Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
Quoting Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED]: noone ever suggested that I'd be a case for urgent council decision. That's because your revisions only change once a year. ;-) (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Best regards, Wulf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
Am Mittwoch, 25. April 2007 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:31:48 -0700 Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: printf _rc%d%04d%02d%02d,$RC,$YEAR,$MONTH,$DAY Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal whereas multiple suffixes are legal. PMS permits multiple suffixes, but limits any individual version component to eight digits to avoid problems with integer overflows, floating point precision etc. My point was to avoid providigin existing practice which might need to be respected by either PMS or tree policy. Danny -- Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
Am Mittwoch, 25. April 2007 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:31:48 -0700 Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: printf _rc%d%04d%02d%02d,$RC,$YEAR,$MONTH,$DAY Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal whereas multiple suffixes are legal. PMS permits multiple suffixes, but limits any individual version component to eight digits to avoid problems with integer overflows, floating point precision etc. And when PMS specifies that together with a proper way to compare multiple suffixes there will be no problem. This Council decission was to avoid 'existing practice' that might be necessary to include in PMS. Danny -- Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:31:48 -0700 Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: printf _rc%d%04d%02d%02d,$RC,$YEAR,$MONTH,$DAY Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal whereas multiple suffixes are legal. PMS permits multiple suffixes, but limits any individual version component to eight digits to avoid problems with integer overflows, floating point precision etc. Give that all we need for mplayer is a date (as in mmdd) I think we could come up with a good interim workaround. I'd like to have multiple suffixes restored anyway... lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:57:39 +0200 Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal whereas multiple suffixes are legal. PMS permits multiple suffixes, but limits any individual version component to eight digits to avoid problems with integer overflows, floating point precision etc. And when PMS specifies that together with a proper way to compare multiple suffixes there will be no problem. PMS *does* specify a proper way of comparing multiple version suffixes (and version specs with a leading zero for that matter). I'm not particularly happy with the wording, but as far as I can see the description is at least correct, even if it isn't clear. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Seemant Kulleen wrote: If I were to guess I'd say people are a little confused that this required action/decision this quickly and outside of a regular council meeting -- for a real emergency situation, you'd probably see a lot less of a hub-bub about it. But, come on, this is a 3-package issue. Perhaps they wanted to make sure it remained a 3-package issue, and thought that it might grow before it could be addressed? This all seems a bit like a tempest in a teapot to me, and I don't mean to single out any individual's contribution to this discussion. The council has stated that multiple version suffixes are to be avoided. I doubt they're going to suspend any developer who hasn't cleaned up their packages by Friday. I'm sure they're happy to see discussion on - -dev regarding pros and cons of various ways of implementing this change before it happens, and in the meantime new packages going into portage will be mindful of the policy from the start. If a particular package needs a month to sort out some really messy issue I'm sure the maintainer would be treated reasonably if they simply emailed a council member about it. Gentoo is a community, and sometimes people in a community don't always agree. Somebody has to make a decision, and we can't make every hill the one we're willing to die on. The council will generally represent the majority opinion of developers, simply due to the fact that it is an elected body. Sometimes in a community cohesiveness is more important than productivity, because it is the ability to mobilize hordes of developers that matters more than the contributions of any individual. Sometimes that means an elegant solution to a problem gets put on the back burner for a few months. Sometimes that means that a developer who is unusually productive is asked to cool down a little. Personally, my feeling has always been that if you want to avoid politics then avoid doing things that create political messes (flamewars, heated discussion, etc). If you disagree passionately with somebody about something, try having a private email conversation where both of you can let down your guard and try to understand each other's concerns. And then don't go quoting each other all over public lists to bolster your arguments... Remember, everybody is here to make Gentoo a better product, because we're all users as well as contributors. When users file poorly-worded bugs they're just trying to help, and when some developer makes an idiotic decision they probably think they're doing the right thing. That means that they're going to be automatically predisposed to helping you out if you just ask nicely. When posting as a user in bugzilla I've been flamed more than a few times (and not just on gentoo). I just try to be as polite as I can - after all I'm the one asking for a little help and somebody else is taking the time to help me. After all, it doesn't cost me anything, and down the road it could pay dividends. The same applies in reverse - being nice to others doesn't really cost you anything, and you never know when you will need their help down the road... -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGLzbBG4/rWKZmVWkRAkjoAKCZnydd8Y6ZFVVIbz5sh/0sryuxoQCeMFh7 sQ+Icf4GdB1dlEezRxdgvpM= =hpaU -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
