Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing no-herd?
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 10/09/2011 11:15 πμ, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Markos Chandras >> wrote: >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 >>> >>> On 10/09/2011 11:01 πμ, Michał Górny wrote: Hello, Is there a real reason to have no-herd? As I see it, it's just an ugly hack which all programs have to learn and hack for no benefit. >>> What is the problem with that? Why is it an ugly hack? >>> >> >> To a simple program/user, it basically says that the package >> belongs to a herd called "no-herd", rather than not belonging to >> any herd. > Well it is pretty obvious that no-herd means errr no herd. > >> >> For example, in IRC, willikins tries to look up the members of >> "no-herd" when you do !meta -v because the bot lacks a special >> exception for this odd-ball value. > Just because willikins behaves like that does not justify the removal > of this tag. God knows how many utilites and scripts are out there > using the no-herd tag from metadata. I want to comment briefly here because I think this affects the project a fair bit and I'm not talking specifically about metadata.dtd. Projects need to be able to fix mistakes made in the past. Backwards compatibility is important but it is not some holy grail that we should require all the time. Sometimes the choices we made were wrong and we should be free to fix them. We see this in upstream packages when ABI changes happen. Sometimes an old function was written poorly, or is no longer needed. Libraries change, packages are broken, and then they are fixed. I don't mean to say 'never worry about breaking stuff.' In this particular case I'm sure if important tools are broken by removing no-herd they will be fixed (because important tools need to work...as it turns out.) I find it difficult to conceive of a situation where a machine would be broken by this change; so I am less worried about it. -A > >> >> I would say that each package needs to have at least one herd or >> maintainer (which may be maintainer-needed or maintainer-wanted). >> > Well, you can easily assign your packages to dozen of herds and still > be the only one who touches them. So what's the point? Just to pretend > that the package is supported by an entire herd? > > - -- > Regards, > Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) > > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOax44AAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCdjMP/3pJ2vV9tkQcwwga+pocB6U8 > rpIm5nwEKUoTLucVUbyLuF0X8Z3u3RtAF1aJcq0UDN8EhBtzaAPFnvcRekqDF2R2 > 3Col31hyPUFGCXwyij8WSYwoTcVWYLwRw8m8jBBcXQmM2sLXCF1BNZQ83m0IAFv8 > l73nZkHclebxZ+Pxs6/1nZZ/ZOUHTAT/SaI+pqkDKu64PbEjIKoxhmW5b2vbEPcQ > gry3w/lsZsFLNxOM31H4/HkkB4HrOXBH9e8IKTO1dzZIWKWBA3ytwJFf78kWMNDo > pz3d++nzw6o0gc0Rr+n2b+qL1gy1FPcM7qzRuZ2kESCvmrMW+HRqIrylSGcToJBt > pKP+xF1h6/EJVa1IoQq0IvETms82nPnmV+uRoF5RZDD2gvQ5LIgQCtesHFEDAg8c > WyBV1WmGiMg235XQYg8qASfz4VAUuiHqPLtJ/SkyD78CqPNsVf+Ak6t8HLoF+v+d > 0SJGzC+CbvMJoSXWHcX9pHx1fi3Enw6OziKm1cGzu22TcxCyuMTxGvk9kyfCzT6L > QfQ0WQFDS8CO26L/O+uah/boeGYFvNciaEb7m+tQkCEyAIPbNXPFMdz6XzroOStj > e5iyj4mpq59MLD/6ULX04mb/4r/3OI3c9f2GfwZOCes+cjTmesMYeHOcMfpiqXIn > 9Z+DzlydAJ4Xy7iYtIbg > =jJ/i > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > >
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing no-herd?
