On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:53:21 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A whole bunch of science packages have upstreams that say If you're
building from source, run 'make check' and if it fails don't carry
on.
Their rationale behind that is that their code is severely broken,
using
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:58:44 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Oh, so Gentoo has decided that basic QA is another 'poor programming
practice' now?
Having a good testsuite is part of the QA, having it not failing is
part of the QA, running it for supposedly
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:11:23 -0700
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 05:54:49PM +0100, Richard Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 17:39, Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At this point, we should really only discuss features that all
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:01:30 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:49:44 +0200
Alexis Ballier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought tests were already supposed to pass whatever the EAPI is
and devs were supposed to run them...
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:02:48 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Had you bothered to write even trivial test suites for EAPI 1,
you'd've found at least one major bug straight away.
http://www.pkgcore.org/trac/pkgcore/newticket
http://www.pkgcore.org/trac/pkgcore/ticket/197
--
On 2008/06/11, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're missing the cases where the cache isn't usable.
I was not talking about generating cache entries, and neither were you.
I've replied to you because you were suggesting that the EAPI in
ebuilds contents solution had extra cost when
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:31:45 +0200
Thomas de Grenier de Latour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008/06/11, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're missing the cases where the cache isn't usable.
I was not talking about generating cache entries, and neither were
you. I've replied to you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Kelly wrote:
| Wrong.
Thanks for that. I'm gonna assume you meant I think you're wrong.
| Sure, because of how the algorithm works, people could potentially do
| both, but the GLEP makes it pretty clear that they shouldn't.
It doesn't just
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:53:21 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A whole bunch of science packages have upstreams that say If you're
building from source, run 'make check' and if it fails don't carry
on.
Their rationale behind that is that their code is severely
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:50:47 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And saving your ass when you're using a broken compiler that
generates broken code that would force you to reinstall a working
compiler by hand when the package manager gets h0rked.
You (upstream) are supposed to
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:55:16 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But more importantly, it still means that people *know* that a
failing src_test is to be investigated. Currently they instead have
to guess whether it's a lazy developer issue or a genuine bug being
shown.
Not
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:57:35 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
You assume that users have working, properly configured compilers.
It's fairly well established that a lot of them don't, particularly
on Gentoo.
if your code sucks isn't our fault. - gcc
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
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Sure it will. They won't be able to install their package without
either passing src_test or restricting it.
Developers *do* try to install things before committing, right?
No, they also write the ebuilds using cat /dev/urandom through a perl
regexp.
But more
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:57:35 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
You assume that users have working, properly configured compilers.
It's fairly well established that a lot of them don't, particularly
on Gentoo.
if your code sucks isn't our
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:14:03 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:57:35 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
You assume that users have working, properly configured compilers.
It's fairly well established
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Ok, if EAPI 2 turns on src_test except where explicitly overridden by
the ebuild, explain how EAPI 2 src_test failures are meaningless in the
same way that EAPI 0/1 src_test failures are.
Test failures aren't meaningless right now. Applications with good test
suites got
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:18:07 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Ok, if EAPI 2 turns on src_test except where explicitly overridden
by the ebuild, explain how EAPI 2 src_test failures are meaningless
in the same way that EAPI 0/1 src_test failures are.
Test
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 08:18, Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Ok, if EAPI 2 turns on src_test except where explicitly overridden by
the ebuild, explain how EAPI 2 src_test failures are meaningless in the
same way that EAPI 0/1 src_test failures are.
Test
If you need eapi in file name what are the technical reasons of putting
it into file name extension? Why don't you suggest better ebuild name
like:
pkg-ver-eapi.ebuild or pkg-eapi-ver.ebuild ?
I remember last time I've asked this genone told me that this is not
backward compatible. Ok, it's not,
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:25:50 +0400
Peter Volkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you need eapi in file name what are the technical reasons of
putting it into file name extension? Why don't you suggest better
ebuild name like:
pkg-ver-eapi.ebuild or pkg-eapi-ver.ebuild ?
a) breaks current package
On 00:11 Wed 11 Jun , Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
I would like the portage devs to comment upon which of the following features
they think could easily be implemented before portage 2.2 goes stable.
These ones meet the criteria of I know people are working around them
because they don't
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 04:14:58AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:14:11 +0200
Olivier Galibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:02:28PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Except that currently, the ebuild file isn't opened for read. So
it's not in
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:14:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
!-- EAPI=3 --
*Then* would be the time to change the extension. As long as the
ebuild is bash-parseable with an appropriate environment, it doesn't
make sense to change the extension because a env-variable set or a
comment are
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A whole bunch of science packages have upstreams that say If you're
building from source, run 'make check' and if it fails don't carry on.
Their rationale behind that is that their code is severely broken, using
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
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:02:48 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Had you bothered to write even trivial test suites for EAPI 1,
you'd've found at least one major bug straight away.
http://www.pkgcore.org/trac/pkgcore/newticket
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:55:45 -0400
Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:02:48 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Had you bothered to write even trivial test suites for EAPI 1,
you'd've found at least one major bug straight away.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 06:51:46AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:46:39 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:33:41 -0700
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lay out how .006/.6 would work properly *per*
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 08:23:59AM +0100, Richard Brown wrote:
Also, I think you seem to be suggesting that gentoo is so well tested
that once something's marked stable, there's no point in testing it.
A very good point. Just last week the *stable* perl cairo bindings were
broken by a
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
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:31:45 +0200
Thomas de Grenier de Latour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008/06/11, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're missing the cases where the cache isn't usable.
