Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Thursday 07 September 2006 16:42, Simon Stelling wrote: >> "!> and kdelibs installed on a system at the same time. > > This is clear to me. My point was, if there's a specific need to allow to not > to break arch keywording this way. I'd find it more foolproof and consistent, > if repoman would catch this and Portage would warn. Warn about what exactly? About blocker that $arch doesn't have even keyworded? I fail too see why this would be useful. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
What have we learnt now, Jakub? Keep it in the bug report. ;) Carsten pgpxG13G6keIP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:42:11 +0200 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Carsten Lohrke wrote: > > One question remains: Is it needed/correct that Portage doesn't > > take blockers for architecture breakages into account? Such a > > line/prefix is easily changed and when someone - whatever the bad > > reason is - uses cvs commit, a real tree breakage is the cause. > > The behaviour is correct. The depstring in question was > "! Reason for this could e.g. be file collisions that got fixed in > hunspell-1.0. > > If the depstring was "! (same as ">=app-text/hunspell-1.0", just retarded) repoman would > complain loudly. 1,$ s/hunspell/hspell/g :) To follow up in the use of a blocker - obviously blocking something like kdelibs, a core part of a major package suite, against a utility like hspell is less than ideal (to put it politely). This was not the case before - kdelibs and hspell could happily be installed on the same system, just kdelibs wouldn't make use of hspell. Adding the blocker unnecessarily restricts the system, and was the wrong thing to do. One point that illustrates this clearly, is that if kdelibs is blocked by hspell, a corollary is that hspell should block kdelibs. However since hspell wasn't blocking kdelibs, you would fail to install kdelibs until hspell was unmerged. Unmerging hspell would allow kdelibs to merge, then you could happily install hspell again and end up with a confused dep tree. Also, to my understanding, having configure automagically build support for hspell if it's available on the system is not the way we're supposed to handle such dependencies. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
Jakub Moc wrote: > carlo, you might want to revert it properly, instead of reverting only > half of the previous commit you've been complaining about here. Could you please take such stuff where it belongs next time? (To the bug, that is.) There's really no need to point out such things on -dev, because this is not a "hey everybody, look, $dev did something stupid!" list. It doesn't matter whether $dev is genstef or carlo or anybody else. The bitching ain't gonna stop if you just "give back". -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
Simon Stelling wrote: > Carsten Lohrke wrote: >> One question remains: Is it needed/correct that Portage doesn't take >> blockers >> for architecture breakages into account? Such a line/prefix is easily >> changed >> and when someone - whatever the bad reason is - uses cvs commit, a real tree >> breakage is the cause. > > The behaviour is correct. The depstring in question was > "! and kdelibs installed on a system at the same time. Reason for this > could e.g. be file collisions that got fixed in hunspell-1.0. > > If the depstring was "! as ">=app-text/hunspell-1.0", just retarded) repoman would complain loudly. Well, now the ebuild is broken even worse, since the blocker is gone [1] and hspell is still not disabled, so it will go kaboom when someone installs the stable version. [1] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/kde-base/kdelibs/kdelibs-3.5.4-r1.ebuild?r1=1.4&r2=1.5 carlo, you might want to revert it properly, instead of reverting only half of the previous commit you've been complaining about here. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
Carsten Lohrke wrote: > One question remains: Is it needed/correct that Portage doesn't take blockers > for architecture breakages into account? Such a line/prefix is easily changed > and when someone - whatever the bad reason is - uses cvs commit, a real tree > breakage is the cause. The behaviour is correct. The depstring in question was "!=app-text/hunspell-1.0", just retarded) repoman would complain loudly. -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
