Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
On 10/02/2010 06:26 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: My opinions haven't changed one bit in the past week. I don't see how not breaking the stable tree can be called being overly conservative. you have a quite broad definition of breaking. - clean slate emerge works before and after. - adding a suggestion to use either the .la fixer scripts or revdep-rebuild should be enough to have the system in a working state. - the rough solution of removing all the .la files in the system works for most use cases (that's my local solution) So it isn't an earth shattering change like a nonfunctional libc in the stable tree or a broken version of coreutils, please keep a bit of perspective. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: On 10/02/2010 06:26 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: My opinions haven't changed one bit in the past week. I don't see how not breaking the stable tree can be called being overly conservative. you have a quite broad definition of breaking. - clean slate emerge works before and after. - adding a suggestion to use either the .la fixer scripts or revdep-rebuild should be enough to have the system in a working state. - the rough solution of removing all the .la files in the system works for most use cases (that's my local solution) Okay, so you're saying that it works fine in these specific cases, and if it doesn't, then you can fix it by doing XYZ. I would use that attitude with the unstable tree, not the stable tree. So it isn't an earth shattering change like a nonfunctional libc in the stable tree or a broken version of coreutils, please keep a bit of perspective. If half of QA team is so adamant in saying that this isn't an issue, I guess I'll just have to shut up. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
Duncan wrote: Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 03:06:56 +0200 as excerpted: Il giorno sab, 02/10/2010 alle 00.42 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto: Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly get build failures again. And that confuses them since it's unexpected. This is in general a bad experience for stable users who want to get work done, not baby-sit their system. Seriously, how many times do you re-install packages out of binpkgs on a _build_ system? Frequently enough for it to be a consideration. Among other things, it's a fast way to roll-back to a working version when a new version goes haywire, for whatever reason. I strongly recommend that users enable FEATURES=buildpkg for a host of reasons, and having it break or cause additional complications for them is not a good thing. Of course I also strongly recommend lafilefixer (based on your blog, BTW), too, but yeah, people /do/ sometimes reinstall from binpkgs on a build system. Having binpkgs around for my build system has saved my behind a number of times! Same here. That has saved me a lot of time and frustration in the past as well. I have had buildpkg set in make.conf for ages. I use it regularly and would not want to have that messed up. I recently used it when a KDE upgrade went bust. Without being able to go back to the old binaries, I would have had almost a day of compiling and no GUI at all. With it, just a hour or so for it to unpack and put it back. Some people may not have it set or use it but there are people that do. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
В Птн, 01/10/2010 в 20:02 +0200, Diego Elio Pettenò пишет: I, sincerely, have poured enough effort in trying to solve the issue, discussing it, documenting it, showing how to deal with new packages, showing how to identify pointless .la files that only increase the number of them installed and cause false positives… and I'm still told that a) I haven't done _enough_, as I had to prepare a master plan of it and b) I'm too negative about stuff. Diego, I guess that you were told that... is due to the way you've tried to reach developer's community. Actually I failed to find any mails on '.la files removal' subject in gentoo-dev-announce or gentoo-dev mailing lists. Now I assume that by efforts you mean blog posts and bug reports. Both of this medias are targeted on small subgroup of Gentoo developers: blogs contain only personal opinion and no Gentoo developer supposed to read blogs (btw, I'm not reading all blog entries); bug reports are really better but again only small fraction of developers is informed (only 10 bugs is currently opened). Yea, there were some discussions on -dev mailing list: first discussion I found was Removing .la files... where we discussed _problems_ such removal may cause with no clear resolution. After that 'la file' substring matches thread about libpng (again problems) and some even shorter threads. So every developer knew that we should remove .la files but also we knew that inconsistent removal (like currently happened again) causes problems for users and nobody ever announced any distro-wide guidelines. It is obvious that to avoid useless rebuild we should have been started from most popular leaf packages like gnome/xfce/X11 and only then move on dependent libraries but nobody told: please, start now from here and here. Currently it'll be great if you could point on relevant information so we could continue to remove .la files without mess (e.g. altering stable packages). But looks like before such plan could be announced we really need to discuss how we handle stable packages (heh, again). So I'll end with bottom line: please, post really important distribution wide things to appropriate media (gentoo-dev-announce mailing list)! -- Peter.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
