Re: [gentoo-dev] eapi1 bug/pkgcore sucks thread [was EAPI-2 - Let's get it started]
On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 11:39 +0200, Fernando J. Pereda wrote: On 12 Jun 2008, at 04:16, Brian Harring wrote: Why the exherbo/paludis/PMS folk decided to go this route to report, I'm not quite sure aside from assuming they're just griefers. s-exherbo/paludis/PMS-pkgcore-g and: http://fpereda.wordpress.com/2008/05/03/on-cooperating-and-paludis-vulnerability/ Except this one wasn't a lie. I wish there were more cooperation between all of us. But looks like it is impossible with some of your people. - ferdy Please stop whoring the url for that, its old already. There is a huge difference between that and knowingly witholding information because you want to see unit tests done. Quit being a fuckwit. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] eapi1 bug/pkgcore sucks thread [was EAPI-2 - Let's get it started]
On 12 Jun 2008, at 04:16, Brian Harring wrote: Why the exherbo/paludis/PMS folk decided to go this route to report, I'm not quite sure aside from assuming they're just griefers. s-exherbo/paludis/PMS-pkgcore-g and: http://fpereda.wordpress.com/2008/05/03/on-cooperating-and-paludis-vulnerability/ Except this one wasn't a lie. I wish there were more cooperation between all of us. But looks like it is impossible with some of your people. - ferdy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] eapi1 bug/pkgcore sucks thread [was EAPI-2 - Let's get it started]
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 07:16:05PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 07:00:16PM +0100, David Leverton wrote:
On Thursday 12 June 2008 02:46:03 Jim Ramsay wrote:
David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since at least one ebuild has already been modified specifically to
work around the bug, I'd say it's pretty real.
For those of us trying to play along at home, which one is this?
http://tinyurl.com/4w4t69
Few things I'll note about this stupid, stupid mess- looks of it,
paludis folk have known about this for a while. In other words, folk
bitching about 'improving' QA intentionally sat on a bug for the sake
of mocking, bug which according to them ebuild devs have supposedly
worked around (yet to see it, but it's viable).
Useful to the whole, I'm sure. Same folk in control of PMS for those
playing the home game, politics over QA seemingly.
So what was the bug? Aside from having to walk the full eapi-1 bugs,
(ebuild referenced wasn't of use), majority of which actually *is*
tested in pkgcore (unlike portage which makes one wonder why pkgcore
is targeted), the fault is a simple defaulting of an unset var being
missed in implementing an undocumented spec (honestly, where is eapi1
spec?).
Literally, the BS of the last day all comes down to inability to state
the following:
=== modified file 'pkgcore/bin/ebuild-env/ebuild-functions.sh'
--- pkgcore/bin/ebuild-env/ebuild-functions.sh2007-11-12 01:17:24
+
+++ pkgcore/bin/ebuild-env/ebuild-functions.sh2008-06-11 22:24:16
+
@@ -236,7 +236,7 @@ src_compile
{
if [ ${EAPI:-0} == 0 ] ; then
[ -x ./configure ] econf
-elif [ -x ${ECONF_SOURCE}/configure ]; then
+elif [ -x ${ECONF_SOURCE:-.}/configure ]; then
econf || die econf failed
fi
if [ -f Makefile ] || [ -f GNUmakefile ] || [ -f makefile ]; then
I'm not quite sure how you're trying to present this, but are you really
trying to say that EAPI 1 isn't documented? I myself found this in
pms.pdf in 2 minutes(it's section 10.1.3). I wouldn't exactly say it's
because it was missed in implementing an undocumented spec.