On Thursday 07 September 2006 13:48, Jakub Moc wrote: > I wonder how exactly genstef broke mips, 'cos mind you, he just reverted > to what the ebuild was doing before Bug 114161 was fixed by > hard-disabling of hspell [1]. Since mips doesn't have hspell keyworded, > it wasn't affected by that bug before it's been fixed and it wasn't > affected after the bug has been reintroduced now [2] (Additionally there > shouldn't be any problem now except for one called automagic > dependencies since the blocker for incompatible versions was there). You're right. It was very early in the morning, I saw the dependency not matching architectures, but wasn't aware that blocker dependencies are not taken into account with regards to tree breakage. So: Dear Stefan, I was wrong, you didn't break the tree. Please excuse that I did accuse you doing this. I regret not having verfied my position, before i filed the bug. Furthermore I'd like to add that, as blubb put it in an private email, my intention wasn't to put you down, but to shed light on the issue - apparently making myself a fool. One question remains: Is it needed/correct that Portage doesn't take blockers for architecture breakages into account? Such a line/prefix is easily changed and when someone - whatever the bad reason is - uses cvs commit, a real tree breakage is the cause. Carsten pgpLpkRTXiwfL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
On Thursday 07 September 2006 13:25, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> I'll try to overlook the reverted changes in kdelibs for bug fixes, the
> improper ${ROOT} injected in my changes where it wasn't supposed to be, the
> broken opengl on kdelibs checks that appeared last month, unhelpful
> comments when trying to achieve something from the users, a bug lingering
> for an year and a half because my solution wasn't good enough, and that was
> the solution that now kde 3.5.4 implements, decisions against the interest
> and request of all the users and developers, QA bugs opened without
> checking facts, GWN articles sent without notes on [EMAIL PROTECTED] alias
> for what I
> can see ...
I do make mistakes too, yes. That I did revert your changes was a problem with
a local script - still - my mistake. No idea what you're referring to with
your "unhelpful comments" stanza as well as the "bug lingering around". There
are a lot of bugs lingering around and I do not have a todo list tracking
them in a specific time frame. QA bug_s_? Regarding the GWN, you should have
gotten the email, in which I pointed out that it's time to remove KDE 3.4
from the tree.
Carsten
pgpiZ8MyhPkOO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
Stephen P. Becker wrote: > Brian Harring wrote: >> The proper forum for crap like this is via taking it up with QA/devrel. >> >> Screaming about a change on the ml doesn't accomplish anything more >> then making you look like a jack ass trying to publically embarass >> someone you're pissed at; at least carlo has a reason, stephen you're >> just being an asshole. > > Yes, I am, because it pisses me off when people outright break things > because they had no clue what they were doing. Furthermore, he did > break mips with that change, so that makes it my business to whip out > the cluestick. My previous email was intended to show that he doesn't > seem to have any idea what he was doing. I wonder how exactly genstef broke mips, 'cos mind you, he just reverted to what the ebuild was doing before Bug 114161 was fixed by hard-disabling of hspell [1]. Since mips doesn't have hspell keyworded, it wasn't affected by that bug before it's been fixed and it wasn't affected after the bug has been reintroduced now [2] (Additionally there shouldn't be any problem now except for one called automagic dependencies since the blocker for incompatible versions was there). [1] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/kde-base/kdelibs/kdelibs-3.5.0.ebuild?hideattic=0&r1=1.4&r2=1.5 [2] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/kde-base/kdelibs/kdelibs-3.5.4-r1.ebuild?r1=1.3&r2=1.4 So, how exactly is this public bitching useful? -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
On Thursday 07 September 2006 11:11, Stuart Herbert wrote: > And I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a problem with your > comment in that bug either. Bugzilla isn't there for flaming other > devs. I did not do an ad hominem attack, but have a problem with a single action and listed my points. I wonder what is supposed to count as flaming nowadays... Carsten pgpAWUwVGarMg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
On Thursday 07 September 2006 04:09, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> How wonderful this sort of "maintenance" is you can read here:
I'll try to overlook the reverted changes in kdelibs for bug fixes, the
improper ${ROOT} injected in my changes where it wasn't supposed to be, the
broken opengl on kdelibs checks that appeared last month, unhelpful comments
when trying to achieve something from the users, a bug lingering for an year
and a half because my solution wasn't good enough, and that was the solution
that now kde 3.5.4 implements, decisions against the interest and request of
all the users and developers, QA bugs opened without checking facts, GWN
articles sent without notes on [EMAIL PROTECTED] alias for what I can see ...
