[gentoo-dev] perl-5.12 news item
Remind users to run perl-cleaner after installing a new perl version. This will be committed before the arch teams stabilize dev-lang/perl-5.12.2-r1. , 2010-10-16-perl-5.12-upgrade-procedure.en.txt Title: Perl 5.12 upgrade procedure Author: perl-team p...@gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain Posted: 2010-10-16 Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 1.0 Display-If-Installed: dev-lang/perl-5.12 Run `perl-cleaner --all` after upgrading to a new Perl version! Perl 5.12 is not binary compatible with prior releases of Perl. If you have built extensions (i.e. modules that include C code) using an earlier version of Perl, you will need to rebuild and reinstall those extensions. [1] In fact, in Gentoo you currently have to rebuild all Perl modules and all binaries linking libperl to get into a consistent state again. perl-cleaner generates a list of broken packages and passes it to your package manager to reinstall them. After reinstalling the packages, perl-cleaner outputs a list of files the script could not deal with (like modules installed not via the package manager). See `man perl-cleaner` for its options. [1] http://search.cpan.org/dist/perl-5.12.2/INSTALL#Changes_and_Incompatibilities `
Re: [gentoo-dev] Truecrypt 3.0 License
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/13/10 02:47, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, Dane Smith wrote: I would like to add the license for truecrypt-7.0 to Portage. Link is here http://www.truecrypt.org/legal/license It says TrueCrypt License Version 3.0 not 7.0? The license version is 3.0. It's for software version truecrypt-7.0a. Does this license look ok to everyone? It looks very similar to the truecrypt-2.8 license that we already have. If yes, I'm assuming it's going to go in the same groups as the prior truecrypt licenses that are already in Portage? I don't see any truecrypt* license in profiles/license_groups so far. But to answer the question more generally: A new version of a license should only be added to groups like FSF-APPROVED or OSI-APPROVED if it has been approved by these organisations. On the other hand, for groups like MISC-FREE, it is as you assume. There the presence of a previous version is a good indication that the new version should also be added (given that it's similar enough to the previous version). Ulrich Ok. Given this information, I will be committing this license along with the new truecrypt version later tonight unless someone raises a concern. Thanks! - -- Dane Smith Gentoo Linux Developer -- Crypto, x86 teams -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMtaMGAAoJEEsurZwMLhUxg6EP/jm/57QqW8McefIY+Du7AWeI szZqhxjZlblBpXyDnjG+ucNWmHektXsgIOuLwvETA5tU0ruqmzYmfkV/r2KMQSR7 M6cSpogCUV/6AvHXZgFogLNmIj8hbF28GqcGw8JsifrDWmMhCgDdryLaTvx/zyBQ j72VcP4JKHmL5Xzw3stTt+SpFI920nspyY0XA9rM3LnYSywvXi5PvrDXMDJkZQSl eGwufLuymVX1QEx+uUR1Yv9Vnk2jepJDlrC+PeUkZWPEy9Xf2QUIOYpmG+KpJQ9c lmX/5MCdjU436JnCrRe2Qdu4weO5M+LwdEU1/RbTkWrMOtiH95NAY00xIcC9/PKZ JGC/0HYqi2Y+XIUty0MZl/oRpGaM58rjzTeshkiNGUBeuy8mGNjQLo03byqQuGNL KaaBnZKGXjhTGTsf16oQe+fr/hHZbnZeJJ9B4PrZsHaYVyWdm71K6np8B4wF3UTc emT8RSYjCmek7wPmbIlNwVrlcfptPU0jmBLdF2WHdOq2zr2pHWjdf2OMYB1tBzri DuQ4s1gpctmUqUEngBiPlgl6bLnzRs2fK0R7bLRFdhse/f6nulONZAj4POqxF6Yy 92IhcN6+E6GvbjuzbpIrpC46pqVPpoVo2NnGh/1iCCUdpcKjCCJXB8zhbO+ClM+6 d37LVRlldgFpeAVxIG6t =LfBC -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] Re: perl-5.12 news item
Hi, Torsten Veller t...@gentoo.org: This will be committed before the arch teams stabilize dev-lang/perl-5.12.2-r1. Maybe you should make an agreement with arches about a fixed date. They signal their ok after testing thoroughly in, say, two days and you immediately commit the news. Display-If-Installed: dev-lang/perl-5.12 Run `perl-cleaner --all` after upgrading to a new Perl version! In my opinion you should move this sentence one or two paragraphs down, to emphasize more. V-Li -- Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/openvpn: ChangeLog openvpn-2.1.3.ebuild
On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 04:23:16 Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote:
Excerpts from Mike Frysinger's message of Tue Oct 12 22:57:11 +0200 2010:
On Tuesday, October 12, 2010 16:26:31 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:09:06 +0200 Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 15:07, Peter Volkov wrote:
[a very thorough review of the openvpn ebuild]
Thanks for reviewing, I've fixed most of the issues.
if [[ -n $(ls /etc/openvpn/*/local.conf 2/dev/null) ]] ;
then
I'd suggested [ -e /etc/openvpn/*/local.conf ] here, but probably
there are better alternatives. Also ${ROOT} is missed here.