As usual if you have issues with the council's decision, this is the wrong list to complain on. Try [EMAIL PROTECTED], I here they have popcorn. This is the right list to discuss versioning schemes though. -Alec -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 21:25 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote: On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 00:30 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: In my eyes it was a policy issue. Tree-wide policies have to pass the council in one form or the other. So why shouldn't Council care here? My argument is not that Council should not care. My question is: what's the big urgency to rush a half-baked policy through? Except that nobody did that. Read what was done. What was done was a *temporary* block on something that needed further discussion was put in place. Nobody held any emergency meeting. A subset of the Council just used some common sense and said something like hey, maybe we should block this until there is proper discussion and a proper solution is found which makes complete sense to me. I wasn't even involved in the situation and I can see how this happened. As I said, anyone who cannot see just how simple of a thing this was is either blind or specifically looking for something to complain about. I just wonder why several people feel attacked by this decission while the affected parties have no problem with it. I hope you don't mean me here, because I haven't felt attacked at all. My concern isn't a personal one. Rather, it's a question that nobody from the council has actually answered: what was the big hurry to make a decision _NOW_ without even thinking through the migration path, or for that matter without even knowing what is the actual correct way. It's fine to say that _rc_alpha_beta_p is wrong (and I happen to agree). It's another to not say what is actually right. Furthermore, if only 3 packages did the wrong thing where was the emergency? There was no emergency. Nobody from the Council has ever said it was an emergency. I think you were the one that stated that it was. Also, realize that the decision wasn't a solution to the problem. Again, nobody said that it was. The only problem that I see is that we didn't act soon enough. As soon as there was some conflict on how to allow the multiple version suffixes, somebody should have stopped any packages form using them in the tree until a solution was decided. I'm not trying to make you defensive, I just really would like an answer to my question, that is all. I've answered it to the best of my ability and it is hard to not get defensive when every decision your group makes is attacked on multiple fronts by people that put you in the position to make those exact same decisions. It really has made me wonder what the point in being on the Council is if we can't do anything without being assaulted on all sides. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 08:55 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote: On a general note - if you are unable to agree upon an acceptable solution, then better refrain from taking 'emergency' measures on issues where there's no emergency whatsoever. There's been a bug open for over two months and noone ever suggested that I'd be a case for urgent council decision. I don't understand how nobody can see that the *TEMPORARY* injunction against packages using this versioning scheme was put into place *BECAUSE* nobody could agree on the solution. Actually, nevermind. I digress. You're right. The Council screwed up. Feel free to give us all our 50 lashings and we'll be done with this crap. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 09:35 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: Hereby I would like to request the counsel to discuss this mini-GLEP in the first meeting for which this request is in time. You got this in just in time for the next Council meeting. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 07:08 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote: Perhaps they wanted to make sure it remained a 3-package issue, and thought that it might grow before it could be addressed? Exactly. I agree with the rest of what you've said, also. Being on the Council is a thankless job where we try our best to do what's best for Gentoo as a whole. This means that we *will* end up making some decision at some time that you might not agree with. This *is* going to happen. Hell, there have been Council decisions made that *I* don't agree with, but you don't see me running around acting like the Council is doing something wrong when they're doing their job. Honestly, all this has done is made me not want to make any decisions, which will turn us into the previous leadership, which I don't blame for the inaction from their group, as that was all they were given. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:12:49 -0400 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand how nobody can see that the *TEMPORARY* injunction against packages using this versioning scheme was put into place *BECAUSE* nobody could agree on the solution. Mmm, no, what's weird is that you did it about two days after a solution was found... -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On 4/25/07, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand how nobody can see that the *TEMPORARY* injunction against packages using this versioning scheme was put into place *BECAUSE* nobody could agree on the solution. Actually, nevermind. I digress. You're right. The Council screwed up. Feel free to give us all our 50 lashings and we'll be done with this crap. Sigh... It for sure did sound like 'oh noes, the end of the world is near if we don't stop this immediately!!!111!'. Sorry, but I really fail to see the need to use such procedures when the only 2 remaining packages (eh, actually just one, the obsolete transcode ebuild is gone) clearly use multiple version suffixes because it makes a lot of sense to use them and they use them in a pretty sane way (unlike all the crazy _alpha_beta_rc_pre examples given on the relevant bug and elsewhere in this debate). It's not like that the maintainers would use such stuff because 'oh it's so cl to have multiple version suffixes, I must commit at least one such ebuild'. What's exactly your 'sane version specification' that you ask the maintainers of such ebuilds to move them to 'as soon as possible'? And why's moving them ASAP exactly needed? -- Jakub Moc Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
