Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 3 April 2017 at 09:01, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Just a note that the email you are replying to wasn't send to the list. > Such > wording is not welcome on this list and does not reflect how we want the > fedora > devel list to be. > I know. As you probably noticed I'm

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 08:49:18PM +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: >On 2 April 2017 at 16:25, Reindl Harald wrote: > > funny that one assumes you can enter "fedora FPC" in a search engine > after playing smart-ass in so many mails and it's your namend >

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 09:25:55PM +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: >On 2 April 2017 at 17:06, Jens Lody wrote: > > Fedora Packaging Committee: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee?rd=FPC > >Just humle question: why I should contact FPC about

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 2 April 2017 at 17:06, Jens Lody wrote: > Fedora Packaging Committee: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee?rd=FPC > Just humle question: why I should contact FPC about two bugs which I found in dnf? Comment about contacting FPC was straight under my

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 2 April 2017 at 16:25, Reindl Harald wrote: > funny that one assumes you can enter "fedora FPC" in a search engine after > playing smart-ass in so many mails and it's your namend responisiblity to > inform yourself about the distribution *before* you write hundrets of

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

Am Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:23:25 +0100 schrieb Tomasz Kłoczko : > On 2 April 2017 at 12:20, Igor Gnatenko > wrote: > > > All your points here are basically going to /dev/null if you are not > > going to contact FPC > > > > Funny .. seems

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 2 April 2017 at 12:20, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > All your points here are basically going to /dev/null if you are not > going to contact FPC > Funny .. seems you assuming that I know what FPC stands fr. kloczek -- Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn:

Re: Unversioned Obsoletes (was Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency)

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Fernando Nasser wrote: > On 2017-03-31 4:04 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> >> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:16:22 -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote: >> >>> A few issues I remember caused by unversioned Obsoletes (before they >>> were banished to Hell)

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Sun, 2017-04-02 at 07:55 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 1 April 2017 at 22:25, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > This is a libsolv test case. Fedora's high level package manager > > (DNF[0]) uses libsolv[1] for its resolver engine.

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Sun, 2017-04-02 at 07:55 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 1 April 2017 at 22:25, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > This is a libsolv test case. Fedora's high level package manager > > (DNF[0]) uses libsolv[1] for its resolver engine.

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 1 April 2017 at 22:25, Neal Gompa wrote: > This is a libsolv test case. Fedora's high level package manager > (DNF[0]) uses libsolv[1] for its resolver engine. If you're trying to > determine how something is going to behave, you can write a test case > and use testsolv

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > > On 1 April 2017 at 18:54, Igor Gnatenko > wrote: >> >> repo system 0 testtags >> #>=Pkg: foo-static 1 1 x86_64 >> repo available 0 testtags >> #>=Pkg: bar 1 1 x86_64 >> #>=Obs:

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 1 April 2017 at 18:54, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > repo system 0 testtags > #>=Pkg: foo-static 1 1 x86_64 > repo available 0 testtags > #>=Pkg: bar 1 1 x86_64 > #>=Obs: foo-static > #>=Pkg: foo-static 2 1 x86_64 > system x86_64 rpm system > poolflags

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Sat, 2017-04-01 at 15:52 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 1 April 2017 at 08:19, Michael Schwendt > wrote: > > > In reality, that's not case always. In order to remove a previously > > > > introduced Obsoletes tag, you

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 15:52:53 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > Please start playing with those specs files which I've posted. You have seen my reply to that faulty test case of yours, haven't you. Nothing would change. > I fully understand that it is not easy to understand some new approach if > so

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 1 April 2017 at 08:19, Michael Schwendt wrote: > In reality, that's not case always. In order to remove a previously > introduced Obsoletes tag, you would need to do what exactly? > I've already wrote this straight. Quote: "So exact paragraph in FPG should be not about

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 22:44:27 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > OK so it is exactly like trying to fix the C code issue with left some > parts of last changes iteration which should be fixed by deleted such > lines completely and instead such deletion someone is implementing jump > over such left

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 21:10:29 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > According to those two "laws" at the moment *I think* that what it was > codified in FPG was caused by something stupid :) > Lets say .. it was something like misinterpretation when in on upgrade test > package from 2.0 to 3.0 someone

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 31 March 2017 at 20:56, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Now repeat the same with a set of packages where the Obsoletes tag > remains in one of the packages > OK so it is exactly like trying to fix the C code issue with left some parts of last changes iteration which should be