I've put ${ROOT} in, are there no better alternatives? I don't think
anyone mentioned any.
for foo in ${ROOT}/etc/openvpn/*/local.conf; do
[ -e ${foo} ] bar ${foo}
done
If no ${ROOT}/etc/openvpn/*/local.conf is found, it returns the exact
string; which doesn't exist so Nothing Happens.
i'd say doing a loop is worse than a `ls` hack. and this has quoting
problems, but that's ancillary ...
What about defining following function?
any_exists() {
local f
for f; do
[[ -e $f ]] return 0
done
return 1
}
perhaps if it had a better name and were in a common location (eclass)
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/openvpn: ChangeLog openvpn-2.1.3.ebuild
On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 03:08:24 Vaeth wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
for foo in ${ROOT}/etc/openvpn/*/local.conf; do
[ -e ${foo} ] bar ${foo}
done
i'd say doing a loop is worse than a `ls` hack.
Why do you think so? No external program on which you must rely,
and if you put a break in there, the loop is just syntactical.
Here is another possibility if you do not need positional
parameters anymore:
set -- ${ROOT}/etc/openvpn/*/local.conf
if test -e ${1}
then ...
fi
And if you do need, you can write a function:
Test2() {
test ${1} ${2}
}
if Test2 -e ${ROOT}/etc/openvpn/*/local.conf
then ...
fi
relying on an external program to get a single line of readable code is better
than multiple lines of code that attempt to do the same thing. your further
examples here are even worse on many levels.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/openvpn: ChangeLog openvpn-2.1.3.ebuild
Excerpts from Mike Frysinger's message of Wed Oct 13 16:13:58 +0200 2010:
On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 04:23:16 Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote:
Excerpts from Mike Frysinger's message of Tue Oct 12 22:57:11 +0200 2010:
On Tuesday, October 12, 2010 16:26:31 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:09:06 +0200 Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 15:07, Peter Volkov wrote:
[a very thorough review of the openvpn ebuild]
Thanks for reviewing, I've fixed most of the issues.
if [[ -n $(ls /etc/openvpn/*/local.conf 2/dev/null) ]] ;
then
I'd suggested [ -e /etc/openvpn/*/local.conf ] here, but probably
there are better alternatives. Also ${ROOT} is missed here.
I've put ${ROOT} in, are there no better alternatives? I don't think
anyone mentioned any.
for foo in ${ROOT}/etc/openvpn/*/local.conf; do
[ -e ${foo} ] bar ${foo}
done
If no ${ROOT}/etc/openvpn/*/local.conf is found, it returns the exact
string; which doesn't exist so Nothing Happens.
i'd say doing a loop is worse than a `ls` hack. and this has quoting
problems, but that's ancillary ...
What about defining following function?
any_exists() {
local f
for f; do
[[ -e $f ]] return 0
done
return 1
}
perhaps if it had a better name and were in a common location (eclass)
-mike
So give it a better name. :-) In this case 'ls' shouldn't hurt anybody,
but such function solves problem in much more elegant manner -
regardless it's definied in an ebuild or eclass.
--
Amadeusz Żołnowski
PGP key fpr: C700 CEDE 0C18 212E 49DA 4653 F013 4531 E1DB FAB5
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/openvpn: ChangeLog openvpn-2.1.3.ebuild
Excerpts from Michał Górny's message of Wed Oct 13 18:41:54 +0200 2010:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:13:58 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
any_exists() {
local f
for f; do
[[ -e $f ]] return 0
done
return 1
}
perhaps if it had a better name and were in a common location (eclass)
has_file()?
What it would mean? „Has”?