No, I'm not referring to Stefan. He's human and he did mistakes, but if
someone would be allowed to put them in public, that would be his lead (that
in this case is Caleb, not you), or the QA team.
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE
pgpwZ010qa0PD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
Brian Harring wrote: On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:37:21PM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: Carsten Lohrke wrote: On Sunday 03 September 2006 16:36, Stefan Schweizer wrote: I am not adding stuff. I am fixing existing packages. And I am taking responsibility. How wonderful this sort of "maintenance" is you can read here: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146626 Am I the only one who has a problem with this? I find this not at all surprising considering that one of his recent mentees failed so many of the ebuild quiz questions so badly as to be outright denied (which is not at all the recruit's fault). In any case, if you don't appreciate Stefan "taking responsibility" for stuff which he has no business touching in the first place, you have every right to tell him to piss off. Maybe I'm just a moron (well, likely I am), but why are you two posting this shit on the dev ml? Conflict for a change, fine, carlo go revert it. Crazy notion, but it's a one minute revert, yes it's not your mess but it is your package and _your_ users, leaving your users hanging because you're trying to make genstef clean something up screws the users over. So what is wrong with making people accountable for stuff which *they* broke? The proper forum for crap like this is via taking it up with QA/devrel. Screaming about a change on the ml doesn't accomplish anything more then making you look like a jack ass trying to publically embarass someone you're pissed at; at least carlo has a reason, stephen you're just being an asshole. Yes, I am, because it pisses me off when people outright break things because they had no clue what they were doing. Furthermore, he did break mips with that change, so that makes it my business to whip out the cluestick. My previous email was intended to show that he doesn't seem to have any idea what he was doing. Further, Stephen shouldn't even know about a candidates failing, let alone go stating it on a public ml. Really nice one there; someone tries to help, deemed not yet skilled enough to have access to the tree, and you're bringing it up as a way to take potshots at genstef. Note that I have no idea who this person is, and that I also stated it is not their fault at all. Pretty much anybody is capable of learning the skills required to have access to the tree. Failing the ebuild quiz is a reflection on the mentor, which was my point. Further, you're taking a potshot at a dev candidate who via going through the process was at least *trying* to contribute, even if they didn't pass the quiz. No, I'm not, see above. I encourage this candidate to keep contributing, and to ask questions of anybody who can help. Carlo, go talk to devrel, stephen, go do your monthly mips stabling. Meanwhile spare us the idiocy, and do something productive. That's a funny statement, coming from you. Screaming on a ml won't solve the conflict, just makes the screamer look childish. That's an even funnier statement, coming from you. -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
Alec Warner wrote: > If you can't work > it out, you talk to your project lead. If THEY can't work it out, you > talk to the ombudsman, and so forth. Everyone knows the policy and yet > no one follows it. I don't want to see this thread continue; you know > what you have to do.[1] > > [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/policy.xml Don't even have to go that way. It's far simpler: (quoting the devrel policy you linked to:) "Issues not necessarily related to personal conflict, such as intentional or repeated policy breaches, malicious or abrasive behavior to users or developers, or similar developer-specific behavioral problems should be brought directly to Developer Relations via [EMAIL PROTECTED] These should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by Developer Relations and may require disciplinary action." -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 12:17:27PM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 7. September 2006 11:11 schrieb Stuart Herbert: > > On 9/7/06, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How wonderful this sort of "maintenance" is you can read here: > > > > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146626 > > > > > > Am I the only one who has a problem with this? > > > > No. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a problem with your > > comment in that bug either. Bugzilla isn't there for flaming other > > devs. > > > > There was a time when we used to suspend devs for doing that. > Sadly we don't suspend developers for extended history of QA violations. > Not true, unfortunately these problems seem to very rarely get communicated to devrel... -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