Re: Unversioned Obsoletes (was Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency)

On 2017-03-31 4:04 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:16:22 -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote: A few issues I remember caused by unversioned Obsoletes (before they were banished to Hell) were: - Not being able, ever again, to provide the thing being obsoleted. And believe me,

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 31 March 2017 at 20:05, Rex Dieter wrote: > If you think versioned Obsoletes are bad or unwise, it shows some naivety > or > inexperience: Ever had to fix/recover from erroneous Obsoletes or had to > deal with undo/revert of them (without resorting to introducing

Re: Unversioned Obsoletes (was Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency)

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:16:22 -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote: > A few issues I remember caused by unversioned Obsoletes (before they > were banished to Hell) were: > > - Not being able, ever again, to provide the thing being obsoleted. And > believe me, things change ;-) > > - The Obsoletes

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 19:41:30 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > OK. Could you please show me example? Any non-versioned Obsoletes tag in the repo metadata hides the obsolete package from the depsolver's view during updates, and depending on the implementation even during first installs. > It is yet

Re: Unversioned Obsoletes (was Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency)

A few issues I remember caused by unversioned Obsoletes (before they were banished to Hell) were: - Not being able, ever again, to provide the thing being obsoleted. And believe me, things change ;-) - The Obsoletes affects other channels as well, not only the content of the channel that

Unversioned Obsoletes (was Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 19:41 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 31 March 2017 at 17:57, Michael Schwendt > wrote: > > > No, it's based on common experience several packagers have made > > over a > > period of several years. You

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > I see that you and other people proposing versioned Obsoletes rules never > ever analysed step by step whole scenario(s) If you think versioned Obsoletes are bad or unwise, it shows some naivety or inexperience: Ever had to fix/recover from erroneous Obsoletes or had

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 31 March 2017 at 17:57, Michael Schwendt wrote: > No, it's based on common experience several packagers have made over a > period of several years. You seem to have missed that period. Non-versioned > Obsoletes have caused problems before. > OK. Could you please show me

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 17:32:09 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > I see that you and other people proposing versioned Obsoletes rules never > ever analysed step by step whole scenario(s) or done kind of 10 min POC to > prove correctness/incorrectness of this. Looks like again .. it is result > of using

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 31 March 2017 at 12:00, Michael Schwendt wrote: > When you refer to removing a package "permanently", that is a fallacy. > You cannot predict whether you may want to reintroduce a package some day. > Even for a foo-static package there may be a reason why to build such a

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 19:05:54 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > I see more and more issues related to FPG. And most discouraging is not > what is inside FPG because I can agree with most of the advices in this > document > Seem some packagers are using it almost blindly. And we are not talking >

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

Dne 30.3.2017 v 18:00 Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a): > > 4) There is a difference between rules written down and rules in > action. While the rule has been this should be done, the fact that so > many packages have never done so and no one has pulled them for that.. > says the real rule is it

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 30 March 2017 at 20:01, Matthew Miller wrote: > You don't know whether the person you are replying to > is "guessing" or whether they actually have experience and expertise > which just happens to be different from yours. In fact, in this case, I > will guarantee you

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 30 March 2017 at 14:48, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > > On 30 March 2017 at 17:00, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> >> 1) They are going to have 'non-upstream' patches for all their >> software.. which is just one more thing to keep up with every update. >>

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:48:34PM +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > I'm fully aware that proposing such widely spreading change I'm entering on > some conflict/battle ground. > I know that all long and/or complicated conflicts are possible to finish > using only using two methods: by giving or

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 30 March 2017 at 17:00, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > 1) They are going to have 'non-upstream' patches for all their > software.. which is just one more thing to keep up with every update. > 2) Most of this software is not stuff they care about. It is branches > on a tree

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 30 March 2017 at 12:00, Michael Schwendt wrote: > True, and I haven't claimed the opposite. You need to slow down, IMO, > as it seems you've misunderstood me completely. It's really just that > whereas some packagers have removed /usr/bin/env from their packages, > others

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

5. If Fedora is a language for developers how am I supposed to develop for other systems? And if I do this development why do I then have to carry this patch for this one OS when if I did the development on Ubuntu and put it in Universe I don't? On 30 March 2017 at 12:10, Matthew Miller