RE: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:12:49 -0400 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand how nobody can see that the *TEMPORARY* injunction against packages using this versioning scheme was put into place *BECAUSE* nobody could agree on the solution. On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:22 Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mmm, no, what's weird is that you did it about two days after a solution was found... How is this conversation even relevant to development anymore? It sounds more policy, well questioning authority, and that is clearly meant for another ML. Can we please move on past the how did the council decide to make this decision and the why did the council make this decision? Try [EMAIL PROTECTED] for answers to those questions, after all, anyone can be on that ML so it's not like its going to be 'closed door' information. A more appropriate discussion for here would be what do we do to start working with this decision? Regards, Chrissy Fullam -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:40:17 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sigh... It for sure did sound like 'oh noes, the end of the world is near if we don't stop this immediately!!!111!'. Sorry, but I really fail to see the need to use such procedures when the only 2 remaining packages (eh, actually just one, the obsolete transcode ebuild is gone) clearly use multiple version suffixes because it makes a lot of sense to use them and they use them in a pretty sane way (unlike all the crazy _alpha_beta_rc_pre examples given on the relevant bug and elsewhere in this debate). The issue is that it's a not particularly nice package manager feature that's only needed for two packages. In general in those situations the solution is to use some kind of workaround for the small number of affected packages rather than making things even more complicated than they already are. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
@council; cross posting to provide the reasoning, if discussion continues on council ml, kindly cc me (unsubscribed long ago). Technical discussion (which should be the basis of why it was banned should be on dev ml imo). On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:11:44PM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: Hi all, [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th, 2007] A subset of council members decided today that multiple version suffixes are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This decission can be appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is sufficient public demand, an earlier meeting can be held. Rules for 'appealing' are a wee bit sparse, but consider this email an appeal to reopen the issue at the next council meeting (and a suggestion to figure out what appealing requires/involves). Offhand, while there has been sqawking, the functionality has been available for over a year (first 2.1 release of portage), pkgcore has long term supported it, paludis will support it in next released version (it's in trunk at least), PMS has the basic comparison rules doc'd out in addition. As others have said, but reiterating in this message- the only 'recent' change for multi-suffix is unlocking it in repoman so folks could use it; nature of backwards compatibility, the support had to be left locked for 6 months to preclude issues from stage releases, only change this side of 2007 was unlocking it. Meanwhile, bug involved which is basically resolved at this point- http://bugs.gentoo.org/166522 If the intention of the subset was to limit things till the allowed permutations of multi-suffix are worked out, please clarify- at least what I've seen thread wise, haven't seen a real explanation for it beyond multi-suffix is icky and robbat2 has a hackish alternative :) This decission has been made to prevent sufficient precedence for unilateral changes to the tree structure. So far the following package versions are considered illegal: Please expand further on this one- no offense meant, but the offered reason is slightly weasely in that it's not really saying anything, what it is saying is pretty obfuscated. Best I can figure, the offered reason is it needs to be blocked before it becomes widespread thus cannot be blocked any further- which isn't much of a reason since the support is long term there already, and doesn't state *why* it needs to be blocked (just states it needs to be blocked). I'm not a mind reader, so lets just assume I'm misreading it. Either way, feel free to expound on the 'why' (either ml or via council appeal). An illegal version specification of media-sound/alsa-driver has already been removed from the tree. I would like to ask the affected package maintainers to move these versions to sane version specifications as soon as possible. Thanks in advance for this. In the future when a subset (or full council, whatever) decides to ban functionality such as this, strongly suggest they ban *further* usage of it- implicit there is that the existing usage is left alone till a full decision can be reached. Y'all banned all usage of it, meaning people have to make changes now. Reasoning is pretty simple; at least for the two versions above, via making it illegal it forces them to transition to a hasty versioning scheme that may (frankly) suck- such as robbats proposal (his proposal works, but it's not human friendly and frankly serves more as a demonstration of why multi-suffix is useful). Joking aside, if the intention is to block further usage till the permutations allowed are ironed out, fair enough- would strongly suggest not decreeing they've got to go now when you're stating in the same breath the decision will (effectively) be revisited a few weeks later. Especially since changes to the versioning scheme can be a royal pain in the ass transitioning away from afterwards. ~harring pgpdYeEDyq3bu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:57:39 +0200 Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal whereas multiple suffixes are legal. PMS permits multiple suffixes, but limits any individual version component to eight digits to avoid problems with integer overflows, floating point precision etc. And when PMS specifies that together with