В Птн, 01/10/2010 в 12:38 -0700, Zac Medico пишет: Maybe advise them to use post_pkg_preinst instead of post_src_install, so it works even for binary packages. Is it possible for portage-2.1.8.x to depend on lafilefixer and add run lafilefixer (if installed) from base profile bashrc? -- Peter.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
On 10/01/2010 09:12 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: I don't think it makes much difference though to them — beside making you feel righteous at dragging your feet. Nice try. I'm sorry, but I do not understand your hostility. Could you rephrase your objections with what I said in a way I can understand so that I can address them? During the past discussions you were somehow overly conservative, taking issue of corner cases and overall on the aggressive stance. I know that you had a rough week but others do as well, Diego among them. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: On 10/01/2010 09:12 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: I don't think it makes much difference though to them — beside making you feel righteous at dragging your feet. Nice try. I'm sorry, but I do not understand your hostility. Could you rephrase your objections with what I said in a way I can understand so that I can address them? During the past discussions you were somehow overly conservative, taking issue of corner cases and overall on the aggressive stance. My opinions haven't changed one bit in the past week. I don't see how not breaking the stable tree can be called being overly conservative. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
On 10/02/2010 05:21 AM, Peter Volkov wrote: В Птн, 01/10/2010 в 12:38 -0700, Zac Medico пишет: Maybe advise them to use post_pkg_preinst instead of post_src_install, so it works even for binary packages. Is it possible for portage-2.1.8.x to depend on lafilefixer and add run lafilefixer (if installed) from base profile bashrc? The profile bashrc may not be a very good place for this since it's executed by all versions of portage, and thus would be redundant for =portage-2.1.9. We can do a portage-2.1.8.4 version bump with support for running lafilefixer, but this is a questionable move given that this version bump will be eligible for stabilization at about the same time as portage-2.1.9.13. -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
В Сбт, 02/10/2010 в 10:43 -0700, Zac Medico пишет: On 10/02/2010 05:21 AM, Peter Volkov wrote: Is it possible for portage-2.1.8.x to depend on lafilefixer and add run lafilefixer (if installed) from base profile bashrc? We can do a portage-2.1.8.4 version bump with support for running lafilefixer, but this is a questionable move given that this version bump will be eligible for stabilization at about the same time as portage-2.1.9.13. This looks like the good case for fast stabilization so I'd better went this way. Any objections? -- Peter.
[gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 17.31 +0400, Peter Volkov ha scritto: It's better to avoid suggesting this as such things tend to stay for a very long time on user's systems and since this'll became redundant once portage 2.1.9 will go stable soon it'll la files will be fixed twice for no reason. It won't hurt anyway, and it'll definitely avoid people having to re-run lafilefixer manually from time to time. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes” http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is, it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/
[gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 20.43 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto: Does lafilefixer fix binpkgs now? As well as the vdb manifests for the files? If it doesn't, I strongly object to having it as an official recommendation. A surprisingly large no. of people (at least on bugzilla) have FEATURES=buildpkg . And usually (even if not always) have one system where they build and one system where they install. The one where they install only, and not build, will do nothing with .la files, so fixed or not doesn't make any difference. The other, if they install back a built package might require another run of it, I don't think it makes much difference though to them — beside making you feel righteous at dragging your feet. Nice try. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes” http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is, it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 18.42 +0300, Eray Aslan ha scritto: Why not push for stabilization of 2.1.9 and then do the news item? Am I missing something? Yah, the bickering of some people at having .la files disappear under their feet, probably because they are affectionate to them, or force them to consider dong a bit more cleanup work. But since the suggestions are already useful, I guess it would be a decent time to tell users about them; I have suggested doing so for a very long time already; it worked for all the people whom I know have been using it, it worked for me; heck it even avoided the tinderbox to stop when automagic dependencies over selinux where passing down. But it's trying to solve a problem that is at least three years old; it's a suggestion I made more over an year ago; and that people shot down many many times. Sincerely, the naysayers on the .la matter have already broken enough systems by not allowing .la files to die earlier, and now they are pretending that there is no problem in waiting another X years in planning a conversion that for what they are concerned is never going to happen. So basically, this is my token: we can tell users to do it this way and they won't feel pain at all; or we can't tell them, and when maintainers get pissed off by .la files enough they delete them, leaving users to Google their solution. I, sincerely, have poured enough effort in trying to solve the issue, discussing it, documenting it, showing how to deal with new packages, showing how to identify pointless .la files that only increase the number of them installed and cause false positives… and I'm still told that a) I haven't done _enough_, as I had to prepare a master plan of it and b) I'm too negative about stuff. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes” http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is, it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