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:00:40PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > I think the thing that the problems packagers are looking at is the > following: > > 1) They are going to have 'non-upstream' patches for all their > software.. which is just one more thing to keep up with every update. > 2)

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 30 March 2017 at 11:44, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 08:41:56AM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: >> > These system executables are expecting to use the system python, and thus >> > should use: #!/usr/bin/python." >> I don't seem to get the above

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 08:41:56AM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > > These system executables are expecting to use the system python, and thus > > should use: #!/usr/bin/python." > I don't seem to get the above argument. Why do they not consider a > design where the system executables are expecting

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 29 March 2017 at 14:26, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > --- > Fedora ships numerous executables written in Python. Many of them contain > the shebang line: #!/usr/bin/env python > > However, this makes it difficult to install alternative versions of Python > on the system. If a user wishes e.g. to

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:26:31 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 29 March 2017 at 17:04, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > It has been discussed several times, has met resistance and lead to > > actions like > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SystemPythonExecutablesUseSyst > > emPython > >

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 29 March 2017 at 17:04, Michael Schwendt wrote: > It has been discussed several times, has met resistance and lead to > actions like > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SystemPythonExecutablesUseSyst > emPython > but I don't remember any special section in the

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:40:31 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 29/03/17 14:16, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On 03/29/2017 02:26 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote: > >> I would say using env in the shebang line is useful. Particularly for > >> portability. As a developer, I wouldn't like removing it from my

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 03/29/2017 02:26 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote: I would say using env in the shebang line is useful. Particularly for portability. As a developer, I wouldn't like removing it from my programs. Does it enable running packages unchanged against runtimes packaged as Software Collections?

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 29 March 2017 at 15:17, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote: > > Getting rid of using env is much more legacy related things > Most of them comes from the the time when Solaris and other flavours of > the Unixes where the dominant Unix on the market. Well, my concern was

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 29 March 2017 at 15:14, Vít Ondruch wrote: > I can't imagine how you want to convince most of the Ruby developers, > who are typically using Mac with RVM or rbenv, to accept patch to change > shebang from "/usr/bin/env ruby" to "/usr/bin/ruby". I suppose the > situation

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 03/29/2017 04:52 PM, Tomasz Kloczko wrote: > On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 12:26 +, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote: >> I would say using env in the shebang line is useful. Particularly for >> portability. As a developer, I wouldn't like removing it from my programs. > > Portability is not an issue at

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

Dne 29.3.2017 v 15:52 Tomasz Kloczko napsal(a): > On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 12:26 +, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote: >> I would say using env in the shebang line is useful. Particularly for >> portability. As a developer, I wouldn't like removing it from my programs. > Portability is not an issue at

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 14:40 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > > FPC repeated discussed this and we decided to ban env, years ago. > > AFAIK it was was never made official though - it is still in draft: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Script_Interpreters_(draft) As well my pointing on using env does

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 12:26 +, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote: > I would say using env in the shebang line is useful. Particularly for > portability. As a developer, I wouldn't like removing it from my programs. Portability is not an issue at all here in this exact discussed case because

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 29/03/17 14:16, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 03/29/2017 02:26 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote: I would say using env in the shebang line is useful. Particularly for portability. As a developer, I wouldn't like removing it from my programs. FPC repeated discussed this and we decided to ban env,

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 03/29/2017 04:16 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 03/29/2017 02:26 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote: >> I would say using env in the shebang line is useful. Particularly for >> portability. As a developer, I wouldn't like removing it from my programs. > > FPC repeated discussed this and we decided to

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

On 03/29/2017 02:26 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote: I would say using env in the shebang line is useful. Particularly for portability. As a developer, I wouldn't like removing it from my programs. FPC repeated discussed this and we decided to ban env, years ago. Moreover, if your PATH is

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

Hi, Le 29/03/2017 à 14:08, Tomasz Kloczko a écrit : > > There are several issues with /usr/bin/env dependencies and all those issues > are related to scripts which in script preamble are using > "#!/usr/bin/env ": For php tools (at least the ones I own), this is a deliberate packaging choice,

Re: Mass issue: /usr/bin/env dependency

I would say using env in the shebang line is useful. Particularly for portability. As a developer, I wouldn't like removing it from my programs. Moreover, if your PATH is compromised, you're most likely screwed. I understand, that env use in scripts makes is inconvenient in some cases, but I