a proper way to compare multiple suffixes there will be no problem. PMS *does* specify a proper way of comparing multiple version suffixes (and version specs with a leading zero for that matter). I'm not particularly happy with the wording, but as far as I can see the description is at least correct, even if it isn't clear. Alright guys, This is enough. PMS is a work in progress its not going to cover everything that users and developers are going to be in some cases boneheaded enough to actually pull off (always have edge conditions). We're continuing to downgrade here and quite frankly the discussions seem be getting into tangents more then the actual topic at hand (you know...the fact about what the proper suffix format is), and that is up to the council to decide. If you have issues with the council, bring it up in the proper channel, as others have mentioned where its at. Now either get it back on topic, take it to private emails to discuss between yourselves, or take up the issues that relate to the council, to the councils mailing-list/members. They are actually you know...alive and willing to talk to you. Annoyed proctor out signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:06:55 -0700 Joshua Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is enough. PMS is a work in progress its not going to cover everything that users and developers are going to be in some cases boneheaded enough to actually pull off (always have edge conditions). No no, you miss the point. If developers are doing something, either PMS needs to allow it or they have to stop doing it. It's entirely relevant to the topic at hand. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi. Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:06:55 -0700 Joshua Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is enough. PMS is a work in progress its not going to cover everything that users and developers are going to be in some cases boneheaded enough to actually pull off (always have edge conditions). No no, you miss the point. If developers are doing something, either PMS needs to allow it or they have to stop doing it. It's entirely relevant to the topic at hand. I agree. Also, this issue has arisen from a change in current policy. Even if Portage and repoman now allow the use of multiple suffixes, the devmanual still states that's illegal - so it's illegal in current policy. Instead of people arguing about a decision to uphold the current policy, I think they should be asking that we have a discussion about the current policy and propose alternatives, like is being done on the bug, and in the end submit it to the council for a voting. - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo-forums / Userrel / Proctors -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGL5HTcAWygvVEyAIRAvNsAJ9FFkIWUbLjmsBHskfaxZbN0Fo7LgCgk5o9 UBuUR5erFfG3rFEktEhNiJ8= =r7Pd -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This wouldn't have to be because you have a vested interest in paludis and paludis does not support this syntax and there happens to be no reasonable way to support that? Cut the conspiracy theories. Paludis will support whatever PMS says it should support. Released versions supported what PMS said at that time (which went in line with the Portage documentation), and the next release will support whatever PMS says then (which currently goes against the Portage documentation, but along with Portage behaviour). Ciaran, You missed the bandwagon on trying to use the conspiracy theories phrase already. That happened a full 24 hrs ago. I'm sorry you were off-line. Next time try to come to the party on time, otherwise keep quiet. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
Ciaran, You missed the bandwagon on trying to use the conspiracy theories phrase already. That happened a full 24 hrs ago. I'm sorry you were off-line. Next time try to come to the party on time, otherwise keep quiet. Already been handled as its offtopic, please just let this one drop. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme
Fabian Groffen wrote: [Sat Apr 14 2007, 03:33:03AM CDT] For people that like reading it in html or via the web: http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.html http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.txt So what would a version of Gentoo for amd64 based on FreeBSD but using glibc be called? (It's not an entirely academic question; Debian folks have worked on such a distribution for some time.) I can't really tell from the text in your proposed GLEP. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgp10ctELm7SK.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Last rites for dev-java/puretls
+# Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] (25 Apr 2007) +# TLS support is included in the JDK since 1.4. If you want +# spare this package mail to the gentoo-java mailing list. +# Otherwise going to the junkyard after 30 days. +dev-java/puretls + signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme
Grant Goodyear a écrit : Fabian Groffen wrote: [Sat Apr 14 2007, 03:33:03AM CDT] For people that like reading it in html or via the web: http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.html http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.txt So what would a version of Gentoo for amd64 based on FreeBSD but using glibc be called? (It's not an entirely academic question; Debian folks have worked on such a distribution for some time.) I can't really tell from the text in your proposed GLEP. I'm sure this GLEP can be extended later on should anyone feel like doing a glibc-based freebsd port of gentoo (hurts my brains just writing this :) ) Rémi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:56:02 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Best I can figure, the offered reason is it needs to be blocked before it becomes widespread thus cannot be blocked any further- which isn't much of a reason since the support is long term there already, and doesn't state *why* it needs to be blocked (just states it needs to be blocked). It's better stated as we need to put a hold on this so that a reasoned discussion can be had, and a decision made, before use becomes so widespread as to force the issue regardless of what is decided on technical merits. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] That time again...