I was not talking
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
Vlastimil Babka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would prefer something that
doesn't add extra lines to ebuild.
I think I would disagree with you here. I think that having a special
'eblank' or 'eseparator' command is much more readable in an ebuild.
Consider:
pkg_postinst() {
elog Knock
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:58, Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot
--
Richard Brown
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the
developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure,
weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup that a
couple of quick unit tests would catch straight away.
No, you
Santiago M. Mola wrote:
It's not as simple as that. A package may fail tests because compiler
bugs, build environment misconfiguration, problems in a library which
is being used, a setup problem or, of course, a bug in the package
which shows up in rare cases and haven't been spotted by upstream
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the
developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure,
weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup that a
couple of quick unit tests would catch
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the
developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure,
weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup that a
couple of quick
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 10 Jun
2008 15:00:18 +0100:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:49:04 -0400
Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4) Putting EAPI inside the ebuild, but in a manner that does not
require sourcing using bash (ie
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:49:19 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is Create tests for EAPI=1 stuff. not a way to describe how
to reproduce a problem?
because EAPI1 isn't specified completely so you don't have a large
field to cover but you also do not know the bounds of it.
Patrick Lauer schrieb:
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the
developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure,
weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
EAPI 1 is entirely specified in terms of a diff against EAPI 0.
That doesn't have a complete definition by itself.
Checking every part that's changed before releasing an EAPI 1 package
manager is the least any responsible person would do. That they would
release a
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the
developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure,
weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 02:00:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:49:19 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is Create tests for EAPI=1 stuff. not a way to describe how
to reproduce a problem?
because EAPI1 isn't specified completely so you don't have
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the
developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure,
weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup that a
couple of quick
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:05:47 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
EAPI 1 is entirely specified in terms of a diff against EAPI 0.
That doesn't have a complete definition by itself.
It's more than enough to write unit tests to ensure that all things
changed from
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:08:20 -0700
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ya know ciaran, I've just got to point out that you spend quite a
large amount of time talking about pkgcore. Literaly- you talk about
it more then I do.
Unfortunately, since you don't care about implementing EAPIs
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
He doesn't point any issue in particular.
And that wasn't the point. He pointed out, that there is an issue, that
hasn't been caught because of missing tests.
That may or may not exist
because EAPI1 isn't specified completely so you don't have a large
field to cover
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?
--
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm)
signature.asc
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:34:43 +0200
Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Presumably those people, if they exist, haven't tried to go through
and install every EAPI 1 package in the tree (excluding KDE, since
that's big and slow, and starting backwards since the x11-
categories are nice
If, as a user or an arch person, I get a src_test failure right now, I
don't know whether this means eek! Something's gone wrong, and I
really need to fix this or oh, whoever maintains this package
doesn't care. But with EAPI 2, I'll be able to know that a src_test
failure really does mean
2008/6/11 Richard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:58, Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot
The following should effectively end
Olivier Galibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:14:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
!-- EAPI=3 --
*Then* would be the time to change the extension. As long as the
ebuild is bash-parseable with an appropriate environment, it doesn't
make sense to change the extension
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Olivier Galibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:14:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
!-- EAPI=3 --
*Then* would be the time to change the extension. As long as the
ebuild is bash-parseable with an appropriate environment, it doesn't
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:07 AM, Jim Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not just bump the filename suffix when it is required to support a
new EAPI that breaks the sourcing rules of previous EAPIs?
Or will backwards-incompatible changes be happening so frequently that
the package suffix will
В Срд, 11/06/2008 в 08:34 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:25:50 +0400
Peter Volkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you need eapi in file name what are the technical reasons of
putting it into file name extension? Why don't you suggest better
ebuild name like:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Presumably those people, if they exist, haven't tried to go through and
install every EAPI 1 package in the tree (excluding KDE, since that's
big and slow, and starting backwards since the x11- categories are nice
and pretty).
Nice game, still you aren't giving substance
Peter Volkov wrote:
Well for me .ebuild-eapi is much more confusing.
I still don't see why it's impossible to have eapi as a part of name but
not in extension...
Although putting EAPI in the name and not the extension is *slightly*
preferable to using the extension, I still do not think that
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:52:24 +:
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 10 Jun
2008 15:00:18 +0100:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:49:04 -0400
Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2008-06-10 15:50, Fernando J. Pereda uttered these thoughts:
On 10 Jun 2008, at 15:46, Joe Peterson wrote:
Also, I'm not sure reading XML is a problem at all - python has good
libs for this already.
Reading XML files is easy, but it makes certain codepaths much much slower.
Not a good
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
ive made this shift in profiles.desc:
sed -ir '/^(arm|s390|sh)/s:stable:dev:' profiles.desc
if/when we get dedicated arch maintainers, they can think about
shifting back
for the confused ...
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?
On Wednesday 11 June 2008 19:00:16 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
On 11-06-2008 20:24:18 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
On Wednesday 11 June 2008 19:00:16 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
Hi,
Peter Alfredsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just for the extra dense among us, does this mean that when a
security bug such as 216850[1] gets closed with no response from
those arches, that in such cases we are allowed punt the affected
ebuild, even though it will break your stable?
No.
V-Li
On 03:06 Wed 11 Jun , 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).
Here's the proposed agenda. I intend to get
Santiago M. Mola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:07 AM, Jim Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not just bump the filename suffix when it is required to
support a new EAPI that breaks the sourcing rules of previous EAPIs?
Or will backwards-incompatible changes be
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
70 matches
Mail list logo
