Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] [EAPI=3] Add approprietly prefixed values of IUSE_* variables to IUSE
2009-07-05 13:36:24 David Leverton napisał(a):
> On Sunday 05 July 2009 03:33:54 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > I would like to suggest that values of IUSE_* variables (whose names end
> > with values of USE_EXPAND variable), after prefixing with lower-cased names
> > of appropriate variables included in USE_EXPAND, should be automatically
> > added to IUSE variable.
>
> USE_EXPAND is set in the profiles, so it can't be used during metadata
> generation.
OK. I think that the proposed new behavior could concern all IUSE_* variables
(maybe except IUSE_IMPLICIT).
> > It's a zero-cost feature implemented in the attached patch, so including it
> > in EAPI=3 (after temporary unlocking of list of features of EAPI=3)
> > wouldn't delay implementing support for EAPI=3 in Portage.
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20090409-summary.txt
Council can vote on changing of its previous decisions.
--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
Index: bin/ebuild.sh
===
--- bin/ebuild.sh (revision 13805)
+++ bin/ebuild.sh (working copy)
@@ -1182,6 +1182,24 @@
debug-print "now in section $*"
}
+expand_IUSE() {
+ if ! has "${EAPI:-0}" 0 1 2 ; then
+ local var flag flag_prefix
+ for var in ${!IUSE_*} ; do
+ if [[ $var != IUSE_IMPLICIT ]] ; then
+for flag in ${!var} ; do
+ flag_prefix=
+ if [[ ${flag:0:1} == [+-] ]] ; then
+ flag_prefix=${flag:0:1}
+ flag=${flag:1}
+ fi
+ IUSE="$IUSE $flag_prefix$(echo ${var#IUSE_} | LC_ALL=C tr [:upper:] [:lower:])_$flag"
+done
+ fi
+ done
+ fi
+}
+
# Sources all eclasses in parameters
declare -ix ECLASS_DEPTH=0
inherit() {
@@ -1268,6 +1286,8 @@
#turn off glob expansion
set -f
+ expand_IUSE
+
# If each var has a value, append it to the global variable E_* to
# be applied after everything is finished. New incremental behavior.
[ "${IUSE-unset}"!= "unset" ] && export E_IUSE="${E_IUSE} ${IUSE}"
@@ -1785,6 +1805,12 @@
# eclasses, they need to be unset before this process of
# interaction begins.
unset DEPEND RDEPEND PDEPEND IUSE
+ local var
+ for var in ${!IUSE_*} ; do
+ if [[ $var != IUSE_IMPLICIT ]] ; then
+ unset $var
+ fi
+ done
source "${EBUILD}" || die "error sourcing ebuild"
if [ "${EBUILD_PHASE}" != "depend" ] ; then
@@ -1808,6 +1834,8 @@
unset ECLASS E_IUSE E_DEPEND E_RDEPEND E_PDEPEND
+ expand_IUSE
+
# alphabetically ordered by $EBUILD_PHASE value
local f valid_phases
case "$EAPI" in
Index: bin/isolated-functions.sh
===
--- bin/isolated-functions.sh (revision 13805)
+++ bin/isolated-functions.sh (working copy)
@@ -512,8 +512,8 @@
abort_test abort_install dyn_prepare dyn_configure \
dyn_compile dyn_test dyn_install \
dyn_preinst dyn_help debug-print debug-print-function \
- debug-print-section inherit EXPORT_FUNCTIONS newdepend newrdepend \
- newpdepend do_newdepend remove_path_entry \
+ debug-print-section expand_IUSE inherit EXPORT_FUNCTIONS \
+ newdepend newrdepend newpdepend do_newdepend remove_path_entry \
save_ebuild_env filter_readonly_variables preprocess_ebuild_env \
source_all_bashrcs ebuild_main \
ebuild_phase ebuild_phase_with_hooks \
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Preparing profiles for EAPI 3 IUSE strictness
2009-07-07 01:01:11 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): > ... > Finally, there's room to include plain old flags in IUSE automatically. > This was added to the specification as a hypothetical "we might want > this, and it's easy to specify and implement" rather than a "we'll > definitely be using this". Flags that I'm aware of that regularly get > abused are: > > IUSE_IMPLICIT="build debug" > > Are people wanting to make those implicit? IMHO they shouldn't be implicit. (And maybe IUSE_IMPLICIT shouldn't be supported at all.) -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Re: About time to unify 'cdda' and 'cdaudio' USE flags and make the remaining one global?
Jesús Guerrero posted 524cf6368e2642a1637e6e3054466e3d.squir...@jesgue.homelinux.org, excerpted below, on Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:30:58 +0200: > On Tue, July 7, 2009 15:35, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: >> Le mardi 07 juillet 2009 à 13:57 +0100, AllenJB a écrit : [snip] >> >>> Are users really going to want to fine-tune between just playing or >>> also being able to rip/write audio cd's? >> >> I myself would probably not separate those features but they might be >> because they pull a number of different libs. > Ripping a cd just requires raw access to the device. > Playing cdaudio requires a lot more stuff, besides many other thing it > will require a working sound system > You might use a computer to rip cdaudio to fill your portable mp3 player > or to do backups, that doesn't mean that you want alsa in that machine, > you might not even have speakers attached. >> Getting informations from cddb or musicbrainz is another story >> and I wouldn't like to see this notion merged with cdaudio. > cddb must stay as it is, there's no reason to change that. > Whether you pick cdda, cdaudio or audiocd is completely unimportant to > me, the other two functionalities shouldn't have anything to do with > this. I don't really care whether the flags are merged or not, but what I'd DEFINITELY find useful is per-package metadata on what the flag actually does for that package. If that means splitting flags down a bit, so the metadata is in the USE flag itself (paranoia: paranoia support, cdda: cdda support, cdripping: ripping support, alsa: alsa support, etc), great. If it means it's just one big cdaudio flag, but each package has its own metadata saying what it actually does with it, that's great too. However, that'll mean a big change from today, as few packages have that detailed metadata on what their USE flags actually do. While we're at it, getting user-visible documentation on flag conflicts would be nice, too. (also OR oss flag, if both are enabled, alsa is the default, that type of comment in the metadata.) It's frustrating and time consuming to have to dig into the ebuild code itself to see what the dependency/support actually is, or even worse, to have to dig into the package code or README/INSTALL files to get that info. How many times have I seen a USE flag and asked myself, OK, but what does that actually MEAN, in terms of dependencies, etc? An unrelated but good example of that is USE=doc. Fortunately, there's a number of packages that have local descriptions. But it's way too few compared to those that have it in IUSE but don't explain what it actually means in the package. Is it huge dependencies, huge build-times, huge size, simply unnecessary for the user, or a combination, if it's a combination, which, and if it's dependencies, which ones? (This one is at the top of my mind ATM due to the recent but now corrected USE=doc abuse for kde4. Thanks, kde team, for fixing that. It was very frustrating, but I realize the Gentoo packages were still in the heavy development and experimentation stage.) -- 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
Re: [gentoo-dev] rsync mirrorstats page (generation and parsing)
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 12:09:21AM +0200, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > Zac Medico wrote: > > Yeah, here's the history since I started maintaining it: > > http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/projects/mirrorselect.git/ > I've been adding mirror3.xml support to the above today. > Repo over here: > http://git.goodpoint.de/?p=mirrorselect.git;a=summary Nice, thanks for the start. The mirrors3 format was designed to explicitly make it clear: - Geographic structure: region -> country -> mirror - Separate protocols - IPv4, IPv6: mirrors may have either or both. - Easy separation of partial mirrors. -- 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 pgpZlDNyb7XuC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rsync mirrorstats page (generation and parsing)
Robin H. Johnson wrote: > I'll try to suck that down soon and build up a larger history with old > tarballs, and then push it somewhere useful. To re-build mirrorselect's complete history we'd need the original tarballs for each line starting with "[ ] " below. Please let us now if you have some of these files on some harddisc of yours. Here's the list [F] 0.1 [F] 0.1-r1 [F] 0.1-r2 [F] 0.2 [F] 0.2-r1 [F] 0.3 [ ] 0.4 [ ] 0.5 [ ] 0.6 [ ] 0.7 [ ] 0.7-r1 [ ] 0.8 [ ] 0.81 [ ] 0.82 [R] 0.82-r1 [R] 0.82-r2 [R] 0.82-r3 [R] 0.83 [R] 0.84 [ ] 0.85 [ ] 0.86 [R] 0.87 [R] 0.89 [ ] 1.0 [ ] 1.0.1 [ ] 1.0.2 [ ] 1.0.3 [ ] 1.0.4_rc2 [ ] 1.1 [ ] 1.1.1 [ ] 1.1.2 [ ] 1.1.3 [ ] 1.1.4 [ ] 1.1.5 [R] 1.1.6 [R] 1.1.7 [R] 1.2 [R] 1.3 [R] 1.4 [R] 1.4.1 [R] 1.4.2 F = files dir in http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/app-admin/mirrorselect/?hideattic=0 R = http://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/mirrorselect-archive/ Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A Little Council Reform Anyone?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:51:05 + "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" wrote: > As Denis has already stated we're not interested in the disputes > between you, paludis, exherbo and some other users or projects > (funtoo?). This ml is about Gentoo not about your (ciaranm, igli, > trelane, etc) pet projects. We were discussing the Gentoo PMS project, and the Council's involvement therein. > As you know very well, quite a few people would qualify your own > behaviour at times like that. So this is one of those cases that you > should start by looking at the mirror. > > > > We all have plenty examples of your bad behaviour, so let's not go > down that route. Please point to examples of where I've said that I want a project to fail, or that I plan to oppose absolutely everything someone does regardless of merit. Please also point to examples of where I've said that I want anything other than what's best for Gentoo. > Some people seem to think that the best way for Gentoo to progress as > they would like, they need to ensure that you don't get to influence > Gentoo as they consider your proposals compromise Gentoo's future. Then they should address each proposal on its own merits. That isn't what's being discussed, though. We're discussing a small group of people whose stated aim is to disrupt anything they can associate with me in any way. How is that in any way good for Gentoo's future? > But again, we (Gentoo developers and community) are getting tired of > all the "bile" flying around. Please stop with that. Then please start by addressing the part of the email you snipped out, and explain how you expect the Gentoo PMS project to operate under those kinds of conditions, and why userrel hasn't stepped in when a small group of users have said that they intend to sabotage a Gentoo project. - -- Ciaran McCreesh -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkpT1FEACgkQ96zL6DUtXhEzhgCgyMTbi6H5Rnm1HOWZKxAGiZuN Ks0AoONu3hMcnL0eKJ/4xtvmxPT3DUvg =xZ0Z -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A Little Council Reform Anyone?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alright, seeing that things are getting out of hand again, let me reply as a member of the userrel team. Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:55:02 -0600 > Denis Dupeyron wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Ciaran >> McCreesh wrote: >>> I contribute productively and usefully >> This should have gone in private but I want it to be public because >> you and others apparently do not get it. > > No, this needs to be in public. You're trying to 'reform', but you're > going about it completely the wrong way. Rather than addressing the > problems and fixing them, you're trying to bury them. > > Moving conversations in private and making channels +m does not fix the > root cause. It just allows those who are trying to disrupt things to > get their way. > >> The fact that you're contributing or not does not give you or anybody >> else the right to behave improperly on our mailing lists, forums, or >> else. There is no amount of contribution that would compensate for >> even the slightest inadequate behavior. Please everybody, print that >> and pin it above your monitor. You and everyone else is entitled to an opinion and Gentoo has showed time and again to be a very open community allowing people to participate in discussions. However, as Denis was pointing out, no amount of contribution entitles anyone (developer or not) to abuse our communication mediums and act inappropriately. > So say someone were to say "My aim is to make every project you're > associated with fail, and to disrupt everything you do in any way I > can", and then repeatedly pop up and start posting nonsense. What would > a proper response be? > > Bear in mind that "ignore them" is not an answer, since ignoring them > leads to their stated aim of disrupting things to succeed. The Council > has on several occasions postponed and rejected proposals because the > trolls haven't been answered. As Denis has already stated we're not interested in the disputes between you, paludis, exherbo and some other users or projects (funtoo?). This ml is about Gentoo not about your (ciaranm, igli, trelane, etc) pet projects. >>> repeated pot-shots from the peanut gallery. >> Thanks for the good example. Please, you and everybody else, note that >> this above is considered abrasive by most of us. > > I'd call that an entirely appropriate description of the behaviour of a > small group of people who have taken to deliberately disrupting > everything they can in some way connect to me. If you feel that's > inappropriate, please provide what you feel would be a better > description of the following: As you know very well, quite a few people would qualify your own behaviour at times like that. So this is one of those cases that you should start by looking at the mirror. We all have plenty examples of your bad behaviour, so let's not go down that route. >>> Steve pops up every now and again and tries to disrupt things. >> You do the exact same in you own way. Please allow me to take that >> beam from your eye. > > No, my goal is to help give Gentoo the progress it needs. There is a > huge difference between that and having a stated aim of trying to make > projects fail. Some people seem to think that the best way for Gentoo to progress as they would like, they need to ensure that you don't get to influence Gentoo as they consider your proposals compromise Gentoo's future. But again, we (Gentoo developers and community) are getting tired of all the "bile" flying around. Please stop with that. - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpT0VkACgkQcAWygvVEyAJO2gCfYiZRdsFbbZs0ejTlTd9qix6s IpUAn2Fsx30PCF2qEIJMOvpW7O2D7GQI =2RHR -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] rsync mirrorstats page (generation and parsing)
Zac Medico wrote: > Yeah, here's the history since I started maintaining it: > > http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/projects/mirrorselect.git/ I've been adding mirror3.xml support to the above today. Repo over here: http://git.goodpoint.de/?p=mirrorselect.git;a=summary Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A Little Council Reform Anyone?
