Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Friday 13 June 2008 03:20:23 Brian Harring wrote: 1) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171291 metadata/cache (hence labeled flat_list cache format) mtime requirements. The current spec attempts to handle things as well as possible on the package manager side. If you'd like it to be restricted more, then please provide precise details along with reasoning. 2) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196561; changing (within eapi0) the behaviour of ~ operator. Currently, portage ignores any revision for ~, pkgcore gives the finger if you try combining ~ with a revision (it's not a valid atom), paludis follows the PMS rules; As the bug says, there has been at least one ebuild in the past that appeared to expect the PMS behaviour, but it's gone now. We can change the spec to match portage, but we'd like a repoman check to make sure people don't start doing it again. 3) good 'ole mr -r0 and the issues it triggers, http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215403 initial dev thread, http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_de84ebd5116546518879e266bf60f32b. xml relevant flaws ignoring this issue induces: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f98bab69d67bd4132917be0eb04e8f3e. xml Spawned by a rather odd commit from rbrown flushing out a user visible breakage for pkgcore users, it also flushed out PM incompatibilities in handling of PVR/PR; specifically since -r0 has *never* been used in ebuild names, all ebuilds have been written assuming PVR lacks -r0. What was the end result of this rather obnoxious (ebuild dev viewable) variance? I'm not quite sure exactly what you're requesting here... to ban -r0 entirely? I still don't see the point in doing that in the spec - tree policy, fine, but package managers have to deal with similar issues anyway in other parts of the version syntax. If you want the description of PVR changed, then please file a new bug giving details, as Ciaran already asked. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun , Brian Harring wrote: Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, People actually working on the PMS would be better-placed to discuss its current status, if by that you mean progress toward an approved spec. The last I heard was a couple months ago when Ciaran asked us whether there were any further major issues and removed kdebuild-1 from the PDF to be approved. if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, Anyone working on a package manager (and anyone else suitably knowledgeable) should be able to get commit access to it. The only person running it is doing so by virtue of making the most commits. and if said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes this side of '09. This is basically the same as the first question from my ability to answer it. Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of the general view. I'd like to know what's holding you back from contributing to it, instead of telling us that someone else is doing things you don't like. Is there some kind of technical barrier (like the TeX)? Or what? Are you filing bugs against the parts you don't like? What's happening to them? Thanks, Donnie -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thursday 12 June 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun , Brian Harring wrote: Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, People actually working on the PMS would be better-placed to discuss its current status, if by that you mean progress toward an approved spec. The last I heard was a couple months ago when Ciaran asked us whether there were any further major issues and removed kdebuild-1 from the PDF to be approved. he was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the repo and this has yet to happen Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of the general view. I'd like to know what's holding you back from contributing to it, instead of telling us that someone else is doing things you don't like. Is there some kind of technical barrier (like the TeX)? Or what? Are you filing bugs against the parts you don't like? What's happening to them? TeX isnt a format that integrates with Gentoo. should just convert it to docbook and be done with this garbage. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 12 June 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun , Brian Harring wrote: Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, People actually working on the PMS would be better-placed to discuss its current status, if by that you mean progress toward an approved spec. The last I heard was a couple months ago when Ciaran asked us whether there were any further major issues and removed kdebuild-1 from the PDF to be approved. he was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the repo and this has yet to happen This shouldn't block PMS discussions. There's an up to date copy in pdf of PMS built without kdebuild at http://dev.gentoo.org/~coldwind/pms-without-kdebuild.pdf Regards, -- Santiago M. Mola Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thursday 12 June 2008 18:14:21 Mike Frysinger wrote: he was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the repo and this has yet to happen I just checked the April meeting log, and while I admit I didn't read every word from start to finish, all I could see was that kdebuild couldn't be in the final, official version. In particular, you yourself wrote: 22:36 vapier@ i generate the pms for reference. it better not include anything that hasnt been approved. It looks like that isn't the default in current git, but it's trivial to fix if that's what people want. If I missed something in the log, or if this was discussed somewhere else, please let me know. TeX isnt a format that integrates with Gentoo. should just convert it to docbook and be done with this garbage. I would think that anyone proposing such a disruptive change at this point should either give a damn good reason or do the work themselves, preferably both. I can't even figure out what integrates with Gentoo means, let alone decide whether it counts as damn good. (And if you're suggesting DocBook as an alternative, it can't possibly mean is the same as all the other Gentoo documentation.) -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:14:21 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 12 June 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun , Brian Harring wrote: Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, People actually working on the PMS would be better-placed to discuss its current status, if by that you mean