--
Amadeusz Żołnowski
PGP key fpr: C700 CEDE 0C18 212E 49DA 4653 F013 4531 E1DB FAB5
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/openvpn: ChangeLog openvpn-2.1.3.ebuild
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:51:31 +0200 Amadeusz Żołnowski aide...@aidecoe.name wrote: has_file()? What it would mean? „Has”? It's reference to has() function specified by PMS. 'The file system has a file named one-of $...@}' :P. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/openvpn: ChangeLog openvpn-2.1.3.ebuild
On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 13:26:24 Michał Górny wrote: On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:51:31 +0200 Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: has_file()? What it would mean? „Has”? It's reference to has() function specified by PMS. 'The file system has a file named one-of $...@}' :P. the has functions are typically used to look up an item in a list. i'd go with path_exists since this is doing -e and not -f. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/openvpn: ChangeLog openvpn-2.1.3.ebuild
On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 12:35:20 Vaeth wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: relying on an external program The point is that external programs can have all sorts of undesired side effects. For instance, if an directory is not readable (or readable but not executable or is on $FILESYSTEM with who-knows-what permissions or accessability problems) it can cause unexpected errors which otherwise are treated by standard shell behavior: *This* is why the ls is hackish here, not the readability. and if you had read all my replies, you would see i already pointed out this problem with the original code but your attack is inappropriate: might want to review the meanings of these words. i said your examples were worse, not better. i didnt say anything about you personally. the rest of your e-mail isnt worth responding to, so i wont bother. as most likely will any follow up to this. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Truecrypt 3.0 License
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/13/2010 02:47 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, Dane Smith wrote: I would like to add the license for truecrypt-7.0 to Portage. Link is here http://www.truecrypt.org/legal/license It says TrueCrypt License Version 3.0 not 7.0? Does this license look ok to everyone? It looks very similar to the truecrypt-2.8 license that we already have. If yes, I'm assuming it's going to go in the same groups as the prior truecrypt licenses that are already in Portage? I don't see any truecrypt* license in profiles/license_groups so far. But to answer the question more generally: A new version of a license should only be added to groups like FSF-APPROVED or OSI-APPROVED if it has been approved by these organisations. On the other hand, for groups like MISC-FREE, it is as you assume. There the presence of a previous version is a good indication that the new version should also be added (given that it's similar enough to the previous version). Ulrich On a related note, given their download page, http://www.truecrypt.org/downloads, do you think it's necessary to fetch restrict it? They only suggest to point to them. - -- Dane Smith Gentoo Linux Developer -- Crypto and x86 Teams -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMtfsoAAoJEEsurZwMLhUxV90P/3me/3aPV+wqx8qztnXk5SOk NL+vTEzq+R8ZjGKIYDWtg/A942yT5ktN9Qa1jM2sbQNkYEJtlWaXuGnCkAcdvBIf usxbBPY/CV9QXgbJkmtdXJPzITXW7iAMjK4iKoyW/ghCJ6rn3v5vIvR5E6AfKHKA LocX2BCkJXgRH2JxpZ74XjA5feZtkyhO+95EUk/Wqe8Pn08kQTkukr1uJTzzZLQn NhQouWgi5m7FnskQtwOGIVicBITmjBsnOACbdOscX5wLA6sLvzLfd6g+7YFY9TdV IfBcBgo8i2WQx6r3NW5YnOFogZGA5iHsKyG5If0/q0frH6p84BiB4Cq2sVDrDg4o ztVxVuOFe+e3LIdMPs8PTVqBpYkGxbIoLWtPBcemG0K5Lmho7tF/fga6vivKXLlp 9OpItW/H7KJswPqsR0rnKFn2qh+ktCG/RCK9b+QV5gN8ujNFAoYI86uq258dnvuw 33t2UBiu0wHB/4Jnemat2T5UM6pOJuj8dU7MkssKofqLotLleHlJJCTfvGp0IexB KitMDpMIXHEqABbL/K6Wr9lakOEQjAH5ycQ2XA5HxtXAkNNAG+wGM99ikJCAPQJc iMCrYthagQitafcXZJf+606IT9Ve0e9hdGgvucS2SiaSEkglObIxdwFGpbizy1uG Cm8ejXxhf85aWULnWMVF =Axjx -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/openvpn: ChangeLog openvpn-2.1.3.ebuild
here's what i'll commit to eutils.eclass:
# @FUNCTION: path_exists
# @USAGE: [-a|-o] paths
# @DESCRIPTION:
# Check if the specified paths exist. Works for all types of paths
# (files/dirs/etc...). The -a and -o flags control the requirements
# of the paths. They correspond to and and or logic. So the -a
# flag means all the paths must exist while the -o flag means at least
# one of the paths must exist. The default behavior is and. If no
# paths are specified, then the return value is false.
path_exists() {
local opt=$1
[[ ${opt} == -[ao] ]] shift || opt=-a
# no paths - return false
# same behavior as: [[ -e ]]
[[ $# -eq 0 ]] return 1
local p r=0
for p in $@ ; do
[[ -e ${p} ]]
: $(( r += $? ))
done
case ${opt} in
-a) return $(( r != 0 )) ;;
-o) return $(( r == $# )) ;;
esac
}
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/openvpn: ChangeLog openvpn-2.1.3.ebuild
Excerpts from Mike Frysinger's message of Wed Oct 13 20:51:35 +0200 2010:
path_exists() {
local opt=$1
[[ ${opt} == -[ao] ]] shift || opt=-a
# no paths - return false
# same behavior as: [[ -e ]]
[[ $# -eq 0 ]] return 1
local p r=0
for p in $@ ; do
[[ -e ${p} ]]
: $(( r += $? ))
done
1) Why check every path in both and and or cases?
2) Even simpler:
for p; do
[[ -e $p ]]
((r+=$?))
done
case ${opt} in
-a) return $(( r != 0 )) ;;
-o) return $(( r == $# )) ;;
esac
}
--
Amadeusz Żołnowski
PGP key fpr: C700 CEDE 0C18 212E 49DA 4653 F013 4531 E1DB FAB5
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/openvpn: ChangeLog openvpn-2.1.3.ebuild
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Mike Frysinger wrote: # If no paths are specified, then the return value is false. For the or case that's fine. But for the and case, I would expect that the function returns true if called with no arguments. Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/openvpn: ChangeLog openvpn-2.1.3.ebuild
Excerpts from Amadeusz Żołnowski's message of Wed Oct 13 21:20:01 +0200 2010:
Excerpts from Mike Frysinger's message of Wed Oct 13 20:51:35 +0200 2010:
path_exists() {
local opt=$1
[[ ${opt} == -[ao] ]] shift || opt=-a
# no paths - return false
# same behavior as: [[ -e ]]
[[ $# -eq 0 ]] return 1
local p r=0
for p in $@ ; do
[[ -e ${p} ]]
: $(( r += $? ))
done
1) Why check every path in both and and or cases?
2) Even simpler:
for p; do
[[ -e $p ]]
((r+=$?))
done
case ${opt} in
-a) return $(( r != 0 )) ;;
-o) return $(( r == $# )) ;;
esac
}
And why putting different tasks into one function? My suggestion:
any_paths() {
local f
for f; do
[[ -e $f ]] return 0
done
return 1
}
all_paths() {
local f
for f; do
[[ -e $f ]] || return 1
done
return 0
}
Isn't it simpler approach? And have benfits over 2in1:
1) More readable in use.
2) More efficient.
3) 1 + 1 2 in this case ;-)
--
Amadeusz Żołnowski
PGP key fpr: C700 CEDE 0C18 212E 49DA 4653 F013 4531 E1DB FAB5
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/openvpn: ChangeLog openvpn-2.1.3.ebuild
On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 15:37:02 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Mike Frysinger wrote:
# If no paths are specified, then the return value is false.
For the or case that's fine. But for the and case, I would expect
that the function returns true if called with no arguments.
i disagree as the comment says: it's sticking to the bash behavior.
f=
[[ -e ${f} ]] [[ -e ${f} ]]
[[ -e ${f} ]] || [[ -e ${f} ]]
these both return false. as does this function:
f=
path_exists -a ${f}
path_exists -o ${f}
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/openvpn: ChangeLog openvpn-2.1.3.ebuild
On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 15:57:17 Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: And why putting different tasks into one function? for the same reason we dont have separate test binaries: test_exist, test_file, test_dir, etc... it makes more sense in my mind to combine the functionality. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/openvpn: ChangeLog openvpn-2.1.3.ebuild
Excerpts from Mike Frysinger's message of Wed Oct 13 23:46:43 +0200 2010: On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 15:57:17 Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: And why putting different tasks into one function? for the same reason we dont have separate test binaries: test_exist, test_file, test_dir, etc... it makes more sense in my mind to combine the functionality. -mike So the only argument for having more complicated, less intuitive and less readable function is the old 'test' program? Please, reconsider my solution with more reason. Moreover we're using 'test' as '[[ … ]]' which changes much in readability. Next thing is that '-a' and '-o' don't strictly conform to 'test' convention. -- Amadeusz Żołnowski PGP key fpr: C700 CEDE 0C18 212E 49DA 4653 F013 4531 E1DB FAB5 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/openvpn: ChangeLog openvpn-2.1.3.ebuild
On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 18:13:18 Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: Excerpts from Mike Frysinger's message of Wed Oct 13 23:46:43 +0200 2010: On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 15:57:17 Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: And why putting different tasks into one function? for the same reason we dont have separate test binaries: test_exist, test_file, test_dir, etc... it makes more sense in my mind to combine the functionality. So the only argument for having more complicated, less intuitive and less readable function is the old 'test' program? Please, reconsider my solution with more reason. we prioritize differently. i prefer unified code with options. you preferred unrolled duplicated code. Moreover we're using 'test' as '[[ … ]]' which changes much in readability. what are you talking about ? no one is using `test` in their code and if they are, their code is broken. none of the stuff ive posted is running `test`. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