On 10/01/2010 12:12 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@gmail.com wrote: Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 20.43 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto: Does lafilefixer fix binpkgs now? As well as the vdb manifests for the files? If it doesn't, I strongly object to having it as an official recommendation. A surprisingly large no. of people (at least on bugzilla) have FEATURES=buildpkg . And usually (even if not always) have one system where they build and one system where they install. The one where they install only, and not build, will do nothing with .la files, so fixed or not doesn't make any difference. Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly get build failures again. And that confuses them since it's unexpected. This is in general a bad experience for stable users who want to get work done, not baby-sit their system. Maybe advise them to use post_pkg_preinst instead of post_src_install, so it works even for binary packages. -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote: On 10/01/2010 12:12 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly get build failures again. And that confuses them since it's unexpected. This is in general a bad experience for stable users who want to get work done, not baby-sit their system. Maybe advise them to use post_pkg_preinst instead of post_src_install, so it works even for binary packages. If that won't cause problems with portage-2.1.9 (mtime/checksum messiness, for example; you're the best judge for this), then we should do it. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
On 10/01/2010 02:10 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote: On 10/01/2010 12:12 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly get build failures again. And that confuses them since it's unexpected. This is in general a bad experience for stable users who want to get work done, not baby-sit their system. Maybe advise them to use post_pkg_preinst instead of post_src_install, so it works even for binary packages. If that won't cause problems with portage-2.1.9 (mtime/checksum messiness, for example; you're the best judge for this), then we should do it. It won't cause problems because the mtime/checksum stuff is all done after preinst, immediately as the files are being merged. -- Thanks, Zac
[gentoo-dev] Re: .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)
Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 03:06:56 +0200 as excerpted: Il giorno sab, 02/10/2010 alle 00.42 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto: Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly get build failures again. And that confuses them since it's unexpected. This is in general a bad experience for stable users who want to get work done, not baby-sit their system. Seriously, how many times do you re-install packages out of binpkgs on a _build_ system? Frequently enough for it to be a consideration. Among other things, it's a fast way to roll-back to a working version when a new version goes haywire, for whatever reason. I strongly recommend that users enable FEATURES=buildpkg for a host of reasons, and having it break or cause additional complications for them is not a good thing. Of course I also strongly recommend lafilefixer (based on your blog, BTW), too, but yeah, people /do/ sometimes reinstall from binpkgs on a build system. Having binpkgs around for my build system has saved my behind a number of times! You can't simply ignore potential issues because they don't happen to fit your usage case. But is there anything wrong with Zac's suggestion to use post_pkg_preinst instead? (Better to reply to that under his post, just mentioning that there's a suggested solution.) [context reinserted] I don't think it makes much difference though to them — beside making you feel righteous at dragging your feet. Nice try. I'm sorry, but I do not understand your hostility. Could you rephrase your objections with what I said in a way I can understand so that I can address them? I'm pretty sure I did that before But even if that before included him, it is not yet part of the public record of this discussion. Perhaps a simple link to that previous discussion, for the public record in this one? The jab /was/ rather unnecessary and uncalled for, and would have been better not posted. Even if the subject had been dealt with before, the question raised was a legitimate one to be raised here as part of the public record of /this/ discussion (where it had yet to be raised), which is, after all, part of the reason for the policy to post such things to this (public) list before simply adding them to the tree. And, it would seem, Zac has a suggestion to help, again part of the reason for the policy, the end product ends up better for it. =:^) I realize there's a reason for your nick, but that doesn't mean you have to live up to it. =:^) Meanwhile, thanks for pushing the news item. The whole lafilefixer thing has been needed for some time, and now that it's available and quite well tested, getting the news out is a /good/ thing! =:^) -- 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
