On 01/04/2018 10:48 PM, Richard Laager via devel wrote:
Can you submit an actual merge request for review?
Currently waiting for the pipeline to finish on !641.
This changes the build back to how it used to work, it builds and
installs on my system, it has passed the build phase of the pipe
On 01/04/2018 10:44 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
> I just want it the way it was, the way that worked.
Can you submit an actual merge request for review?
--
Richard
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list
On 01/04/2018 10:05 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
> Any proposal that embeds paths in build products is broken. I already
> described in grewat detail several of the failure mechanisms and will
> not repeat myself.
The embedding code in !615 only ever adds to sys.path. It doesn't remove
any
Yo Richard!
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 22:24:38 -0600
Richard Laager wrote:
> On 01/04/2018 10:05 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
> >> Your proposal was "my MR is trivial: leave as is, except revert the
> >> patch that removed the PYTHONPATH guidance to the builder." Your
> >> proposal to leave thin
On 01/04/2018 10:05 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
>> Your proposal was "my MR is trivial: leave as is, except revert the
>> patch that removed the PYTHONPATH guidance to the builder." Your
>> proposal to leave things as is does not fix your #414. I asked if you
>> wanted to amend your proposa
Yo Richard!
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 21:42:02 -0600
Richard Laager wrote:
> On 01/04/2018 09:29 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
> > I must admit to being lost as to how this gets all mixed up in the
> > PYTHONPATH confusion.
>
> Because /usr/local is not in the default sys.path on some distros,
On 01/04/2018 09:29 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
> I must admit to being lost as to how this gets all mixed up in the
> PYTHONPATH confusion.
Because /usr/local is not in the default sys.path on some distros,
wafhelpers/fix_python_config.py was created to try to fix that. It then
creates a
Yo Richard!
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 20:56:58 -0600
Richard Laager via devel wrote:
> On 01/04/2018 08:51 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
> > Sure, my MR is trivial: leave as is, except revert the patch that
> > removed the PYTHONPATH guidance to the builder. Ain't borke, don't
> > fix it.
>
>
On 01/04/2018 08:51 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
> Sure, my MR is trivial: leave as is, except revert the patch that
> removed the PYTHONPATH guidance to the builder. Ain't borke, don't
> fix it.
I think one of the few things we agree on here is that the current
behavior in master is broke
Yo Richard!
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 20:45:48 -0600
Richard Laager via devel wrote:
> On 01/04/2018 08:39 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
> > Cool. So you are unaffected by the original issue. Since you do
> > not have the issue, I assume you'd prefer that no unneeded kludges
> > be added when y
On 01/04/2018 08:39 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
> Cool. So you are unaffected by the original issue. Since you do not
> have the issue, I assume you'd prefer that no unneeded kludges be added
> when you build NTPsec. So why do you care how the issue gets solved?
I don't think being pers
Yo Richard!
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 20:34:35 -0600
Richard Laager via devel wrote:
> On 01/04/2018 04:55 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
> >> Ubuntu does.
>
> > Then why do they include it in PATH, but not PYTHONPATH?
> s/PYTHONPATH/sys.path/
>
> It *is* in both PATH and sys.path.
Cool. S
On 01/04/2018 04:55 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
>> Ubuntu does.
> Then why do they include it in PATH, but not PYTHONPATH?
s/PYTHONPATH/sys.path/
It *is* in both PATH and sys.path.
$ echo $PATH
/home/rlaager/bin:/usr/lib/ccache:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin
Yo Ian!
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:24:45 -0600
Ian Bruene via devel wrote:
> I think on a a couple of your responses we may be talking about
> different things.
Yeah, the circle of life.
> However that is moot at this point, as it is clear
> that we have our last solution standing: rip out the "f
Oy Gary!
I think on a a couple of your responses we may be talking about
different things. However that is moot at this point, as it is clear
that we have our last solution standing: rip out the "fix" that started
this whole debate and revert to the old method.
--
/"In the end; what separa
Yo Ian!
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:52:20 -0600
Ian Bruene via devel wrote:
> On 01/04/2018 01:21 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
> >> What are these other issues?
> > The FHS, Gentoo, and AFAIK all distros, do not include /usr/local/XX
> > in any enviroment PATHs.
>
> Ubuntu does.
Then why
Yo Achim!
On Thu, 04 Jan 2018 22:53:15 +0100
Achim Gratz via devel wrote:
> Ian Bruene via devel writes:
> > Did people just not usually use /usr/local/ much in the Eldar
> > Days?
>
> I can't tell you what people did, but on SunOS I did install GNU stuff
> like multiple versions of gcc and e
Yo Richard!