pgpcHKJFXxnuK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] eapi1 bug/pkgcore sucks thread [was EAPI-2 - Let's get it started]
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:39:21AM +0200, Fernando J. Pereda wrote: On 12 Jun 2008, at 04:16, Brian Harring wrote: Why the exherbo/paludis/PMS folk decided to go this route to report, I'm not quite sure aside from assuming they're just griefers. s-exherbo/paludis/PMS-pkgcore-g and: http://fpereda.wordpress.com/2008/05/03/on-cooperating-and-paludis-vulnerability/ Except this one wasn't a lie. I wish there were more cooperation between all of us. But looks like it is impossible with some of your people. While patrick hosts meatoo for pythonhead, that doesn't mean patrick can speak for meatoo. The same applies for pkgcore. Basically, I don't hold paludis devs responsible for their users behaviour (probably should considering the behaviour, but regardless). I do however hold paludis devs responsible for their *own* behaviour- and in this particular case, it *was* said devs commiting the offense. Deflection aside, dropping the issue- I've made my point that it was serious crap behaviour and hardly in the spirit of cooperation (let alone QA). ~harring pgpstlxlL1cVM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] eapi1 bug/pkgcore sucks thread [was EAPI-2 - Let's get it started]
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 07:02:52AM -0400, Thomas Anderson wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 07:16:05PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote: I'm not quite sure how you're trying to present this, but are you really trying to say that EAPI 1 isn't documented? I myself found this in pms.pdf in 2 minutes(it's section 10.1.3). I wouldn't exactly say it's because it was missed in implementing an undocumented spec. Stand corrected- last time I shot through checking into eapi1, the only spot I could find information in a singular place is bugs.g.o; w/ the kdebuild merge to pms, they at least built up a table of capabilities/per eapi. One thing missing in the doc is the delta between 0 and 1, without scraping the whole doc to identify the diffs (such a thing would be useful). ~harring pgpabPCSFSGwu.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] eapi1 bug/pkgcore sucks thread [was EAPI-2 - Let's get it started]
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 07:00:16PM +0100, David Leverton wrote:
On Thursday 12 June 2008 02:46:03 Jim Ramsay wrote:
David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since at least one ebuild has already been modified specifically to
work around the bug, I'd say it's pretty real.
For those of us trying to play along at home, which one is this?
http://tinyurl.com/4w4t69
Few things I'll note about this stupid, stupid mess- looks of it,
paludis folk have known about this for a while. In other words, folk
bitching about 'improving' QA intentionally sat on a bug for the sake
of mocking, bug which according to them ebuild devs have supposedly
worked around (yet to see it, but it's viable).
Useful to the whole, I'm sure. Same folk in control of PMS for those
playing the home game, politics over QA seemingly.
So what was the bug? Aside from having to walk the full eapi-1 bugs,
(ebuild referenced wasn't of use), majority of which actually *is*
tested in pkgcore (unlike portage which makes one wonder why pkgcore
is targeted), the fault is a simple defaulting of an unset var being
missed in implementing an undocumented spec (honestly, where is eapi1
spec?).
Literally, the BS of the last day all comes down to inability to state
the following:
=== modified file 'pkgcore/bin/ebuild-env/ebuild-functions.sh'
--- pkgcore/bin/ebuild-env/ebuild-functions.sh 2007-11-12 01:17:24 +
+++ pkgcore/bin/ebuild-env/ebuild-functions.sh 2008-06-11 22:24:16 +
@@ -236,7 +236,7 @@ src_compile
{
if [ ${EAPI:-0} == 0 ] ; then
[ -x ./configure ] econf
-elif [ -x ${ECONF_SOURCE}/configure ]; then
+elif [ -x ${ECONF_SOURCE:-.}/configure ]; then
econf || die econf failed
fi
if [ -f Makefile ] || [ -f GNUmakefile ] || [ -f makefile ]; then
Bit of a dumb bug, but it occurs unfortunately. And yes, bash bits
aren't currently tested since they're going to be completely ripped
out and replaced (in the process shifting where/how it's accessed).
Why the exherbo/paludis/PMS folk decided to go this route to report,
I'm not quite sure aside from assuming they're just griefers.
Regardless, fixed, released as 0.4.7.4, and in the tree.
Cheers
~harring
pgpOv1DdBuCfq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
