Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/memdump: memdump-1.0.1.ebuild ChangeLog

2009-01-06 Thread Peter Volkov

Daniel, answering you in this mail... Yes, probably sometimes we have to
discuss basic things in this mailing list but since developers do this
basic errors we have to. Technical problems in our portage tree are
perfectly valid for this mailing list.

В Пнд, 05/01/2009 в 13:55 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan пишет:
  SRC_URI=http://www.porcupine.org/forensics/${PN}-1.01.tar.gz; 
 
 
 Missing MY_PV I presume?

Hardcoded version makes version bumps harder. I'm not sure why ebuild
was versioned differently from tarbal but yes, in this case it's better
to use versionator eclass define PV.

  RDEPEND=virtual/libc
   ^^
 
 Useless deps which are already in @system?

Dependency on libc is completely useless since every usable system have
C library.

  S=${WORKDIR}/${PN}-1.01
  
 
 Quotes and ${MY_PV} missing?

You don't need quotes in assignments. It hardcoded version again.

  src_compile() {
cd ${S}/memdump-1.01
   
 
 Quotes, and ${PN}-${MY_PV} ?
 Although, should this even be required since ${S} is already set correctly?

src_compile initial working directory is S so this line could (and
should) be just dropped.

einfo testing
if [ `./memdump -s 344 | wc -c` = 344 ];
then
einfo passed test
else
die failed test
fi
 
 Here, why not use
 
 einfo testing
 [ `./memdump -s 344 | wc -c` = 344 ] || die failed test
 einfo passed test

Yup. It's shorter and does same thing.

-- 
Peter.




Re: [gentoo-dev] [v4] Planning for automatic assignment computation of bugs

2009-01-06 Thread Peter Volkov
В Вск, 04/01/2009 в 18:57 +0100, Robert Buchholz пишет:
 On Sunday 04 January 2009, Mike Auty wrote:
  Jeroen Roovers wrote:
   The order (first maintainer as assignee or first maintainer/herd
   as assignee) is open to discussion and I think this is the proper
   forum to have that discussion.

 I actually implemented it this way before (only that I had all herds 
 with higher priority than all maintainers, which is the reverse of your 
 patch).

 Accepting the fact that different teams have different preferences, we 
 need to find a solution for them to set theirs individually. This could 
 either be the order of elements in metadata.xml (and would set the 
 preference on a per-package basis) or some attribute in herds.xml 
 (which would be a global setting per herd, and we'd need to find a 
 default).

It looks like we really need some per-team configuration for default
assignment. Probably it's good idea to add 'weight' (or 'nice')
attribute for herd and maintainer elements both in herds.xml and
metadata.xml. Bug assignment field will be selected from the elements
with minimal weight (least nice ;)). IMO best is to assign on first
(any) maintainer in this list and on first (any) herd if there is no
maintainer elements there. If weight is defined in multiple places, per
category weight overrides weight from herd.xml and weight in
metadata.xml overrides everything. This allows easy way to define any
policy team wants but still allow maintainer to override team
preference. What do you think?

-- 
Peter.




Re: [gentoo-dev] [v4] Planning for automatic assignment computation of bugs

2009-01-06 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 06:12:17PM +, Mike Auty wrote:
 a) herds.xml per-herd priority flag (herd gets assigned)
 b) metadata.xml priority element (can be opt-in or opt-out)
 c) order of elements in metadata.xml
 
 I'm personally not keen on the order of elements, since adding meaning
 to the order might mean a fair number of misassignments until people fix
 the metadata.xml files.
How many metadata files have the ordering wrong to start with?
Of the packages I maintain, just looking at a handful, very few have it
bad enough that I'd bother complaining rather than just changing them.

 The herds.xml element isn't very specific, but if the herd-first rules
 apply to the whole herd, then it's probably the least-impact solution.
 
 Finally, if we think we'll ever need something more specific than
 herds.xml, we could add an extra element.  priority type=herd or
 priority type=maintainer could be added to the minority case (I'm
 not sure which has fewer ebuilds, but if there's hard and fast rules
 this should be relatively automatable).
Neither set of rules is ideal. Ordering makes a lot of sense when you
just read it. Consider metadata with multiple maintainers and multiple
herds. Either you have to start assigning explicitly (requires editing
metadata.xml), or you need to fall back to ordering. If you're going to
do ordering further down, why not do it from the start and be done with
it.

For anybody that wants to complain that XML is unordered - it isn't,
consider an HTML document that is also well-formed XML and validates
against a DTD. You wouldn't want your paragraphs changing order on you.