On Sat, 2011-09-10 at 11:22 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 10/09/2011 11:15 πμ, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > > > I would say that each package needs to have at least one herd or > > maintainer (which may be maintainer-needed or maintainer-wanted). > > > Well, you can easily assign your packages to dozen of herds and still > be the only one who touches them. So what's the point? Just to pretend > that the package is supported by an entire herd? > I don't think that's what Mike was trying to say. He prolly wanted to say that it's required to have at least one of or , i.e. having one tag for m-n or the real maintainer is enough (no extra no-herd entry). Sounds pretty reasonable to me. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing no-herd?
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:22:16 +0300 Markos Chandras wrote: > On 10/09/2011 11:15 πμ, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Markos Chandras > > wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 > >> > >> On 10/09/2011 11:01 πμ, Michał Górny wrote: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> Is there a real reason to have no-herd? As I see > >>> it, it's just an ugly hack which all programs have to learn and > >>> hack for no benefit. > >>> > >> What is the problem with that? Why is it an ugly hack? > >> > > > > To a simple program/user, it basically says that the package > > belongs to a herd called "no-herd", rather than not belonging to > > any herd. > Well it is pretty obvious that no-herd means errr no herd. To a programmer, 'pretty obvious' doesn't work. > > For example, in IRC, willikins tries to look up the members of > > "no-herd" when you do !meta -v because the bot lacks a special > > exception for this odd-ball value. > Just because willikins behaves like that does not justify the removal > of this tag. God knows how many utilites and scripts are out there > using the no-herd tag from metadata. Please do not mix facts and religion. Facts are that no-herd isn't really useful. If any utilities actually *rely* on it, they should be fixed in the first place. Portage, pkgcore and Paludis have no problems with no tag. The latter two don't even care about 'no-herd'; portage marks it as a special value and well, that's it. There's, of course, metadata.dtd too but repoman re-fetches it on a regular basis so that's no problem. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing no-herd?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 10/09/2011 11:15 πμ, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Markos Chandras > wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 >> >> On 10/09/2011 11:01 πμ, Michał Górny wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Is there a real reason to have no-herd? As I see >>> it, it's just an ugly hack which all programs have to learn and >>> hack for no benefit. >>> >> What is the problem with that? Why is it an ugly hack? >> > > To a simple program/user, it basically says that the package > belongs to a herd called "no-herd", rather than not belonging to > any herd. Well it is pretty obvious that no-herd means errr no herd. > > For example, in IRC, willikins tries to look up the members of > "no-herd" when you do !meta -v because the bot lacks a special > exception for this odd-ball value. Just because willikins behaves like that does not justify the removal of this tag. God knows how many utilites and scripts are out there using the no-herd tag from metadata. > > I would say that each package needs to have at least one herd or > maintainer (which may be maintainer-needed or maintainer-wanted). > Well, you can easily assign your packages to dozen of herds and still be the only one who touches them. So what's the point? Just to pretend that the package is supported by an entire herd? - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOax44AAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCdjMP/3pJ2vV9tkQcwwga+pocB6U8 rpIm5nwEKUoTLucVUbyLuF0X8Z3u3RtAF1aJcq0UDN8EhBtzaAPFnvcRekqDF2R2 3Col31hyPUFGCXwyij8WSYwoTcVWYLwRw8m8jBBcXQmM2sLXCF1BNZQ83m0IAFv8 l73nZkHclebxZ+Pxs6/1nZZ/ZOUHTAT/SaI+pqkDKu64PbEjIKoxhmW5b2vbEPcQ gry3w/lsZsFLNxOM31H4/HkkB4HrOXBH9e8IKTO1dzZIWKWBA3ytwJFf78kWMNDo pz3d++nzw6o0gc0Rr+n2b+qL1gy1FPcM7qzRuZ2kESCvmrMW+HRqIrylSGcToJBt pKP+xF1h6/EJVa1IoQq0IvETms82nPnmV+uRoF5RZDD2gvQ5LIgQCtesHFEDAg8c WyBV1WmGiMg235XQYg8qASfz4VAUuiHqPLtJ/SkyD78CqPNsVf+Ak6t8HLoF+v+d 0SJGzC+CbvMJoSXWHcX9pHx1fi3Enw6OziKm1cGzu22TcxCyuMTxGvk9kyfCzT6L QfQ0WQFDS8CO26L/O+uah/boeGYFvNciaEb7m+tQkCEyAIPbNXPFMdz6XzroOStj e5iyj4mpq59MLD/6ULX04mb/4r/3OI3c9f2GfwZOCes+cjTmesMYeHOcMfpiqXIn 9Z+DzlydAJ4Xy7iYtIbg =jJ/i -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing no-herd?
