Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:30:55AM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: On 28-10-2010 09:25:23 +, Samuli Suominen wrote: ssuominen10/10/28 09:25:23 Modified: aggregate-1.6.ebuild Log: qa I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious. I just see lots of unnecessary changes that are apparently considered to be justified by QA. As the maintainer of the package in question, I'd like to ask: If you're changing a package I maintain, put SOMETHING in the Changelog. Secondly, I'm wondering if this should have been a revbump: your addition of tc-export could have changed the results. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee Infrastructure Lead E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
On 20:54 Thu 28 Oct , Samuli Suominen wrote: On 10/28/2010 07:22 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: Your committing this way actually supports the thought that you have something to hide, because you don't document what you did, and you didn't update the ChangeLog reducing overal visibility of your actions. ChangeLog is for users. The package content didn't change at all. There was nothing to log in for. I like to see a ChangeLog message for everything. If an ebuild suddenly breaks and a user sees no ChangeLog message, the assumption would then be that he somehow broke his system. The QA team is not superhuman in its ability to avoid mistakes... I don't want to actually get that suspicious feeling, that makes that I actually start looking into what you committed. When I see someone skipping ChangeLog, I take it as something so minor, not worth looking into at all. Quite the opposite. I take it as making my job as a maintainer more difficult because it gives me more places I have to look to track down what happened and why. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com pgpEGmKYbwb3i.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
On 28-10-2010 09:25:23 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
ssuominen10/10/28 09:25:23
Modified: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
Log:
qa
I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of
what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious.
I just see lots of unnecessary changes that are apparently considered to
be justified by QA.
(Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha1/cvs/Linux x86_64)
1.16 net-misc/aggregate/aggregate-1.6.ebuild
Index: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
===
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate/aggregate-1.6.ebuild,v
retrieving revision 1.15
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -r1.15 -r1.16
--- aggregate-1.6.ebuild 17 Oct 2010 04:46:37 - 1.15
+++ aggregate-1.6.ebuild 28 Oct 2010 09:25:23 - 1.16
@@ -1,26 +1,33 @@
# Copyright 1999-2010 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
-# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate/aggregate-1.6.ebuild,v
1.15 2010/10/17 04:46:37 leio Exp $
+# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate/aggregate-1.6.ebuild,v
1.16 2010/10/28 09:25:23 ssuominen Exp $
-inherit eutils
+EAPI=2
+inherit eutils toolchain-funcs
DESCRIPTION=aggregate takes a list of prefixes in conventional format on
stdin, and performs two optimisations to reduce the length of the prefix
list.
HOMEPAGE=http://dist.automagic.org/;
SRC_URI=${HOMEPAGE}/${P}.tar.gz
+
LICENSE=as-is
SLOT=0
KEYWORDS=alpha amd64 hppa ia64 ~mips ppc sparc x86
IUSE=
-DEPEND=
+
RDEPEND=dev-lang/perl
+DEPEND=
-src_unpack() {
- unpack ${A}
+src_prepare() {
epatch ${FILESDIR}/${P}-build-fixup.patch
}
+src_configure() {
+ tc-export CC
+ econf
+}
+
src_install() {
- dobin aggregate aggregate-ios
- doman aggregate.1 aggregate-ios.1
- dodoc LICENSE HISTORY
+ dobin aggregate aggregate-ios || die
+ doman aggregate{,-ios}.1
+ dodoc HISTORY
}
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
[gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
Fabian Groffen posted on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:30:55 +0200 as excerpted: On 28-10-2010 09:25:23 +, Samuli Suominen wrote: ssuominen10/10/28 09:25:23 Modified: aggregate-1.6.ebuild Log: qa I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious. ++ I noticed an equally impenetrable two-letter qa changelog entry on another package recently. Please at /least/ list a bug number, or what sort of changes were made (in general). Some of us Gentoo users take the admin part of the job seriously, you know, and get frustrated when the log is as opaque as that one was. Here, a simple: QA: cleanup, EAPI change ... would have been reasonable enough detail, from /my/ admin perspective, at least. Thanks. =:^) -- 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
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
On 10/28/2010 12:30 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 28-10-2010 09:25:23 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
ssuominen10/10/28 09:25:23
Modified: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
Log:
qa
I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of
what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious.
I just see lots of unnecessary changes that are apparently considered to
be justified by QA.
removal of quotes from ${A}, EAPI=2 to get src_configure to put
econf and tc-getCC in, || die to make dobin, rest were unnecessary
cosmetics not worth logging about
so qa/cosmetics, are you really 'complaining' for not mentioning
'cosmetics' in the commitlog?
wont be happening
(Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha1/cvs/Linux x86_64)
1.16 net-misc/aggregate/aggregate-1.6.ebuild
Index: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
===
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate/aggregate-1.6.ebuild,v
retrieving revision 1.15
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -r1.15 -r1.16
--- aggregate-1.6.ebuild 17 Oct 2010 04:46:37 - 1.15
+++ aggregate-1.6.ebuild 28 Oct 2010 09:25:23 - 1.16
@@ -1,26 +1,33 @@
# Copyright 1999-2010 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
-# $Header:
/var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate/aggregate-1.6.ebuild,v 1.15
2010/10/17 04:46:37 leio Exp $
+# $Header:
/var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate/aggregate-1.6.ebuild,v 1.16
2010/10/28 09:25:23 ssuominen Exp $
-inherit eutils
+EAPI=2
+inherit eutils toolchain-funcs
DESCRIPTION=aggregate takes a list of prefixes in conventional format on
stdin, and performs two optimisations to reduce the length of the prefix
list.