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 15:29:24 -0600
Richard Laager via devel wrote:
> On 01/04/2018 12:54 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
> > functional tests are run on the code in many different locations.
>
> This concern is valid. Can you provide examples of what sort of tests
> are run?
B
Ian Bruene via devel writes:
> Did people just not usually use /usr/local/ much in the Eldar Days?
I can't tell you what people did, but on SunOS I did install GNU stuff
like multiple versions of gcc and emacs there, but not xntpd (the
predecessor of ntpd). The whole /usr/local thing was much mor
On 01/04/2018 12:54 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
> functional tests are run on the code in many different locations.
This concern is valid. Can you provide examples of what sort of tests
are run?
For example, within the build tree is fine:
./waf check
Specifically, which commands are run
On 01/04/2018 01:21 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
What are these other issues?
The FHS, Gentoo, and AFAIK all distros, do not include /usr/local/XX
in any enviroment PATHs.
Ubuntu does. Did people just not usually use /usr/local/ much in the
Eldar Days? That would explain it not being
On 01/04/2018 12:54 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
[*SNIP* long description of why path embedding is Not Done]
RGDS
GARY
Ah. This was rattling around in the back of my head but I had forgotten
the details. !615's fix can be removed from consideration.
--
/"In the end; what separates a
Yo Ian!
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 09:18:33 -0600
Ian Bruene via devel wrote:
> First: Gary, you keep mentioning that there are "still issues with
> PATH" and all of these solutions only take care of part of the
> problem.
Yup.
> What are these other issues?
The FHS, Gentoo, and AFAIK all distros, do
Yo Ian!
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 12:07:01 -0600
Ian Bruene via devel wrote:
> On 01/04/2018 11:44 AM, Richard Laager via devel wrote:
> > I'm not convinced it's actually bad form. Can you elaborate on why
> > you see this as hideous?
>
> My understanding is that embedding paths into code like this
On 01/04/2018 11:44 AM, Richard Laager via devel wrote:
I'm not convinced it's actually bad form. Can you elaborate on why you
see this as hideous?
My understanding is that embedding paths into code like this is
something that Shouldn't Be Done unless absolutely necessary. It also
adds the
On 01/04/2018 09:18 AM, Ian Bruene via devel wrote:
> For alternate fixes we have rlaager's (!615) fix. The tradeoffs I see are:
> bad: the entire concept is a hideous violation of good import
> practices and generally all that is right and proper
I'm not convinced it's actually bad form. Can
On Jan 3, 2018 5:23 AM, "Ian Bruene via devel" wrote:
>
> We are on track to merging the solution in !615, if you have objections
> please state them *soon*, together with a patch that fixes the problem. We
> are rapidly approaching the planned mid-January 1.1 date.
>
> To snip one large set of o
First: Gary, you keep mentioning that there are "still issues with PATH"
and all of these solutions only take care of part of the problem.
What are these other issues? The only issues I know of are the Python
sys.path issue, and fallout from various attempted fixes.
As for the solutions on
On 01/03/2018 04:44 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
>>> Rather than having me misread your code, can you put a plain
>>> summary here?
PYTHONDIR and PYTHONARCHDIR (whatever they are) are embedded into the
executables and loaded into sys.path at runtime. This is *in addition*
and *in priority to
Yo Hal!
On Wed, 03 Jan 2018 13:34:15 -0800
Hal Murray via devel wrote:
> Whatever happens, we need to document a summary of this discussion so
> we don't have to repeat it again tomorrow.
Yup. Just what I asked for earlier today.
RGDS
GARY
-
Yo Ian!
On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 16:25:34 -0600
Ian Bruene via devel wrote:
> > Uh, news to me that any solution was agreed to. Last I heard this
> > group was in no way on the same page.
> >
> > Rather than having me misread your code, can you put a plain
> > summary here?
>
> It's rlaager's code
Uh, news to me that any solution was agreed to. Last I heard this
group was in no way on the same page.
Rather than having me misread your code, can you put a plain summary here?
It's rlaager's code, the bash sys.path in each program one.
Not sure how that makes me feel better. Exactly t
Whatever happens, we need to document a summary of this discussion so we
don't have to repeat it again tomorrow.
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
___
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Yo Ian!
On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 07:23:23 -0600
Ian Bruene via devel wrote:
> We are on track to merging the solution in !615, if you have
> objections please state them *soon*, together with a patch that fixes
> the problem.
Uh, news to me that any solution was agreed to. Last I heard this
group wa
We are on track to merging the solution in !615, if you have objections
please state them *soon*, together with a patch that fixes the problem.
We are rapidly approaching the planned mid-January 1.1 date.
To snip one large set of objections in the bud: Yes, this solution is
/hideous/. Unfort
35 matches
Mail list logo
