Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /
On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 10:37:29PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > That is a really poor argument. Something that's respected for 10+ > years and reported as QA violation is a standing policy as far as I'm > concerned. Just because it isn't backed by a formally stamped policy > (at least as far as we know -- maybe it was actually stamped somewhere > in the past?) doesn't mean you it's fine for one person to change it ad- > hoc because it stands in his way. > > I should point that I'm very concerned that you're pushing this forward > even though: > > 1) I've objected to the change itself, You have the right to object, as does anyone, but what I take very strong issue with is your tone and your way of dealing with the situation. An objection with another alternative would have gone a lot better with me. > 2) I've pointed out that it's been sent to the wrong mailing list, > and that this explicitly prevents a number of developers from even > knowing that this is happening, You rudely attacked me and accused me of something I wasn't trying to do. https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/d5be93dc7767f2256041eb2cb54b8b38 Then floppym responded and advised again that this is the place to send patches for portage. https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/af686e9d2d94a9b940f8f71efdf73b2b So, that is why this point wasn't really considered. > 3) removing it provides a way for regressions that can have major impact > on users and that involve much effort in reverting that. Maybe the way around this is to stop building static libs for the ebuilds that call gen_usr_ldscript. Once that happens and gen_usr_ldscript isn't called in the tree any more, this patch could be applied. > So if I send a revert patch afterwards, and you object, should the patch > be accepted because only one person objected? This is one of our problems as a distro. there isn't a way to measure concensus. I also don't like your tone in your response to Zac merging the patch. https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/1abfd0499e514b7d6b70b709e9e3ae18 If I say out here that since I'm a council member I'm above you and zac should listen to me and apply the patch is that appropriate? I imagine not, so I feel the same way about you bringing your qa membership into the discussion. In my opinion, all that kind of thing leads to is people becoming angry. I'm going to ask you to close https://bugs.gentoo.org/699254. I honestly do not feel that this is an appropriate way to deal with this situation. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /
On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 12:18:40PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 11/3/19 11:53 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sun, 2019-11-03 at 11:49 -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> >> On 10/27/19 10:40 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >>> Most upstreams and build systems do not make this distinction, so this
> >>> causes unnecessary hacks in ebuilds.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: William Hubbs
> >>> ---
> >>> bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries | 10 --
> >>> 1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> >>> b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> >>> index d1d2c4fdd..e59369bf6 100644
> >>> --- a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> >>> +++ b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
> >>> @@ -152,16 +152,6 @@ lib_check() {
> >>> done
> >>> [[ ${abort} == "yes" ]] && die "add those ldscripts"
> >>>
> >>> - # Make sure people don't store libtool files or static libs in /lib
> >>> - f=$(ls "${ED%/}"/lib*/*.{a,la} 2>/dev/null)
> >>> - if [[ -n ${f} ]] ; then
> >>> - __vecho -ne '\n'
> >>> - eqawarn "QA Notice: Excessive files found in the / partition"
> >>> - eqawarn "${f}"
> >>> - __vecho -ne '\n'
> >>> - die "static archives (*.a) and libtool library files (*.la)
> >>> belong in /usr/lib*, not /lib*"
> >>> - fi
> >>> -
> >>> # Verify that the libtool files don't contain bogus $D entries.
> >>> local abort=no gentoo_bug=no always_overflow=no
> >>> for a in "${ED%/}"/usr/lib*/*.la ; do
> >>>
> >>
> >> Merged. Thanks!
> >>
> >> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/commit/?id=498900e5e51460502d8271f409a4c614a021613b
> >>
> >
> > Please revert this. I should point out that this has been vetoed
> > by a QA member, and is currently subject to QA vote. Therefore, I
> > believe you shouldn't be making rash decisions based on patches
> > submitted by a single developer. Especially given that so far nobody
> > else has voiced his opinion either way, so it's 1:1.
You being a qa member doesn't have a lot to do with this mgorny. you
know there was no official policy when I posted this, and as far as I
know there is not one now.
William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /
On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 12:40:07PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > Most upstreams and build systems do not make this distinction, so this > causes unnecessary hacks in ebuilds. I spoke with the qa lead about this as you suggested, and he doesn't feel that he needs to ack this from a qa standpoint. He agrees with me that there isn't an official qa policy keeping this in place. So, we are back to this being a portage issue. Thanks, William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /
On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 06:58:00PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 2019-10-27 at 12:40 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > Most upstreams and build systems do not make this distinction, so this > > causes unnecessary hacks in ebuilds. > > > > The hacks aren't 'unnecessary'. There is a very good reason that files > that are used *purely at build time* don't land in /. That reason is > disk space. Even if people nowadays are forced to use initramfs with > separate /usr, it doesn't mean you should just let their rootfs fill up > with useless files. The useless files argument really holds no water with me. We install many files on / that are useless in one situation or another. Some examples are logrotate files when logrotate isn't installed, systemd units for openrc systems and openrc init scripts for systemd systems. Talk to me about useless files on / after we put all of these, and possibly others I can't think of, behind use flags. > Do you have any *real* argument? Because 'unnecessary hack' is > basically your feeling of ebuild aesthetics. My aesthetics is more > worried about useless clutter in /lib*. FHS agrees with me, as you > yourself admitted yesterday. Any downstream hack means that we are being lazy and not reporting the bug upstream and asking them to fix it. This particular issue is not a big deal to any other distro and has never been. Shouldn't we try to get upstreams to do this if it is so important? > So why do you believe we should introduce this regression? And why are > you trying to sneak it past most of the developers via gentoo-portage- > dev instead of gentoo-dev? This attack is un called for. This list is as open as any other, and there is no need for you to make this out to be some kind of conspiracy theory to "sneak" something past the developers. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] install-qa-check.d: remove check that bans libtool files and static libs from /
Most upstreams and build systems do not make this distinction, so this
causes unnecessary hacks in ebuilds.
Signed-off-by: William Hubbs
---
bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries | 10 --
1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
index d1d2c4fdd..e59369bf6 100644
--- a/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
+++ b/bin/install-qa-check.d/80libraries
@@ -152,16 +152,6 @@ lib_check() {
done
[[ ${abort} == "yes" ]] && die "add those ldscripts"
- # Make sure people don't store libtool files or static libs in /lib
- f=$(ls "${ED%/}"/lib*/*.{a,la} 2>/dev/null)
- if [[ -n ${f} ]] ; then
- __vecho -ne '\n'
- eqawarn "QA Notice: Excessive files found in the / partition"
- eqawarn "${f}"
- __vecho -ne '\n'
- die "static archives (*.a) and libtool library files (*.la)
belong in /usr/lib*, not /lib*"
- fi
-
# Verify that the libtool files don't contain bogus $D entries.
local abort=no gentoo_bug=no always_overflow=no
for a in "${ED%/}"/usr/lib*/*.la ; do
--
2.23.0
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] emerge-default-opts
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 All, disreguard this message; it seems to work now. I didn't change anything so I have no idea what happened. Thanks, William On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 02:25:18PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: All, I'm not sure if this is a bug or if I am doing something wrong. I have portage 2.1_pre4 installed and the following in make.conf: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--nocolor --nospinner But at least the --nospinner option isn't working. Since I am blind and use a screen reader, the spinner is annoying and I would like to turn that off. I can't be sure about the --nocolor option yet unless I do another test real quick. Is --nospinner supposed to work in emerge_default_opts? Thanks, William -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFD29hIblQW9DDEZTgRAoH3AKCGdcweg5PPL7ZrQCTnfFxTLQh3UgCbB7p0 TVXcbWcmi8XF7FiZTH+ZP88= =k/kN -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