progress toward an approved spec. The last I heard was a couple months ago when Ciaran asked us whether there were any further major issues and removed kdebuild-1 from the PDF to be approved. he was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the repo and this has yet to happen No, I was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the version sent to the Council for approval. Doing so is just a case of toggling a switch in PMS. Also, until they were all mysteriously fired, Gentoo's KDE people were planning to ask the Council for official approval of kdebuild-1 so that it could remain in PMS. So that's still up in the air too. I'd like to know what's holding you back from contributing to it, instead of telling us that someone else is doing things you don't like. Is there some kind of technical barrier (like the TeX)? Or what? Are you filing bugs against the parts you don't like? What's happening to them? TeX isnt a format that integrates with Gentoo. should just convert it to docbook and be done with this garbage. And docbook does integrate with Gentoo? Please point me to other Gentoo documentation that uses docbook. Also, I've yet to be told how to get automatic, verified, zero-work-upon-relocation cross-document links using either docbook or guidexml. Perhaps you'd care to explain. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On 19:03 Thu 12 Jun , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:14:21 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 12 June 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun , Brian Harring wrote: Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, People actually working on the PMS would be better-placed to discuss its current status, if by that you mean progress toward an approved spec. The last I heard was a couple months ago when Ciaran asked us whether there were any further major issues and removed kdebuild-1 from the PDF to be approved. he was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the repo and this has yet to happen No, I was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the version sent to the Council for approval. Doing so is just a case of toggling a switch in PMS. Also, until they were all mysteriously fired, Gentoo's KDE people were planning to ask the Council for official approval of kdebuild-1 so that it could remain in PMS. So that's still up in the air too. All? Only one person I know of, Philantrop. Were rbrown or spb committing much to KDE stuff? I'd like to know what's holding you back from contributing to it, instead of telling us that someone else is doing things you don't like. Is there some kind of technical barrier (like the TeX)? Or what? Are you filing bugs against the parts you don't like? What's happening to them? TeX isnt a format that integrates with Gentoo. should just convert it to docbook and be done with this garbage. And docbook does integrate with Gentoo? Please point me to other Gentoo documentation that uses docbook. http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/doc/ http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-projects/pax-utils/man/ Also, I've yet to be told how to get automatic, verified, zero-work-upon-relocation cross-document links using either docbook or guidexml. Perhaps you'd care to explain. You've mentioned this as a requirement. Is it something that happens so often that it's a significant burden if it isn't available? Thanks, Donnie -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Brian Harring wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote: This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC). If you're supposed to show up, please show up. If you're not supposed to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance for you. For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes this side of '09. Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of the general view. Yes, ciaran shall comment. My request still stands. Thanks, ~harring I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/ On this page it'd be nice if there was an official link to the current PMS instead of having to rely on grabbing it from random locations i.e. d.g.o/~coldwind/ or d.g.o/~spb/ -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/ There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on PMS appears to have commit access to it... -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:14:00 -0700 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I was told to remove kdebuild-1 from the version sent to the Council for approval. Doing so is just a case of toggling a switch in PMS. Also, until they were all mysteriously fired, Gentoo's KDE people were planning to ask the Council for official approval of kdebuild-1 so that it could remain in PMS. So that's still up in the air too. All? Only one person I know of, Philantrop. Were rbrown or spb committing much to KDE stuff? All three were involved in the design of kdebuild-1. And docbook does integrate with Gentoo? Please point me to other Gentoo documentation that uses docbook. http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/doc/ http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-projects/pax-utils/man/ So no actual Gentoo documentation then, just documentation for some programs hosted by Gentoo? Also, I've yet to be told how to get automatic, verified, zero-work-upon-relocation cross-document links using either docbook or guidexml. Perhaps you'd care to explain. You've mentioned this as a requirement. Is it something that happens so often that it's a significant burden if it isn't available? Yes. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/ There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on PMS appears to have commit access to it... I saw that page but I think you'd agree it'd a bit lacking in information. Additionally, the fact that rane removed spb from the page due to his retirement does not mean that you need to fling your BS on the ML and accuse people of vandalizing anything. Comments like that are unnecessary to the discussion and poisonous. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/ There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on PMS appears to have commit access to it... The only commit from rane that I see is [1], which removes spb as a maintainer. As far as I can tell, this is not a vandalizing, but a completely legitimate status update which was triggered by spb's retirement. All Gentoo developers have access to the file in question, so I'm looking forward to a bugreport from you assigned to myself that has a patch attached which clearly states what should be updated. Cheers, -jkt [1] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa/pms.xml?r1=texttr1=1.1r2=texttr2=1.2makepatch=1diff_format=h -- cd /local/pub more beer /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Doug Goldstein wrote: Brian Harring wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote: This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC). If you're supposed to show up, please show up. If you're not supposed to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance for you. For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes this side of '09. Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of the general view. Yes, ciaran shall comment. My request still stands. Thanks, ~harring I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/ On this page it'd be nice if there was an official link to the current PMS instead of having to rely on grabbing it from random locations i.e. d.g.o/~coldwind/ or d.g.o/~spb/ Allow me to clarify a bit more. I'd like to see a collaborative website that developers for all actively maintained package managers can contribute to and update providing details about compatibility and implementation of the PMS and future additions or revisions of the PMS that will be put forth before the Gentoo Council. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Doug Goldstein wrote: Doug Goldstein wrote: Brian Harring wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote: This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC). If you're supposed to show up, please show up. If you're not supposed to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance for you. For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes this side of '09. Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of the general view. Yes, ciaran shall comment. My request still stands. Thanks, ~harring I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/ On this page it'd be nice if there was an official link to the current PMS instead of having to rely on grabbing it from random locations i.e. d.g.o/~coldwind/ or d.g.o/~spb/ Allow me to clarify a bit more. I'd like to see a collaborative website that developers for all actively maintained package managers can contribute to and update providing details about compatibility and implementation of the PMS and future additions or revisions of the PMS that will be put forth before the Gentoo Council. I agree with Cardoe, the specification should be made as useful as possible to the package maintainers, as accessible as possible by every interested party and possibly have a regression/conformance test built in (such a small tree with dummy ebuilds and eclasses) to allow automated validation. Stronger and well defined versioning should help as well. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug Goldstein wrote: Doug Goldstein wrote: Brian Harring wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote: This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC). If you're supposed to show up, please show up. If you're not supposed to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance for you. For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes this side of '09. Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of the general view. Yes, ciaran shall comment. My request still stands. Thanks, ~harring I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/ On this page it'd be nice if there was an official link to the current PMS instead of having to rely on grabbing it from random locations i.e. d.g.o/~coldwind/ or d.g.o/~spb/ Allow me to clarify a bit more. I'd like to see a collaborative website that developers for all actively maintained package managers can contribute to and update providing details about compatibility and implementation of the PMS and future additions or revisions of the PMS that will be put forth before the Gentoo Council. I agree with Cardoe, the specification should be made as useful as possible to the package maintainers, as accessible as possible by every interested party and possibly have a regression/conformance test built in (such a small tree with dummy ebuilds and eclasses) to allow automated validation. Stronger and well defined versioning should help as well. I believe the biggest problem with this list is you have a long list of wants but seem to not want to do any of the work yourself. For the folks making the requests; are you working on doing any of them yourself? Otherwise your suggestions are mere recommendations at best. -Alec lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/ There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on PMS appears to have commit access to it... I would like to comment that the wording on that page is unacceptable. With the advent of alternative package managers, this ill-defined standard is no longer sufficient... makes it sound like the previous work that was done was by idiots. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Alec Warner wrote: I believe the biggest problem with this list is you have a long list of wants but seem to not want to do any of the work yourself. For the folks making the requests; are you working on doing any of them yourself? I will =) Otherwise your suggestions are mere recommendations at best. You are right. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Thomas Anderson wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:11:51PM +0100, George Prowse wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/ There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on PMS appears to have commit access to it... I would like to comment that the wording on that page is unacceptable. With the advent of alternative package managers, this ill-defined standard is no longer sufficient... makes it sound like the previous work that was done was by idiots. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list That says nothing about the previous state of the portage. It only says the standard wasn't well-defined before PMS. It sounds and looks bad. It is so poorly written it looks as if the author is saying the last one was crap so we have to do a better one. In fact, ill-defined needn't be in there at all. this is no longer sufficient is sufficient. A better thing to write would be: With the advent of alternative package managers a further defining of standard is necessary... -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:09:43AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun , Brian Harring wrote: if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, Anyone working on a package manager (and anyone else suitably knowledgeable) should be able to get commit access to it. The only person running it is doing so by virtue of making the most commits. Person 'running' it is the one w/ commit control; as far as I know, that's ciaran and halcy0n (latter being inactive from what I've seen). Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of the general view. I'd like to know what's holding you back from contributing to it, instead of telling us that someone else is doing things you don't like. Is there some kind of technical barrier (like the TeX)? Or what? Are you filing bugs against the parts you don't like? What's happening to them? Duncan's recent post, http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_3baa8ff0b7d3a65206ddaefa7cc4a346.xml actually lays out some of the issues fairly succinctly. What he doesn't state outright (and I shall) is that when bound by a standards group actively hostile to your manager/involvement, the 'dog and pony show' duncan refers to becomes far worse, and typically nastier. It becomes far less worth being involved additionally, if it's known up front it's going to be flaming. Meanwhile, couple of technical faults ignored either for paludis benefit, or (best I can figure) because I brought it up. 1) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171291 metadata/cache (hence labeled flat_list cache format) mtime requirements. This actually is a fairly old issue- I raised it when pms was first finally shown to people. Basically issue is that for flat_list cache format, the cache entries mtime is the ebuilds mtime. This was used to try and detect stale cache entries via comparing ebuild mtime- doesn't handle eclass related invalidation, but that is a seperate issue. Current spec intentionally leaves out mtime, no mention of it. Why this matters- paludis's implementation of flat_list (hence labeled paludis_flat_list) differs- instead of the historical cache mtime == ebuild mtime, it's cache mtime == max(ebuild mtime, eclasses mtimes). Personally, I don't care about their cache implementation on disk, as long as it doesn't affect me - it's their way of addressing what flat_hash for portage/pkgcore addresses, full eclass staleness detection. Fair enough. What *does* matter is that via this omission in PMS, paludis_flat_list is considered a valid cache for $PORTDIR/metadata/cache. Using paludis_flat_list as $PORTDIR/metadata/cache means that pkgcore/paludis identify the cache as stale, and regenerate it. In other words, flat_list works with portage/pkgcore/paludis, paludis_flat_list works with paludis only (triggering invalid regeneration for the rest). It may seem minor, but think through the response when a portage/pkgcore user hits a repository generated by paludis- pkgcore/portage are broke, not our fault due to PMS omission of historical behaviour. Issue is known, and ignored at this point. 2) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196561; changing (within eapi0) the behaviour of ~ operator. Currently, portage ignores any revision for ~, pkgcore gives the finger if you try combining ~ with a revision (it's not a valid atom), paludis follows the PMS rules; long term behaviour of ~; any revision of this version suffices. PMS/paludis behaviour: revisions greater then, or equal to this revision, equal to this version. Why this matters; portage long term behaviour has been to drop -r* when found. Parsing is/was loose, basically. Due to eapi0's nature, one can't just force in what they think is the one true way, have to force in what works for all and matches history. Issue is known, and ignored at this point. 3) good 'ole mr -r0 and the issues it triggers, http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215403 initial dev thread, http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_de84ebd5116546518879e266bf60f32b.xml relevant flaws ignoring this issue induces: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f98bab69d67bd4132917be0eb04e8f3e.xml Spawned by a rather odd commit from rbrown flushing out a user visible breakage for pkgcore users, it also flushed out PM incompatibilities in handling of PVR/PR; specifically since -r0 has *never* been used in ebuild names, all ebuilds have been written assuming PVR lacks -r0. What was the end result of this rather obnoxious (ebuild dev viewable) variance? Accusations that pkgcore devs are trying to legislate away their 'bugs' (ignoring that the issue was fixed/released
Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 01:14:21PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: TeX isnt a format that integrates with Gentoo. should just convert it to docbook and be done with this garbage. I've not looked, but is anyone aware of a simple way to integrate this doc into the gentoo web hierarchy? Pdf's are nice, but gentoo documentation is typically accessed as web pages... ~harring pgpdjg3bF8zzl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote: This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC). If you're supposed to show up, please show up. If you're not supposed to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance for you. For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes this side of '09. Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of the general view. Yes, ciaran shall comment. My request still stands. Thanks, ~harring pgppkOFB8eMEA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Wednesday 11 June 2008 12:11:33 Brian Harring wrote: Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of the general view. Paludis isn't completely compliant either. Not sure what you're referring to about portage and pkgcore... if you mean kdebuild, then a) the Council has decided that that won't be part of the official approved version, and b) PMS only describes what kdebuild is, it doesn't say that any package manager has to implement it. As long as it's not being used in the main tree, that's up to the package manager maintainers, and what they think is most beneficial to their users. If you mean something else, feel free to file bugs, it could well be just an oversight. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On 11 Jun 2008, at 13:11, Brian Harring wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote: This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC). If you're supposed to show up, please show up. If you're not supposed to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance for you. For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes this side of '09. Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of the general view. Did you send patches for those parts you don't agree with? - ferdy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