Am Donnerstag, 7. September 2006 11:11 schrieb Stuart Herbert: > On 9/7/06, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How wonderful this sort of "maintenance" is you can read here: > > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146626 > > > > Am I the only one who has a problem with this? > > No. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a problem with your > comment in that bug either. Bugzilla isn't there for flaming other > devs. > > There was a time when we used to suspend devs for doing that. Sadly we don't suspend developers for extended history of QA violations. Danny -- Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
On 9/7/06, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: How wonderful this sort of "maintenance" is you can read here: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146626 Am I the only one who has a problem with this? No. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a problem with your comment in that bug either. Bugzilla isn't there for flaming other devs. There was a time when we used to suspend devs for doing that. Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Sunday 03 September 2006 16:36, Stefan Schweizer wrote: >> I am not adding stuff. I am fixing existing packages. And I am taking >> responsibility. > > How wonderful this sort of "maintenance" is you can read here: > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146626 > > Am I the only one who has a problem with this? > Genstef PLEASE always contact the related herd before adding stuff. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Sunday 03 September 2006 16:36, Stefan Schweizer wrote: >> I am not adding stuff. I am fixing existing packages. And I am taking >> responsibility. > > How wonderful this sort of "maintenance" is you can read here: > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146626 > > Am I the only one who has a problem with this? > > > Carsten I would agree on principle, however this is NOT the correct venue for this. If you have an issue with another developer; you don't go complain on a public ML; you TALK to the developer. If you can't work it out, you talk to your project lead. If THEY can't work it out, you talk to the ombudsman, and so forth. Everyone knows the policy and yet no one follows it. I don't want to see this thread continue; you know what you have to do.[1] [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/policy.xml -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
lets try resending this since our shitty mail servers seemed to have eaten it On Sunday 03 September 2006 10:22, Stefan Schweizer wrote: > Paul de Vrieze wrote: > > The maintainer must still be someone with a > > gentoo email. > > is that written down somewhere? I was under the impression that it is > allowed and have seen it used for example > in /usr/portage/www-client/links/metadata.xml except that metadata has something the ones in question here do not: a contact at gentoo.org if the non-gentoo.org is AFK -mike pgppOuw0ZUGFK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:37:21PM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: > Carsten Lohrke wrote: > >On Sunday 03 September 2006 16:36, Stefan Schweizer wrote: > >>I am not adding stuff. I am fixing existing packages. And I am taking > >>responsibility. > > > >How wonderful this sort of "maintenance" is you can read here: > > > >https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146626 > > > >Am I the only one who has a problem with this? > > I find this not at all surprising considering that one of his recent > mentees failed so many of the ebuild quiz questions so badly as to be > outright denied (which is not at all the recruit's fault). In any case, > if you don't appreciate Stefan "taking responsibility" for stuff which > he has no business touching in the first place, you have every right to > tell him to piss off. Maybe I'm just a moron (well, likely I am), but why are you two posting this shit on the dev ml? Conflict for a change, fine, carlo go revert it. Crazy notion, but it's a one minute revert, yes it's not your mess but it is your package and _your_ users, leaving your users hanging because you're trying to make genstef clean something up screws the users over. The proper forum for crap like this is via taking it up with QA/devrel. Screaming about a change on the ml doesn't accomplish anything more then making you look like a jack ass trying to publically embarass someone you're pissed at; at least carlo has a reason, stephen you're just being an asshole. Further, Stephen shouldn't even know about a candidates failing, let alone go stating it on a public ml. Really nice one there; someone tries to help, deemed not yet skilled enough to have access to the tree, and you're bringing it up as a way to take potshots at genstef. Further, you're taking a potshot at a dev candidate who via going through the process was at least *trying* to contribute, even if they didn't pass the quiz. Carlo, go talk to devrel, stephen, go do your monthly mips stabling. Meanwhile spare us the idiocy, and do something productive. Screaming on a ml won't solve the conflict, just makes the screamer look childish. ~harring pgpljzlJFti07.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