HOMEPAGE=http://dist.automagic.org/;
SRC_URI=${HOMEPAGE}/${P}.tar.gz
+
LICENSE=as-is
SLOT=0
KEYWORDS=alpha amd64 hppa ia64 ~mips ppc sparc x86
IUSE=
-DEPEND=
+
RDEPEND=dev-lang/perl
+DEPEND=
-src_unpack() {
-unpack ${A}
+src_prepare() {
epatch ${FILESDIR}/${P}-build-fixup.patch
}
+src_configure() {
+tc-export CC
+econf
+}
+
src_install() {
-dobin aggregate aggregate-ios
-doman aggregate.1 aggregate-ios.1
-dodoc LICENSE HISTORY
+dobin aggregate aggregate-ios || die
+doman aggregate{,-ios}.1
+dodoc HISTORY
}
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
On 28-10-2010 17:20:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of
what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious.
I just see lots of unnecessary changes that are apparently considered to
be justified by QA.
removal of quotes from ${A}, EAPI=2 to get src_configure to put
econf and tc-getCC in, || die to make dobin, rest were unnecessary
cosmetics not worth logging about
so qa/cosmetics, are you really 'complaining' for not mentioning
'cosmetics' in the commitlog?
wont be happening
I just want to avoid that it becomes legal to change any random ebuild
to someone's liking, and then commit it without ChangeLog (so it is less
visible?) with the commit message qa.
Your committing this way actually supports the thought that you have
something to hide, because you don't document what you did, and you
didn't update the ChangeLog reducing overal visibility of your actions.
I don't want to actually get that suspicious feeling, that makes that I
actually start looking into what you committed.
You, as a QA member, should extra carefully stick to the standing rules
(even though you don't like them, or find them too slow/bothersome),
because you can't tell others they don't do things you don't bother to
do yourself either, do you?
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
On 10/28/2010 07:22 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 28-10-2010 17:20:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of
what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious.
I just see lots of unnecessary changes that are apparently considered to
be justified by QA.
removal of quotes from ${A}, EAPI=2 to get src_configure to put
econf and tc-getCC in, || die to make dobin, rest were unnecessary
cosmetics not worth logging about
so qa/cosmetics, are you really 'complaining' for not mentioning
'cosmetics' in the commitlog?
wont be happening
I just want to avoid that it becomes legal to change any random ebuild
to someone's liking, and then commit it without ChangeLog (so it is less
visible?) with the commit message qa.
Your committing this way actually supports the thought that you have
something to hide, because you don't document what you did, and you
didn't update the ChangeLog reducing overal visibility of your actions.
ChangeLog is for users. The package content didn't change at all. There
was nothing to log in for.
At most, we avoided future bug or two about package not respecting CC or
package not installing anything but ebuild succeeding due to missing || die.
I don't want to actually get that suspicious feeling, that makes that I
actually start looking into what you committed.
When I see someone skipping ChangeLog, I take it as something so minor,
not worth looking into at all. Quite the opposite.
You, as a QA member, should extra carefully stick to the standing rules
(even though you don't like them, or find them too slow/bothersome),
because you can't tell others they don't do things you don't bother to
do yourself either, do you?
Absolutely, you are right.
Afterall, the ebuild is fine, no? Why are we having this discussion? ;-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
On 10/28/2010 09:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 10/28/2010 12:30 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 28-10-2010 09:25:23 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
ssuominen10/10/28 09:25:23
Modified: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
Log:
qa
I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of
what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious.
I just see lots of unnecessary changes that are apparently considered to
be justified by QA.
removal of quotes from ${A}, EAPI=2 to get src_configure to put
econf and tc-getCC in, || die to make dobin, rest were unnecessary
cosmetics not worth logging about
so qa/cosmetics, are you really 'complaining' for not mentioning
'cosmetics' in the commitlog?
come on man, all you have to say is clean up and update to EAPI 2.
that is infinitely better than a useless qa. people can easily
interpret QA stuff in a variety of significantly different ways.
-mike
agreed,
I wasn't saying it was a perfect commit message. my point is more why
are we having pointless discussion of commit messages in the first
place? ;-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/net-misc/aggregate: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org said:
On 10/28/2010 09:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 10/28/2010 12:30 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 28-10-2010 09:25:23 +, Samuli Suominen wrote:
ssuominen10/10/28 09:25:23
Modified: aggregate-1.6.ebuild
Log:
qa
I think it would be good practice if you would give a summary of
what type of QA you applied, even though for you it may be obvious.
I just see lots of unnecessary changes that are apparently considered to
be justified by QA.
removal of quotes from ${A}, EAPI=2 to get src_configure to put
econf and tc-getCC in, || die to make dobin, rest were unnecessary
cosmetics not worth logging about
so qa/cosmetics, are you really 'complaining' for not mentioning
'cosmetics' in the commitlog?
come on man, all you have to say is clean up and update to EAPI 2.
that is infinitely better than a useless qa. people can easily
interpret QA stuff in a variety of significantly different ways.
-mike
agreed,
I wasn't saying it was a perfect commit message. my point is more why
are we having pointless discussion of commit messages in the first
place? ;-)
Because it is not pointless. Useful commit messages save lots of time.
--
Mark Loeser
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web - http://www.halcy0n.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