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:04:01 +0300 Markos Chandras wrote: > On 10/09/2011 11:01 πμ, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Is there a real reason to have no-herd? As I see it, > > it's just an ugly hack which all programs have to learn and hack > > for no benefit. > > > What is the problem with that? Why is it an ugly hack? Because it's explicitly saying 'none'. It's like requiring programs to pass "NONE" rather than NULL/None/undef. Because every program which is supposed to list herds, needs to grab the list and strip 'no-herd' from it. And what if a package has 'foono-herd'? -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing no-herd?
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 10/09/2011 11:01 πμ, Michał Górny wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Is there a real reason to have no-herd? As I see it, >> it's just an ugly hack which all programs have to learn and hack >> for no benefit. >> > What is the problem with that? Why is it an ugly hack? > To a simple program/user, it basically says that the package belongs to a herd called "no-herd", rather than not belonging to any herd. For example, in IRC, willikins tries to look up the members of "no-herd" when you do !meta -v because the bot lacks a special exception for this odd-ball value. I would say that each package needs to have at least one herd or maintainer (which may be maintainer-needed or maintainer-wanted).
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing no-herd?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 10/09/2011 11:01 πμ, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > Is there a real reason to have no-herd? As I see it, > it's just an ugly hack which all programs have to learn and hack > for no benefit. > What is the problem with that? Why is it an ugly hack? - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOaxnxAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCnEAP/i/SPdx5QcXwbvYXdUwBAWUH awhJe/lEiMp5q5zzQLEXylAqRzOwg2Eg0T1bKXcgQaWomo8tRdUdWHrLFD1tN4eI +NGVi57jPlsr94OM/id+2Iu44qjTZeRhbLPJXl88xmqaMgamj+jozQ5k0IqAarXw ixk7nXuiJCLebqQO+nNLpAhCUkaI+QFDwnwSleNwHrxv5JeuNKI8WYOnml2CpLz8 gYPY/TgMOsm1otDH6QDekVas3s8FcQJaXBIM6OTG/dnBHpGI33/fkHLO6O4B0sK1 etfA6UPPPxUR8hM3Z1Eebt6pULUZ6kLlgweCX1J3kfzXhaxW7zuJjbojDdJVZkFr qJ57QSieMTubY2H4gCj4Ok1vsI8VYDFG0Ms49/frpshN0IpuKeF8aYiybr74P4vB FURe1Iu5w8xlYJrIfZ4g4ObLk9qcIXRo9dHUctto3hSeMBsbdpvph/C3Xl5IdPg+ 3vDU9nW855IVwF4xuQcZNR+tj43L5G2TS12LAjaALeE/1XA3Z4u+57KdWbpltVZT qGs7mVO0heM1SzaVSAS8uyUlA6iA5t1wGEmL4OzpFYRLugJCKs5xGdPhKcIOqsZK bk0iuXws3tTOXHQeN9IbhedJbRzMItP9lZaZ21fStFFYwDhhHSCpKXbkooe0C9tU Di1+KDYqvJpCnSpQ2SfZ =ScvL -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] Removing no-herd?
Hello, Is there a real reason to have no-herd? As I see it, it's just an ugly hack which all programs have to learn and hack for no benefit. Wouldn't it be much better to just make optional? Of course, that probably would require fixes to programs using metadata.xml but better develop a long-term fixing strategy than keep pushing this hack over and over. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