Carsten Lohrke wrote: On Sunday 03 September 2006 16:36, Stefan Schweizer wrote: I am not adding stuff. I am fixing existing packages. And I am taking responsibility. How wonderful this sort of "maintenance" is you can read here: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146626 Am I the only one who has a problem with this? I find this not at all surprising considering that one of his recent mentees failed so many of the ebuild quiz questions so badly as to be outright denied (which is not at all the recruit's fault). In any case, if you don't appreciate Stefan "taking responsibility" for stuff which he has no business touching in the first place, you have every right to tell him to piss off. -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
On Sunday 03 September 2006 16:36, Stefan Schweizer wrote: > I am not adding stuff. I am fixing existing packages. And I am taking > responsibility. How wonderful this sort of "maintenance" is you can read here: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146626 Am I the only one who has a problem with this? Carsten pgpSw3egf3SKv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 16:36:14 +0200 Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> this does not allow the actual maintainer to close the bug and > >> causes a lot of bugspam for a person who does not care about it > >> and should be only contacted in the end to commit > >> fixes/patches/bumps. > > Shouldn't matter too much as a gentoo dev is still responsible for > > the package? > > of course he is still responsible. Does not mean he likes to get 10 > mails about people asking for stable keywords and arches stabilizing > every month. That comes with being responsible for a package in Gentoo. Live with it. > > Nobody shoud be adding stuff to portage without taking > > responsibility for it. > > I am not adding stuff. I am fixing existing packages. And I am taking > responsibility. The maintainer can always assign me bugs if he thinks > I should take care of them and I read and take care of them anyway > because I am on maintainer-needed. That's fine and all, but it sort of sets a precedent - not everyone is on maintainer-needed. > PS: mailing lists are a bit broken. 3 people answer me and ask almost > the same and I answer almost the same again .. Then answer in only one subthread, and rest of them will die... :) Kind regards, -- Andrej Kacian -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 16:22:37 +0200 Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul de Vrieze wrote: > > For this stuff, add a comment to the metadata.xml file. Don't do it > > in this less than obvious way. > > arch teams for example will still contact me then for stabilizing, I > do not want that. jeeves and herdstat do not support comments and the > metadata is not often read directly. If you don't care whether a package is stable or not, just let the arch team go ahead and do what they need to do to stabilise when they wish to. The role of package maintainer has nothing to do with stabilisation, which is the preserve of the arch teams. > > The maintainer must still be someone with a > > gentoo email. > > is that written down somewhere? I was under the impression that it is > allowed and have seen it used for example > in /usr/portage/www-client/links/metadata.xml You'll notice that there are two maintainer blocks in there, one for the non-gentoo "third-party" maintainer, and one for the Gentoo dev who proxies - the "official Gentoo" maintainer. There are several packages like this. What I'm conerned about is packages that have no Gentoo maintainer, something that should obviously never happen for packages in the official tree. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
Paul de Vrieze wrote: > For this stuff, add a comment to the metadata.xml file. Don't do it in > this less than obvious way. arch teams for example will still contact me then for stabilizing, I do not want that. jeeves and herdstat do not support comments and the metadata is not often read directly. > The maintainer must still be someone with a > gentoo email. is that written down somewhere? I was under the impression that it is allowed and have seen it used for example in /usr/portage/www-client/links/metadata.xml - Stefan -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