Count of total herd+mainteiner elements and how many metadata.xml files
have the count:
1  7842
2  4958
3   290
435

By number of herds:
026
1 12720
2   359
319
4 1

By number of maintainers:
0  8135
1  4730
2   241
319

If we assume that every metadata.xml with 2 or more items is wrong, thats at
most 40% of the tree.  I say go with ordering. I think it will affect less than
10% of packages in the end, and for large swaths it won't matter (dev-perl and
dev-$LANG in general, which account for some 20% of the tree).

Also, maintainers that don't want dupe assignments (normally because they in
the herd) are going to be editing anyway, and I think that will cover a lot of
the required edit cases as well.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer  Infra Guy
E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85


pgpjPb7RMwP4M.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [v4] Planning for automatic assignment computation of bugs

2009-01-06 Thread Mike Auty
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Robin H. Johnson wrote:
 Neither set of rules is ideal. Ordering makes a lot of sense when you
 just read it. Consider metadata with multiple maintainers and multiple
 herds. Either you have to start assigning explicitly (requires editing
 metadata.xml), or you need to fall back to ordering. If you're going to
 do ordering further down, why not do it from the start and be done with
 it.

Ok, I'm convinced.  5:)  I tend not to prefer having hidden meanings,
but as you point out XML is ordered, and you definitely made the case
that it won't have a large impact.  Fine by me...  5:)

Mike  5:)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkljaG4ACgkQu7rWomwgFXq53gCeMRe+n+S6N2za00zuHjrge/gw
nUIAniyeVK/RTlVUaR2Q3Eqw+5cCMIoU
=01UN
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



[gentoo-dev] Re: reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files

2009-01-06 Thread Ryan Hill
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:12:23 +0100
Fabio Rossi ross...@inwind.it wrote:

 I'm proposing to reorganize the files related to Gentoo
 inside /var/lib. Currently we have this situation (at least on my
 system):
 
 /var/lib/eselect
 /var/lib/gentoo/enews
 /var/lib/herdstat/
 /var/lib/module-rebuild
 /var/lib/portage

/var/lib/wxwidgets is also gentoo/eselect specific FWIW.

 The main dir should be something like /var/lib/gentoo, so I'd see all 
 gentoo-related files as
 
 /var/lib/gentoo/eselect
 /var/lib/gentoo/enews
 /var/lib/gentoo/herdstat/
 /var/lib/gentoo/module-rebuild
 /var/lib/gentoo/portage
 
 What do you think about?

i kinda like it how it is.

-- 
gcc-porting,  by design, by neglect
treecleaner,  for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[gentoo-dev] Re: Last Rites: app-portage/udept

2009-01-06 Thread Ryan Hill
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:47:47 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:

 While I'm at it, is there anything useful to display metadata.xml?
 In particular, the long descriptions and use flags can be useful.
 With use.desc and especially the local version thereof going
 deprecated, and with additional info about global flags sometimes in
 the metadata...

md() {
cat $(dirname $(equery w $1))/metadata.xml
}

can also replace cat with less and metadata.xml with ChangeLog, etc.

-- 
gcc-porting,  by design, by neglect
treecleaner,  for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [v4] Planning for automatic assignment computation of bugs

2009-01-06 Thread Tiziano Müller
Am Sonntag, den 04.01.2009, 18:06 +0100 schrieb Jeroen Roovers:
 On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:02:21 +
 Mike Auty ike...@gentoo.org wrote:
 
  According to [1], When the file lists multiple entries, then you
  assign the bug to the first maintainer, and CC the other
  maintainer(s) and herd(s).  So it looks as though the file should go
  through the maintainers first and herds second?  Should be pretty
  easy to fix...
 
 I spotted that too but didn't remember putting it in black and white. :)
 
 The order (first maintainer as assignee or first maintainer/herd as
 assignee) is open to discussion and I think this is the proper forum to
 have that discussion.

I'd say that the correct way to fix this is to fix the metadata schema
to be able to write something like this:

maintainer
  teamfoo/team
/maintainer
maintainer
  devadev/dev
/maintainer
maintainer
  teambar/team
/maintainer

or

maintainer type=teamfoo/maintainer
maintainer type=devadev/maintainer
maintainer type=teambar/maintainer

Because having to write this:

herdfoo/herd
maintaineremaila...@gentoo.org/email/maintainer
herdbar/herd

is just nonsense.

Cheers,
Tiziano

-- 
---
Tiziano Müller
Gentoo Linux Developer
Areas of responsibility:
  Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin
E-Mail : dev-z...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5  4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30


signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil