Re: [gentoo-dev] sci-libs/scipy -> dev-python/scipy ?
On 04:03 Tue 08 Jul , Andrey Grozin wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote: >> I actually object to having crap in dev-python, because things should be >> categorized functionally instead of by the language they're implemented >> in. 90% of the time you don't care about the language. But category >> moves are pretty much pointless, so I don't normally bring it up. > Then this particular case belongs to the other 10% :-) > It is not really important for a user if a library is written in C or > fortran, because he can call it from his own programs written in any > language. But python modules are only useful for somebody who is going to > write his own python code and import them. Right, sure. Here's the way I see it: chances are that someone realizes they want to write a scientific application, and then look to see what libraries are available to write it with, instead of deciding they want to write some sort of library for an unknown purpose using Python and then say, "Hey, I think I'll do something scientific." > sci-libs/scipi and dev-python/scientificpython are two competing projects > which have practically identical aims and descriptions. Do you think this > is logical? Logical? Not particularly. Does it matter, when considering the costs of moving packages in CVS and how search tools work? Not particularly. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com pgpHq5HGFxpQw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] sci-libs/scipy -> dev-python/scipy ?
Donnie Berkholz wrote: > I meant moves were largely pointless, although categories are to a > lesser extent. Tags would be a lot better, since nothing can be > categorized perfectly into a single place. Yes, I can see the benefit of a tag paradigm. I, myself, find it more trouble than benefit to have the extra directory level. I often do "cd /usr/portage/*/foo" to get to the foo package, and it often gets a hit in licenses or elsewhere that trips up this practice... > I don't think it's worth losing track of the CVS history just so we can > have something in a different place that ultimately is hardly useful to > anyone. Ah yes, CVS would present a problem here. I suppose if/when the whole tree is converted to svn, at that point moves would be more practical. Too bad, though, that this has become a barrier to the ability to change a category easily and without losing the history. -Joe -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] sci-libs/scipy -> dev-python/scipy ?
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Donnie Berkholz wrote: >> I actually object to having crap in dev-python, because things should be >> categorized functionally instead of by the language they're implemented >> in. 90% of the time you don't care about the language. But category >> moves are pretty much pointless, so I don't normally bring it up. > > Do you mean it is pointless because categories are pointless, or because > it is not worth the trouble of doing the move? I assume we inherited > the category idea from fbsd ports. It is pointless because we should probably have tags; not categories. It is akin to the Section[1] header in a debian control file. [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-subsections > > Since we have categories (and assuming we'll keep them), I think that > things should be categorized as correctly as possible (perhaps it's not > the highest priority, but better to have it right than not, eventually). Have you moved a package between categories before? It is not simple to do correctly which is why no one likes to do them unless they are 'necessary'. 'epkgmove' invokes bad memories for many ;) > > If it is better to have scipy in sci-libs rather dev-python, then > perhaps other dev-python packages (like you said) should be moved > elsewhere to be consistent. A quick look at the fbsd ports shows that > scipy is in "science" and numpy is in "math" (for example), so that > agrees with your feeling that neither belong in dev-python. > >-Joe > -- > gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list > > -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] sci-libs/scipy -> dev-python/scipy ?
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote: I actually object to having crap in dev-python, because things should be categorized functionally instead of by the language they're implemented in. 90% of the time you don't care about the language. But category moves are pretty much pointless, so I don't normally bring it up. Then this particular case belongs to the other 10% :-) It is not really important for a user if a library is written in C or fortran, because he can call it from his own programs written in any language. But python modules are only useful for somebody who is going to write his own python code and import them. sci-libs/scipi and dev-python/scientificpython are two competing projects which have practically identical aims and descriptions. Do you think this is logical? Andrey -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] sci-libs/scipy -> dev-python/scipy ?
On 21:51 Mon 07 Jul , Joe Peterson wrote: > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > I actually object to having crap in dev-python, because things should be > > categorized functionally instead of by the language they're implemented > > in. 90% of the time you don't care about the language. But category > > moves are pretty much pointless, so I don't normally bring it up. > > Do you mean it is pointless because categories are pointless, or because > it is not worth the trouble of doing the move? I assume we inherited > the category idea from fbsd ports. I meant moves were largely pointless, although categories are to a lesser extent. Tags would be a lot better, since nothing can be categorized perfectly into a single place. > Since we have categories (and assuming we'll keep them), I think that > things should be categorized as correctly as possible (perhaps it's not > the highest priority, but better to have it right than not, eventually). I don't think it's worth losing track of the CVS history just so we can have something in a different place that ultimately is hardly useful to anyone. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com pgpU1gdbNV08g.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] sci-libs/scipy -> dev-python/scipy ?
Donnie Berkholz wrote: > I actually object to having crap in dev-python, because things should be > categorized functionally instead of by the language they're implemented > in. 90% of the time you don't care about the language. But category > moves are pretty much pointless, so I don't normally bring it up. Do you mean it is pointless because categories are pointless, or because it is not worth the trouble of doing the move? I assume we inherited the category idea from fbsd ports. Since we have categories (and assuming we'll keep them), I think that things should be categorized as correctly as possible (perhaps it's not the highest priority, but better to have it right than not, eventually). If it is better to have scipy in sci-libs rather dev-python, then perhaps other dev-python packages (like you said) should be moved elsewhere to be consistent. A quick look at the fbsd ports shows that scipy is in "science" and numpy is in "math" (for example), so that agrees with your feeling that neither belong in dev-python. -Joe -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] sci-libs/scipy -> dev-python/scipy ?
On 02:59 Tue 08 Jul , Andrey Grozin wrote: > Wouldn't it be nice to move scipy from sci-libs to dev-python? All > similar and related packages live in dev-python: numeric, > scientificpython, matplotlib... I know that moving packages is a major > pain in the #$$, but the present situation seems illogical (I would never > guess to search for this package in sci-libs if I didn't know it's > there). Why would you be searching by looking in categories anyway? There are tons of dedicated search tools. I actually object to having crap in dev-python, because things should be categorized functionally instead of by the language they're implemented in. 90% of the time you don't care about the language. But category moves are pretty much pointless, so I don't normally bring it up. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com pgp0sZedpyC12.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] sci-libs/scipy -> dev-python/scipy ?
Hello *, Wouldn't it be nice to move scipy from sci-libs to dev-python? All similar and related packages live in dev-python: numeric, scientificpython, matplotlib... I know that moving packages is a major pain in the #$$, but the present situation seems illogical (I would never guess to search for this package in sci-libs if I didn't know it's there). Andrey -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:10:14 -0400 Jim Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's an interesting solution for those who find it annoying though: > Just file your own 0-day bump request in bugzilla. In theory some > users would find this and just CC themselves on it. Other users could > be shushed with the shame of the DUPLICATE. Everyone wins! I try to do this whenever there's some reason why I can't add a package right away. I also don't see the point of yelling at someone for trying to help in whatever way they can, even if that's in the form of a poke when a new version is released. -- 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] Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 15:33 +, Duncan wrote: > Jim Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], > excerpted below, on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:10:14 -0400: > > > Here's an interesting solution for those who find it annoying though: > > Just file your own 0-day bump request in bugzilla. In theory some users > > would find this and just CC themselves on it. Other users could be > > shushed with the shame of the DUPLICATE. Everyone wins! Just picking a random one to reply to... As stated by the gnome herd - most of them are on the mailing lists, and for packages that I maintain, I tend to be on upstreams mailing list as well. While for the most part, 0day don't extremely bother me, the deluge of mail can be overwhelming at times (even using filters) 47 mailing lists including seperate folders for bugs that are specific to me, my herds, and other herds I am interested in, and playing catch up to all of that after 12 hours of work can get troublesome. Occasionally though, there are the packages that I have that don't have a mailing list, and its nice to know that there are users out there that actually a) use them and b) know that there is a bump before I do. So, really, if upstream has a mailing list/announces a 0 day is unwarranted, if not, then by all means please do. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests
Jim Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:10:14 -0400: > Here's an interesting solution for those who find it annoying though: > Just file your own 0-day bump request in bugzilla. In theory some users > would find this and just CC themselves on it. Other users could be > shushed with the shame of the DUPLICATE. Everyone wins! ++ Interested users find the bug and know you are on it, and (as you said) can CC themselves for further updates. Users who don't look get the hint of a DUP to nudge them to check before filing next time. As you said, everyone wins! (As I posted earlier, I really don't mind a 3-day or 1 week hold-off, either. If devs want it... . But I really don't see the big deal either way, and this way does have the advantages listed above.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: 0-day bump requests
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request? I think any version bump request at any time is worthwhile. The earlier the better! > 2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early > version bump requests? No. And I honestly don't understand other devs' reluctance for 0-day bug requests. Maybe I just don't have enough packages to be annoyed by the bug-spam, or maybe I'm just too lazy to check upstream's sites all day long, but I like to know that people are excited about the packages I maintain. Here's an interesting solution for those who find it annoying though: Just file your own 0-day bump request in bugzilla. In theory some users would find this and just CC themselves on it. Other users could be shushed with the shame of the DUPLICATE. Everyone wins! If someone had huge amounts of time, having a special bugzilla interface to show current, pending, and requested versions of each package (Sort of like an interactive packages.g.o?) may be a neat project... maybe next year's GSOC? P.S. Sorry about the lateness of the post - My ISP's comcastic smtp server decided it wasn't going to work all weekend long. -- Jim Ramsay Gentoo Developer (rox/fluxbox/gkrellm) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