Bryan Ãstergaard wrote: > Ok, let me see if I can get this straight.. You're saying that > maintainer-needed requires less communication overhead compared to > ebuilds with maintainers assigned? And that maintainer-needed is > therefore better than ebuilds having maintainers. agreed. I prefer to fix ebuilds in maintainer-needed than maintained ebuilds because communication takes eternally compared to fixing simple things quickly. >> the committer in this case has no interest in maintaining the thing. And >> for proxying it does not matter who is proxying. > Of course it matters. There's a big difference between a proxy > maintainer having to ask a *specific* dev that's proxying his ebuild > updates/changes or trying to find a random dev willing to help. I will of course commit all fixes when anyone asks me to. But it does not matter if I commit them or anyone else who cares and has access levels. >> this does not allow the actual maintainer to close the bug and causes a >> lot of bugspam for a person who does not care about it and should be only >> contacted in the end to commit fixes/patches/bumps. > Shouldn't matter too much as a gentoo dev is still responsible for the > package? of course he is still responsible. Does not mean he likes to get 10 mails about people asking for stable keywords and arches stabilizing every month. > Nobody shoud be adding stuff to portage without taking > responsibility for it. I am not adding stuff. I am fixing existing packages. And I am taking responsibility. The maintainer can always assign me bugs if he thinks I should take care of them and I read and take care of them anyway because I am on maintainer-needed. - Stefan PS: mailing lists are a bit broken. 3 people answer me and ask almost the same and I answer almost the same again .. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers
Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > Then you should not have committed it - as a dev it is your > responsibility to test any ebuilds your commit. There's nothing > stopping you doing the normal checks on the ebuild, even if you can't > read Hebrew. For example you should verify whether the '-j1' is really > necessary on emake. yeah, I do those tests of course. Had not thought of -j1 though. You are right - it is not needed. Sorry :( >> Furthermore I am actually part of >> maintainer-needed and commit fixes there. I am also on the >> maintainer-needed email alias. > > The point of a herd is to provide a contact for maintenance of the > member packages - and maintainer-needed by definition does not do > maintenance. yup. This is just so I can keep track of bugs filed against it while clearly separating them from bugs for packages which I judge more important and maintain directly. Support is provided by upstream and the user, build-testing/committing/ebuildfixes is provided by maintainer-needed (which is most likely me) >> Also maintainer-needed makes obvious to everyone that they do not >> have to ask me to fix sth. or take over the package -> less >> communication overhead. > > You can put notes into metadata.xml - see other instances for > examples; the easiest way is to have two maintainer entries, and in > the description field describe the maintenance arrangement. Give jeeves and herdstat support for reading notes and I might consider it. What annoys me most when putting myself in is that arch teams will ask me if I would want that stable. I honestly do not care. The annoying thing about it is that I get more than one bugmailspam about it and it also happens regularly for new versions :/ Such things the user should be able to decide himself. > Putting > "maintainer-needed" as the herd just means the package is essentially > unmaintained, and is a candidate for removal. that is what I want to imply by putting it in, you got me correctly. > We should not be putting > stuff into the official tree if no dev has taken responsibility for it. we are not putting new stuff in there, we are just fixing existing stuff so that it does not need to be removed. >> And for proxying it does not matter who is proxying. > > Proxying is more than just "doing whatever the non-dev says". By > committing to the tree, you take full responsibility for those > commits. I do. And if it breaks anyone I will fix it of course. > Whoever does the commit takes formal responsibility for those commits. > Therefore they should take note of bug activity relating to those > commits. If they don't care about that then they should not be acting > as proxy in that case. I do take note of all maintainer-needed bug activity. I do not put in myself to clearly separate those from the other bugs where I am directly maintaining stuff myself. > Surely this is what the Sunrise overlay was for; user-supplied ebuilds > that don't have a a Gentoo dev to take responsibility for maintenance. true. Sunrise is only for new ebuilds however. It is not designed as a place to dump ebuilds from portage to and force users of them to use Sunrise. If you or antarus or someone else wants to remove it from the tree feel free to do so, I am not in metadata, I do not care. I just fixed the bug. - Stefan -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