Worth a shot, it seemed to work last time (and I just noticed that a neglected -dev mail folder is a bad thing). G-cpan-0.15 was put out last night; 99% bug fixes, a few easter eggs, and some tweaks. Any other cool updates in the last few weeks? (it's been 20 days since the last time I started this thread - at this rate, we might make enough input to make Chris' job on the gwn easier). -- -o()o-- Michael Cummings |#gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl Gentoo Perl Dev|on irc.freenode.net Gentoo/SPARC Gentoo/AMD64 GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7 8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E -o()o-- Hi, I'm a .signature virus! Please copy me in your ~/.signature. pgpZXxlysQns5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:39:47 +0200
Rémi Cardona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grant Goodyear a écrit :
Fabian Groffen wrote: [Sat Apr 14 2007, 03:33:03AM CDT]
For people that like reading it in html or via the web:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.html
http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.txt
So what would a version of Gentoo for amd64 based on FreeBSD but
using glibc be called? (It's not an entirely academic question;
Debian folks have worked on such a distribution for some time.)
I can't really tell from the text in your proposed GLEP.
I'm sure this GLEP can be extended later on should anyone feel like
doing a glibc-based freebsd port of gentoo (hurts my brains just
writing this :) )
I think it will be better if this scheme is specified in friendlier
way for future expansions, hence I this it should be more flexible.
I would propose this two modifications:
(a) Instead of using n-tuples to describe a keyword, to use sets.
Both ways can be made semantically equivalent if we add the
restrictions that the sets of all the possible architecture, kernel,
userland, libc, ... sub-keywords are disjoint. (i.e. If there is a
userland sub-keyword bsd, then there can't be a kernel or libc
sub-keyword named bsd, they have to be named in a slightly different
way.)
But on the other hand, the notation will be way more flexible as a
keyword can only specify the relevant sub-keywords, while the rest can
be considered to be a wildcard (to mean all)
(b) In case there are several keywords A and B:
- if A is more specific that B, A takes precedence (ej. with !uclibc
arm:uclibc the package can be installed on any system that does not
uses uclibc as libc or on any system with arm hardware.)
- if A is exactly as specific as B, the union of A and B is used (ej.
!uclibc arm this is equivalent to the previous example.)
So to give more examples,
A package that can only be build on arm, sparc and x86 with linux and
glibc or arm with uclibc can be specified as:
{arm,sparc,x86}:linux:glibc arm:uclibc
A package (lets say linux-headers) that makes sense on all systems that
support linux and only them can be specified as:
linux
A package that is stable with gnu userland but still in testing with
bsd userland:
{some,arches}:gnu ~{some,arches}:bsd or just gnu ~bsd for all
arches.
Note that I propose to mark testing the whole set of sub-keywords, not
just like I run stable x86 with unstable bsd as I think it does not make
any sense as the resulting combination is still considered
unstable/testing.
There are two things I see against my proposal:
- This is not fully backward compatible, as it is currently equivalent
to normal arch keywords if the user runs linux with glibc/uclibc,
while it has a completely different meaning for Gentoo/Alt users.
But I don't see it as a big problem because, as far as I understand,
this will be just one of many changes that need to be made to make
Gentoo/Alt as integrated as GNU/Linux is now into portage.
- For this to work, the keyword resolver will have to be way more
complex than it is now, as it will have to compute the subset of all
possible keywords some ebuild defines to see if user's accept
keywords intersect it.
Kindest regards,
Yuri.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] That time again...
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 20:12 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote: G-cpan-0.15 was put out last night; 99% bug fixes, a few easter eggs, and some tweaks. Any other cool updates in the last few weeks? (it's been 20 days since the last time I started this thread - at this rate, we might make enough input to make Chris' job on the gwn easier). I'll use this to send out the message that I was going to send anyways :) I have just placed gentoolkit-dev-0.2.6.5 in the tree which contains an echangelog that supports subversion and git (thanks to antarus and genstef). It is currently package masked so that it can be fully tested. Anyhow, consider this a call for people to test. If you run into any bugs please report them on bug #136048. Secondly, the next pre-release of gentoolkit (gentoolkit-0.2.4_pre6) will have two new utilities in the path (thanks to solar), genpkgindex and epkginfo. genpkgindex creates metadata for binary packages and is suitable for use with qmerge from portage-utils. epkginfo is a small program that will display metadata information about packages in portage. Regards, Paul -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
