi Yoshii [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I've got nothing to BTS so far, because my trial was so successful. So, maybe I should... - Test more packages of sh to find and report bugs? Yes! Always. Maybe test stabilisation requests for packages. See the archtester programs of amd64 or x86 how that works. - or Test ~shs to change them to sh ?, or to ~sh ? - or Test using (or providing?) binary at place like tinderbox? - Any others? (perhaps, seeking arch maintainer...) You could become a developer to support the SuperH platform, but you should prove yourself before. V-Li -- Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55
Fernando J. Pereda wrote: On 10 Jun 2008, at 15:33, Joe Peterson wrote: Luca Barbato wrote: Check if exists a line EAPI=*$, if does and the rest of the string matches an understood eapi, go on sourcing, otherwise ignore/mask it... And placing it out-of-band (like # EAPI=...) avoids any sourcing errors, makes parsing faster, etc. No, it doesn't make parsing faster. Had you bothered to profile any package manager you'd know that. How much is parsing speed relevant when users in majority of cases already have the metadata cache from the rsync servers? For devs (or users) hacking on an ebuild they have to source it anyway so the addition pre-parsing is negligible... VB -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] What to do for better support?
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 05:20:47PM +0900, Takashi Yoshii wrote: I want sh to be supported more, and to be released officially in future. Currently, it doesn't have stable profile, and no 2008.0 release (not even as an experimental), though. Seeing your employer's domain, can you offer pointers to reasonably-priced and useful SH boards/systems? The ARM world has recently seen the TinCan 'Nail' board, which is pretty damn good (both solar and I have one). Embedded PPC has the Efika. Embedded MIPS I'm less certain of, I know I have a MyCable XXS1500 (Au1500 core), but I don't know beyond that. There's a really low-memory SH box available for developer access: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/dev-machines.xml However, I don't really know if it's sufficient for building releases or doing more testing (I suspect not). I wonder what should I do. After reading docs, I've found most of all I (as a non-gentoo-developer) can do is testing and sending bug to Bugzilla or so. Pretty much all of your suggestions are good, plus seeing about more hardware maybe. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer Infra Guy E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgp0It2Pz5zK6.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: What to do for better support?
Takashi Yoshii [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:20:47 +0900: I've got nothing to BTS so far, because my trial was so successful. So, maybe I should... - Test more packages of sh to find and report bugs? - or Test ~shs to change them to sh ?, or to ~sh ? - or Test using (or providing?) binary at place like tinderbox? - Any others? (perhaps, seeking arch maintainer...) Hi. I know little about SuperH personally, but perhaps the following will be helpful general orientation and pointers toward more. AFAIK, the Gentoo sh arch is severely understaffed ATM, and that's an understatement. (I /believe/ most of the work has been done by one person (possibly two), who has other Gentoo responsibilities as well, not to mention the fact that Gentoo devs are all volunteers, so he has a day job too.) That is why as you mentioned it has no current release or stable profile. Thus, if you have reasonable skills and a decent amount of time to dedicate in the medium term, preferably two years or so minimum so the mentoring time investment has some return, what Gentoo on that arch could really use would be a dedicated arch developer. Yes, the personal investment isn't trivial by a long shot, and it's entirely possible you don't have that sort of time available to dedicate, but if you do and want to, read over the dev handbook and seriously consider starting the mentoring process. If you don't have that sort of time or skills available, even a shorter term lower time investment could be very beneficial for the arch. A number of archs have what's called an arch tester position. This is a fairly well defined position where you aren't a Gentoo dev but you work very closely with one or more Gentoo devs, with them doing the final commits based on your testing and results. Many such closely cooperating users have ultimately become devs themselves, while others have remained at the AT position by choice, often due to lack of time and resources to be a full dev, but wanting to give what they can. While becoming a dev has a purposefully longer testing and mentoring process, becoming an AT is much simpler, altho there's usually (archs differ in AT procedures a bit) a general ebuild quiz involved. Then there's folks like me, who spend a lot of time on the various channels/groups/lists/forums/etc (often being more comfortable in some than others, I'm not an IRC person for instance and rarely do forums, so spend most of my time on the lists/groups) trying to help out as best we can, but who haven't taken a formal position of any sort. Of course, that may lead to more later, or not. Personally, I don't consider myself really skilled enough at this point to be a dev (tho I've been asked), tho it's also a matter of not yet having really decided to make the commitment and buckle down and do it. So whatever level you are comfortable and chose to participate at, welcome! Gentoo can put you to work, particularly with your alternative arch experience! =8^) Here's the developer handbook, which can be a very good place to start even if you aren't directly targeting that initially, and should at least answer some questions you no doubt already have, as well as provide you some idea of what's involved if you do wish to head toward devhood. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml If you're looking more at AT, that's to some degree defined by the arch and arch-team in question, and certainly the dynamic on a small arch such as sh will be rather different than on x86 or amd64, but here's the x86 arch-tester's FAQ, to give you an idea, at least. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/x86/arch-testers-faq.xml Other than that, I'd suggest you contact the dev(s) for your arch directly. The one listed for Sh is Mike Sterrett, aka mr_bones_ . You can of course make yourself immediately useful by contributing bugs and patches, etc. Many people find the bug day project very helpful at introducing themselves to the larger community, for instance. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: What to do for better support?
Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 05:20:47PM +0900, Takashi Yoshii wrote: I want sh to be supported more, and to be released officially in future. Currently, it doesn't have stable profile, and no 2008.0 release (not even as an experimental), though. Seeing your employer's domain, can you offer pointers to reasonably-priced and useful SH boards/systems? The ARM world has recently seen the TinCan 'Nail' board, which is pretty damn good (both solar and I have one). Embedded PPC has the Efika. Embedded MIPS I'm less certain of, I know I have a MyCable XXS1500 (Au1500 core), but I don't know beyond that. There's a really low-memory SH box available for developer access: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/dev-machines.xml However, I don't really know if it's sufficient for building releases or doing more testing (I suspect not). I did build and test a couple of my packages there. It is definitely too slow and hasn't enough RAM. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2008/2009
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: Łukasz Damentko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2008/2009 are open now and will be open for the next two weeks (until 23:59 UTC, 18/06/2008). I wish to nominate Halcy0n, Cardoe and leio. I'll accept my nomination. I'll happily answer all the inquiries on the ML in one post to follow. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastriting dev-libs/libffi (replaced by USE libffi in gcc itself)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
| On 14:52 Thu 05 Jun , Samuli Suominen wrote:
| # Samuli Suominen [EMAIL PROTECTED] (05 Jun 2008)
| # Masked for removal in ~30 days by treecleaners.
| # Replaced by USE libffi in sys-devel/gcc. Bug 163724.
| dev-libs/libffi
| dev-lang/squeak
| x11-libs/gtk-server
|
| The latest version of g-wrap (1.9.11) requires the external libffi
| released a month or two ago, because it looks for the pkgconfig file
| installed by that and not gcc:
|
| - libffi is no longer distributed with g-wrap, as it is available
| as a stand-alone package now (instead of being burried in the
| GCC sources).
|
| Thoughts?
I think we should use this unbundled libffi in favor of the one that will
continue to be
bundled with gcc. A normal dep is nicer than a use dep on gcc with libffi for
one. I don't
see any reason why this ``new'' libffi should become unmaintained again soon.
Marijn
Relevant bug: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163724
- --
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkhRU9cACgkQp/VmCx0OL2x56gCfbBE7GiypORQqcyKnjUaGgHc/
0WcAnA31US1030TisMMUN9D2OCJuJZb3
=1xLl
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun , Brian Harring wrote: Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, People actually working on the PMS would be better-placed to discuss its current status, if by that you mean progress toward an approved spec. The last I heard was a couple months ago when Ciaran asked us whether there were any further major issues and removed kdebuild-1 from the PDF to be approved. if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, Anyone working on a package manager (and anyone else suitably knowledgeable) should be able to get commit access to it. The only person running it is doing so by virtue of making the most commits. and if said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes this side of '09. This is basically the same as the first question from my ability to answer it. Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of the general view. I'd like to know what's holding you back from contributing to it, instead of telling us that someone else is doing things you don't like. Is there some kind of technical barrier (like the TeX)? Or what? Are you filing bugs against the parts you don't like? What's happening to them? Thanks, Donnie -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thursday 12 June 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun , Brian Harring wrote: Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, People actually working on the PMS would be better-placed to discuss its current status, if by that you mean progress toward an approved spec. The last I heard was a couple months ago when Ciaran asked us whether there were any further major issues and removed kdebuild-1 from the PDF to be approved. he was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the repo and this has yet to happen Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of the general view. I'd like to know what's holding you back from contributing to it, instead of telling us that someone else is doing things you don't like. Is there some kind of technical barrier (like the TeX)? Or what? Are you filing bugs against the parts you don't like? What's happening to them? TeX isnt a format that integrates with Gentoo. should just convert it to docbook and be done with this garbage. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 12 June 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun , Brian Harring wrote: Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, People actually working on the PMS would be better-placed to discuss its current status, if by that you mean progress toward an approved spec. The last I heard was a couple months ago when Ciaran asked us whether there were any further major issues and removed kdebuild-1 from the PDF to be approved. he was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the repo and this has yet to happen This shouldn't block PMS discussions. There's an up to date copy in pdf of PMS built without kdebuild at http://dev.gentoo.org/~coldwind/pms-without-kdebuild.pdf Regards, -- Santiago M. Mola Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Luca Barbato wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If package manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible thing, the whole point of EAPIs is lost. Thats a circular argument since portage and pkgcore developers are complaining about eapi definition and PMS management. lu If the bickering is stopping development then maybe it should be given to a 3rd party to complete and have the last word. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thursday 12 June 2008 18:14:21 Mike Frysinger wrote: he was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the repo and this has yet to happen I just checked the April meeting log, and while I admit I didn't read every word from start to finish, all I could see was that kdebuild couldn't be in the final, official version. In particular, you yourself wrote: 22:36 vapier@ i generate the pms for reference. it better not include anything that hasnt been approved. It looks like that isn't the default in current git, but it's trivial to fix if that's what people want. If I missed something in the log, or if this was discussed somewhere else, please let me know. TeX isnt a format that integrates with Gentoo. should just convert it to docbook and be done with this garbage. I would think that anyone proposing such a disruptive change at this point should either give a damn good reason or do the work themselves, preferably both. I can't even figure out what integrates with Gentoo means, let alone decide whether it counts as damn good. (And if you're suggesting DocBook as an alternative, it can't possibly mean is the same as all the other Gentoo documentation.) -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:14:21 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 12 June 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun , Brian Harring wrote: Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, People actually working on the PMS would be better-placed to discuss its current status, if by that you mean progress toward an approved spec. The last I heard was a couple months ago when Ciaran asked us whether there were any further major issues and removed kdebuild-1 from the PDF to be approved. he was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the repo and this has yet to happen No, I was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the version sent to the Council for approval. Doing so is just a case of toggling a switch in PMS. Also, until they were all mysteriously fired, Gentoo's KDE people were planning to ask the Council for official approval of kdebuild-1 so that it could remain in PMS. So that's still up in the air too. I'd like to know what's holding you back from contributing to it, instead of telling us that someone else is doing things you don't like. Is there some kind of technical barrier (like the TeX)? Or what? Are you filing bugs against the parts you don't like? What's happening to them? TeX isnt a format that integrates with Gentoo. should just convert it to docbook and be done with this garbage. And docbook does integrate with Gentoo? Please point me to other Gentoo documentation that uses docbook. Also, I've yet to be told how to get automatic, verified, zero-work-upon-relocation cross-document links using either docbook or guidexml. Perhaps you'd care to explain. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:32:35 +0100 George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the bickering is stopping development then maybe it should be given to a 3rd party to complete and have the last word. Considering third parties have at best contributed a few small patches, I don't see that getting very far... If a third party's genuinely prepared to take over and do the work they're more than welcome to. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Freedesktop utils in ebuild
Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:27:26 +0200 René 'Necoro' Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] kirjoitti: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 René 'Necoro' Neumann schrieb: Hi list, I'm currently trying to update an ebuild (x11-misc/zim) to a new version. The old one uses a patch to disable running update-desktop-database and instead using the fdo-mime_desktop_database_update function. Now - the new ebuild also wants to call: - update-mime-database -- disable and use fdo-mime_mime_database_update ? yes, because it (re)generates cache file that doesn't belong to any package we need to run it in postinst. to avoid file-collision. - xdg-icon-resource install -- let it run? - or disable it (and replace it by what)? unsure (as i've neved touched it) but i'd say if it respects DESTDIR and doesn't have any file-collisions when installing, let it run plus it will be very likely ME who commits new zim, as usual.. so open up a bug for the new version your suggested ebuild. thanks, Samuli -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On 19:03 Thu 12 Jun , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:14:21 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 12 June 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun , Brian Harring wrote: Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, People actually working on the PMS would be better-placed to discuss its current status, if by that you mean progress toward an approved spec. The last I heard was a couple months ago when Ciaran asked us whether there were any further major issues and removed kdebuild-1 from the PDF to be approved. he was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the repo and this has yet to happen No, I was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the version sent to the Council for approval. Doing so is just a case of toggling a switch in PMS. Also, until they were all mysteriously fired, Gentoo's KDE people were planning to ask the Council for official approval of kdebuild-1 so that it could remain in PMS. So that's still up in the air too. All? Only one person I know of, Philantrop. Were rbrown or spb committing much to KDE stuff? I'd like to know what's holding you back from contributing to it, instead of telling us that someone else is doing things you don't like. Is there some kind of technical barrier (like the TeX)? Or what? Are you filing bugs against the parts you don't like? What's happening to them? TeX isnt a format that integrates with Gentoo. should just convert it to docbook and be done with this garbage. And docbook does integrate with Gentoo? Please point me to other Gentoo documentation that uses docbook. http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/doc/ http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-projects/pax-utils/man/ Also, I've yet to be told how to get automatic, verified, zero-work-upon-relocation cross-document links using either docbook or guidexml. Perhaps you'd care to explain. You've mentioned this as a requirement. Is it something that happens so often that it's a significant burden if it isn't available? Thanks, Donnie -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Brian Harring wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote: This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC). If you're supposed to show up, please show up. If you're not supposed to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance for you. For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes this side of '09. Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of the general view. Yes, ciaran shall comment. My request still stands. Thanks, ~harring I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/ On this page it'd be nice if there was an official link to the current PMS instead of having to rely on grabbing it from random locations i.e. d.g.o/~coldwind/ or d.g.o/~spb/ -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] A few questions to our nominees
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:05:01 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just for fun I took some of the ideas about alternative management of
the issue and specified the features it makes it worth changing
(better management and automated snapshot generation from the live
ebuild).
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero/glep/liveebuild.rst
I'd like to see some comment on it (I put it in glep form just now so
it isn't exactly perfect)
* ordering for _pre is wrong.
hm?
* How are you planning to handle reinstalls? Should installing world
always reinstall live things? Never? Or what?
depends on the other ebuilds
* How are live ebuilds selected by the package manager?
live ebuilds gets considered as preN+1 for any purpose.
* What's the filename for live ebuild for SVN trunk/? What about
foo-${version inside trunk}.live?
live ebuild for SVN branches/0.26/?
foo-0.26.live?
What is inside the template is just concern of the ebuild writer. I
suggest to use the same version as marked in the configure or other
version value the release will get once upstream decides to release.
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/ There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on PMS appears to have commit access to it... -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:14:00 -0700 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the version sent to the Council for approval. Doing so is just a case of toggling a switch in PMS. Also, until they were all mysteriously fired, Gentoo's KDE people were planning to ask the Council for official approval of kdebuild-1 so that it could remain in PMS. So that's still up in the air too. All? Only one person I know of, Philantrop. Were rbrown or spb committing much to KDE stuff? All three were involved in the design of kdebuild-1. And docbook does integrate with Gentoo? Please point me to other Gentoo documentation that uses docbook. http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/doc/ http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-projects/pax-utils/man/ So no actual Gentoo documentation then, just documentation for some programs hosted by Gentoo? Also, I've yet to be told how to get automatic, verified, zero-work-upon-relocation cross-document links using either docbook or guidexml. Perhaps you'd care to explain. You've mentioned this as a requirement. Is it something that happens so often that it's a significant burden if it isn't available? Yes. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/ There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on PMS appears to have commit access to it... I saw that page but I think you'd agree it'd a bit lacking in information. Additionally, the fact that rane removed spb from the page due to his retirement does not mean that you need to fling your BS on the ML and accuse people of vandalizing anything. Comments like that are unnecessary to the discussion and poisonous. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/ There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on PMS appears to have commit access to it... The only commit from rane that I see is [1], which removes spb as a maintainer. As far as I can tell, this is not a vandalizing, but a completely legitimate status update which was triggered by spb's retirement. All Gentoo developers have access to the file in question, so I'm looking forward to a bugreport from you assigned to myself that has a patch attached which clearly states what should be updated. Cheers, -jkt [1] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa/pms.xml?r1=texttr1=1.1r2=texttr2=1.2makepatch=1diff_format=h -- cd /local/pub more beer /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Doug Goldstein wrote: Brian Harring wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote: This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC). If you're supposed to show up, please show up. If you're not supposed to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance for you. For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes this side of '09. Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of the general view. Yes, ciaran shall comment. My request still stands. Thanks, ~harring I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/ On this page it'd be nice if there was an official link to the current PMS instead of having to rely on grabbing it from random locations i.e. d.g.o/~coldwind/ or d.g.o/~spb/ Allow me to clarify a bit more. I'd like to see a collaborative website that developers for all actively maintained package managers can contribute to and update providing details about compatibility and implementation of the PMS and future additions or revisions of the PMS that will be put forth before the Gentoo Council. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:36:18AM +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote: After investing more than two hours to just read the Mails that popped up yesterday regarding this stuff, I'd say we can't really take this serious. The PMS maintainers were withholding information on compatibility issues they've seen. As such we can't be sure this will pop up again in the future and so I strongly suggest dismissing this as something official for gentoo. Agreed, if this is the way PMS is done, we should either get rid of it or do it differently. The current status as presented here is inacceptable. cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org forum-mods (at) gentoo.org #gentoo-forums (freenode) pgpdDn7lFUESx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Doug Goldstein wrote: Doug Goldstein wrote: Brian Harring wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote: This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC). If you're supposed to show up, please show up. If you're not supposed to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance for you. For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes this side of '09. Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of the general view. Yes, ciaran shall comment. My request still stands. Thanks, ~harring I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/ On this page it'd be nice if there was an official link to the current PMS instead of having to rely on grabbing it from random locations i.e. d.g.o/~coldwind/ or d.g.o/~spb/ Allow me to clarify a bit more. I'd like to see a collaborative website that developers for all actively maintained package managers can contribute to and update providing details about compatibility and implementation of the PMS and future additions or revisions of the PMS that will be put forth before the Gentoo Council. I agree with Cardoe, the specification should be made as useful as possible to the package maintainers, as accessible as possible by every interested party and possibly have a regression/conformance test built in (such a small tree with dummy ebuilds and eclasses) to allow automated validation. Stronger and well defined versioning should help as well. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug Goldstein wrote: Doug Goldstein wrote: Brian Harring wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote: This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC). If you're supposed to show up, please show up. If you're not supposed to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance for you. For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes this side of '09. Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of the general view. Yes, ciaran shall comment. My request still stands. Thanks, ~harring I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/ On this page it'd be nice if there was an official link to the current PMS instead of having to rely on grabbing it from random locations i.e. d.g.o/~coldwind/ or d.g.o/~spb/ Allow me to clarify a bit more. I'd like to see a collaborative website that developers for all actively maintained package managers can contribute to and update providing details about compatibility and implementation of the PMS and future additions or revisions of the PMS that will be put forth before the Gentoo Council. I agree with Cardoe, the specification should be made as useful as possible to the package maintainers, as accessible as possible by every interested party and possibly have a regression/conformance test built in (such a small tree with dummy ebuilds and eclasses) to allow automated validation. Stronger and well defined versioning should help as well. I believe the biggest problem with this list is you have a long list of wants but seem to not want to do any of the work yourself. For the folks making the requests; are you working on doing any of them yourself? Otherwise your suggestions are mere recommendations at best. -Alec lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Thursday 12 June 2008 22:21:48 Wernfried Haas wrote: Agreed, if this is the way PMS is done, we should either get rid of it or do it differently. The current status as presented here is inacceptable. Could someone please explain what's wrong with PMS, other than needs moar XML and I hate the people doing it? -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:32:35 +0100 George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the bickering is stopping development then maybe it should be given to a 3rd party to complete and have the last word. Considering third parties have at best contributed a few small patches, I don't see that getting very far... If a third party's genuinely prepared to take over and do the work they're more than welcome to. I dont see that the work isn't done, I see arguing about standards and implementations and as there is 3 voices in this and little is being decided then anything that can't be sorted should be submitted for review and decisions taken. There are things that I don't understand about the EAPI structure (why versions may be incompatible with each other) but it seems like we are heading for differing standards soon. Feel free to flame and call me a fool... -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/ There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on PMS appears to have commit access to it... I would like to comment that the wording on that page is unacceptable. With the advent of alternative package managers, this ill-defined standard is no longer sufficient... makes it sound like the previous work that was done was by idiots. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Alec Warner wrote: I believe the biggest problem with this list is you have a long list of wants but seem to not want to do any of the work yourself. For the folks making the requests; are you working on doing any of them yourself? I will =) Otherwise your suggestions are mere recommendations at best. You are right. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Freedesktop utils in ebuild
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Samuli Suominen schrieb:
- xdg-icon-resource install -- let it run? - or disable it (and
replace it by what)?
unsure (as i've neved touched it) but i'd say if it respects DESTDIR and
doesn't have any file-collisions when installing, let it run
Seems like it does not ... moved it to post{inst,rm}
plus it will be very likely ME who commits new zim, as usual.. so open
up a bug for the new version your suggested ebuild.
Done - bug #226143
- - Necoro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkhRoZkACgkQ4UOg/zhYFuCaPQCeMC7MKf8HBN4rNH63xHmJ1ArE
+SoAnj+WH53MRi3s9xe01N3LEi1g6MDt
=hLU1
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] eapi1 bug/pkgcore sucks thread [was EAPI-2 - Let's get it started]
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:39:21AM +0200, Fernando J. Pereda wrote: On 12 Jun 2008, at 04:16, Brian Harring wrote: Why the exherbo/paludis/PMS folk decided to go this route to report, I'm not quite sure aside from assuming they're just griefers. s-exherbo/paludis/PMS-pkgcore-g and: http://fpereda.wordpress.com/2008/05/03/on-cooperating-and-paludis-vulnerability/ Except this one wasn't a lie. I wish there were more cooperation between all of us. But looks like it is impossible with some of your people. While patrick hosts meatoo for pythonhead, that doesn't mean patrick can speak for meatoo. The same applies for pkgcore. Basically, I don't hold paludis devs responsible for their users behaviour (probably should considering the behaviour, but regardless). I do however hold paludis devs responsible for their *own* behaviour- and in this particular case, it *was* said devs commiting the offense. Deflection aside, dropping the issue- I've made my point that it was serious crap behaviour and hardly in the spirit of cooperation (let alone QA). ~harring pgpstlxlL1cVM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] eapi1 bug/pkgcore sucks thread [was EAPI-2 - Let's get it started]
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 07:02:52AM -0400, Thomas Anderson wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 07:16:05PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote: I'm not quite sure how you're trying to present this, but are you really trying to say that EAPI 1 isn't documented? I myself found this in pms.pdf in 2 minutes(it's section 10.1.3). I wouldn't exactly say it's because it was missed in implementing an undocumented spec. Stand corrected- last time I shot through checking into eapi1, the only spot I could find information in a singular place is bugs.g.o; w/ the kdebuild merge to pms, they at least built up a table of capabilities/per eapi. One thing missing in the doc is the delta between 0 and 1, without scraping the whole doc to identify the diffs (such a thing would be useful). ~harring pgpabPCSFSGwu.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:58:26 +0100: On Thursday 12 June 2008 22:21:48 Wernfried Haas wrote: Agreed, if this is the way PMS is done, we should either get rid of it or do it differently. The current status as presented here is inacceptable. Could someone please explain what's wrong with PMS, other than needs moar XML and I hate the people doing it? Umm... pardon me for speaking my mind a bit here, and nothing personal, particularly since I have the utmost respect for the talent and skills of the people involved, but after seeing a pattern repeated over the last couple days I've seen time and time before, it's getting tiresome enough to write up! In this instance, it's the pulling teeth to get info on a claimed known bug from PMS folks on pkgcore, while at the same time, complaints about the non-clarity of PMS is met with remarks (by the same group of people) of (paraphrased) filed a patch yet? The problem is that this hasn't been the only case. There's a pattern. It /frequently/ takes a day or two's worth of mails to get any decent info out of this paludis/PMS lead, with him claiming it should be obvious, but it's not, and while even the slightest criticism the other way is met with filed a patch yet? Eventually the dog and pony circus every time to drag out the needed information gets old -- both for those forced to be the dog and ponies, and for those reading it. Ultimately, something's going to give. Either information won't require a dog and pony show to get so often from the current solution, or another solution, perhaps inferior otherwise and certainly a duplication of effort, will have to be found. It's not just pkgcore either, it's two of the three current PMs having problems, with the One True Way that everyone with any sense must /surely/ see is superior (or so it seems the thought is) gets filed a bug (or patch) yet if met with any criticism as well, from the same folks that it's like pulling teeth from to get any info from them. It has also been a pattern in quite a number of previous multi-day multi-hundred-post threads on various topics, involving the same people with the same pattern, refusing to answer a simple request for info on the one hand, while demanding bugs and/or patches when it's their turn. What if the filed a bug yet attitude held on both sides, or even if one side simply refused to play that begging dog or tricking pony the other side expects them to be? It simply cannot go on that way forever. Something's going to give, now, or later, when there's ultimately no more Gentoo to pull apart and therefore no more Gentoo PMs or PMS to continue fighting over. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:42:34 +: Umm... pardon me for speaking my mind a bit here, and nothing personal, particularly since I have the utmost respect for the talent and skills of the people involved, but after seeing a pattern repeated over the last couple days I've seen time and time before, it's getting tiresome enough to write up! What if the filed a bug yet attitude held on both sides, or even if one side simply refused to play that begging dog or tricking pony the other side expects them to be? It simply cannot go on that way forever. Something's going to give, now, or later, when there's ultimately no more Gentoo to pull apart and therefore no more Gentoo PMs or PMS to continue fighting over. OK, blame the continued posting on lack of sleep if you'd like, but it's an honestly held opinion. What makes it worse is that the people involved are, honestly, very skilled. Were it not so, were they say, more like me (heh), it'd be easy enough to simply ignore them. However, they can be very helpful when they want to be, it's a big loss, and it's only this sick idea of entertainment, forcing humans to the humiliation of basically doing tricks like animals for a bit of what after all is claimed to be so simple information but that others can't seem to see, that's the problem. The trouble is, the info, once the performance has been deemed to have gone on long enough, is so often right... Still, ultimately, there are better ways to get it. If one person won't provide it without someone stooping to his low idea of entertainment, well, either time will provide, or perhaps it was a not-so-critical corner case after all. If we could only treat each other as humans instead of trained circus animals, something I'm still endeavoring to do, even in all this, thus pointing out the virtues and a very good reason for respect, as well. No, the information doesn't /have/ to be provided as has been well demonstrated, but it sure hopes when we're all at least ideally targeting a similar goal, if we cooperate in going that direction, instead of fighting over it. Poisonous people indeed... I was skeptical at first, but the demonstration has continued until I'm beginning to come, ever so regretfully, to the same conclusion. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
2008/6/13 Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In this instance, it's the pulling teeth to get info on a claimed known bug from PMS folks on pkgcore, while at the same time, complaints about the non-clarity of PMS is met with remarks (by the same group of people) of (paraphrased) filed a patch yet? In the case of the pkgcore bug, there was an objective statement of the fact that a bug existed, including simple instructions for reproducing it (which were dismissed by a certain person claiming he had already done so and found no bug - clearly a lie). In the case of PMS, we have vague ad-hominems - not even complaints about the non-clarity, which in any case would be highly subjective, but just a shrill inacceptable. The problem is that this hasn't been the only case. There's a pattern. It /frequently/ takes a day or two's worth of mails to get any decent info out of this paludis/PMS lead, with him claiming it should be obvious, but it's not, and while even the slightest criticism the other way is met with filed a patch yet? The pkgcore was (or should have been) highly obvious to anyone who had so much glanced at the offending code. It's not just pkgcore either, it's two of the three current PMs having problems, with the One True Way that everyone with any sense must /surely/ see is superior (or so it seems the thought is) gets filed a bug (or patch) yet if met with any criticism as well, from the same folks that it's like pulling teeth from to get any info from them. I can't even parse this sentence. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Thomas Anderson wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:11:51PM +0100, George Prowse wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/ There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on PMS appears to have commit access to it... I would like to comment that the wording on that page is unacceptable. With the advent of alternative package managers, this ill-defined standard is no longer sufficient... makes it sound like the previous work that was done was by idiots. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list That says nothing about the previous state of the portage. It only says the standard wasn't well-defined before PMS. It sounds and looks bad. It is so poorly written it looks as if the author is saying the last one was crap so we have to do a better one. In fact, ill-defined needn't be in there at all. this is no longer sufficient is sufficient. A better thing to write would be: With the advent of alternative package managers a further defining of standard is necessary... -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:09:43AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun , Brian Harring wrote: if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, Anyone working on a package manager (and anyone else suitably knowledgeable) should be able to get commit access to it. The only person running it is doing so by virtue of making the most commits. Person 'running' it is the one w/ commit control; as far as I know, that's ciaran and halcy0n (latter being inactive from what I've seen). Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of the general view. I'd like to know what's holding you back from contributing to it, instead of telling us that someone else is doing things you don't like. Is there some kind of technical barrier (like the TeX)? Or what? Are you filing bugs against the parts you don't like? What's happening to them? Duncan's recent post, http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_3baa8ff0b7d3a65206ddaefa7cc4a346.xml actually lays out some of the issues fairly succinctly. What he doesn't state outright (and I shall) is that when bound by a standards group actively hostile to your manager/involvement, the 'dog and pony show' duncan refers to becomes far worse, and typically nastier. It becomes far less worth being involved additionally, if it's known up front it's going to be flaming. Meanwhile, couple of technical faults ignored either for paludis benefit, or (best I can figure) because I brought it up. 1) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171291 metadata/cache (hence labeled flat_list cache format) mtime requirements. This actually is a fairly old issue- I raised it when pms was first finally shown to people. Basically issue is that for flat_list cache format, the cache entries mtime is the ebuilds mtime. This was used to try and detect stale cache entries via comparing ebuild mtime- doesn't handle eclass related invalidation, but that is a seperate issue. Current spec intentionally leaves out mtime, no mention of it. Why this matters- paludis's implementation of flat_list (hence labeled paludis_flat_list) differs- instead of the historical cache mtime == ebuild mtime, it's cache mtime == max(ebuild mtime, eclasses mtimes). Personally, I don't care about their cache implementation on disk, as long as it doesn't affect me - it's their way of addressing what flat_hash for portage/pkgcore addresses, full eclass staleness detection. Fair enough. What *does* matter is that via this omission in PMS, paludis_flat_list is considered a valid cache for $PORTDIR/metadata/cache. Using paludis_flat_list as $PORTDIR/metadata/cache means that pkgcore/paludis identify the cache as stale, and regenerate it. In other words, flat_list works with portage/pkgcore/paludis, paludis_flat_list works with paludis only (triggering invalid regeneration for the rest). It may seem minor, but think through the response when a portage/pkgcore user hits a repository generated by paludis- pkgcore/portage are broke, not our fault due to PMS omission of historical behaviour. Issue is known, and ignored at this point. 2) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196561; changing (within eapi0) the behaviour of ~ operator. Currently, portage ignores any revision for ~, pkgcore gives the finger if you try combining ~ with a revision (it's not a valid atom), paludis follows the PMS rules; long term behaviour of ~; any revision of this version suffices. PMS/paludis behaviour: revisions greater then, or equal to this revision, equal to this version. Why this matters; portage long term behaviour has been to drop -r* when found. Parsing is/was loose, basically. Due to eapi0's nature, one can't just force in what they think is the one true way, have to force in what works for all and matches history. Issue is known, and ignored at this point. 3) good 'ole mr -r0 and the issues it triggers, http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215403 initial dev thread, http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_de84ebd5116546518879e266bf60f32b.xml relevant flaws ignoring this issue induces: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f98bab69d67bd4132917be0eb04e8f3e.xml Spawned by a rather odd commit from rbrown flushing out a user visible breakage for pkgcore users, it also flushed out PM incompatibilities in handling of PVR/PR; specifically since -r0 has *never* been used in ebuild names, all ebuilds have been written assuming PVR lacks -r0. What was the end result of this rather obnoxious (ebuild dev viewable) variance? Accusations that pkgcore devs are trying to legislate away their 'bugs' (ignoring that the issue was fixed/released
Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 01:14:21PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: TeX isnt a format that integrates with Gentoo. should just convert it to docbook and be done with this garbage. I've not looked, but is anyone aware of a simple way to integrate this doc into the gentoo web hierarchy? Pdf's are nice, but gentoo documentation is typically accessed as web pages... ~harring pgpdjg3bF8zzl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:43 AM, David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/6/13 Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In this instance, it's the pulling teeth to get info on a claimed known bug from PMS folks on pkgcore, while at the same time, complaints about the non-clarity of PMS is met with remarks (by the same group of people) of (paraphrased) filed a patch yet? In the case of the pkgcore bug, there was an objective statement of the fact that a bug existed, including simple instructions for reproducing it (which were dismissed by a certain person claiming he had already done so and found no bug - clearly a lie). In the case There's a bug is an objective statement, I agree. Write some tests and figure it out for yourself is simply malice (yes, I realise it was you who provided the failing ebuild, and that is appreciated). And why do you have to be plain insulting about it? Nobody can magically spot every single bug in any piece of code presented to them. In fact it's why the given enough eyes ... adage is one of the bases of open source development. I _honestly_ do not understand why there is so much trouble in simple cooperation amongst adults. Regards, -- Arun Raghavan (http://nemesis.accosted.net) v2sw5Chw4+5ln4pr6$OFck2ma4+9u8w3+1!m?l7+9GSCKi056 e6+9i4b8/9HTAen4+5g4/8APa2Xs8r1/2p5-8 hackerkey.com -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