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:55:02 -0600 Denis Dupeyron wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Ciaran > McCreesh wrote: > > I contribute productively and usefully > > This should have gone in private but I want it to be public because > you and others apparently do not get it. No, this needs to be in public. You're trying to 'reform', but you're going about it completely the wrong way. Rather than addressing the problems and fixing them, you're trying to bury them. Moving conversations in private and making channels +m does not fix the root cause. It just allows those who are trying to disrupt things to get their way. > The fact that you're contributing or not does not give you or anybody > else the right to behave improperly on our mailing lists, forums, or > else. There is no amount of contribution that would compensate for > even the slightest inadequate behavior. Please everybody, print that > and pin it above your monitor. So say someone were to say "My aim is to make every project you're associated with fail, and to disrupt everything you do in any way I can", and then repeatedly pop up and start posting nonsense. What would a proper response be? Bear in mind that "ignore them" is not an answer, since ignoring them leads to their stated aim of disrupting things to succeed. The Council has on several occasions postponed and rejected proposals because the trolls haven't been answered. > > repeated pot-shots from the peanut gallery. > > Thanks for the good example. Please, you and everybody else, note that > this above is considered abrasive by most of us. I'd call that an entirely appropriate description of the behaviour of a small group of people who have taken to deliberately disrupting everything they can in some way connect to me. If you feel that's inappropriate, please provide what you feel would be a better description of the following: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_09dcc806480b88940f4559f796f1cebf.xml http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182028#c10 http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&m=124392201802899&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&m=124615139601592&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&m=123898857224257&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&m=123898982124997&w=2 < trelane> ciaranm: I want Paludis to fail. It's unhealthy (or at least the loudest and most visible of it's devs are) for Gentoo. < trelane> lets be VERY clear on that point. So long as Paludis, and the culture it creates are unhealthy for Gentoo I want it to fail. < trelane> ciaranm: that's put in a manner that seems to be a somewhat knee-jerk reaction. It should be clear that opposing you and everything you do was an initiative I started only after careful consideration. > If you do this, not only do you pollute our mailing-lists, but you > also attract more abrasive behavior from others. You only get what > you deserve, so if you need to cry on somebody's shoulder then go see > your mom. Do not express your hurt feelings on this list, we don't > care. Not talking about making an ass of yourself for being so > childish. I don't have hurt feelings, and I don't wish to cry on anyone's shoulder. I want you to stop trying to bury issues and start fixing them. > > Steve pops up every now and again and tries to disrupt things. > > You do the exact same in you own way. Please allow me to take that > beam from your eye. No, my goal is to help give Gentoo the progress it needs. There is a huge difference between that and having a stated aim of trying to make projects fail. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A Little Council Reform Anyone?
Just putting some weight behind Remi's post On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Rémi Cardona wrote: > Le 07/07/2009 18:20, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit : >> >> I would be entirely happy if you could get the people whose stated aim >> is to disrupt PMS and / or third party package managers to stop >> poisoning the atmosphere. > > Then _please_ for the love of God just _ignore_ him. > Yes. Thank you. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A Little Council Reform Anyone?
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > I contribute productively and usefully This should have gone in private but I want it to be public because you and others apparently do not get it. The fact that you're contributing or not does not give you or anybody else the right to behave improperly on our mailing lists, forums, or else. There is no amount of contribution that would compensate for even the slightest inadequate behavior. Please everybody, print that and pin it above your monitor. > repeated pot-shots from the peanut gallery. Thanks for the good example. Please, you and everybody else, note that this above is considered abrasive by most of us. If you do this, not only do you pollute our mailing-lists, but you also attract more abrasive behavior from others. You only get what you deserve, so if you need to cry on somebody's shoulder then go see your mom. Do not express your hurt feelings on this list, we don't care. Not talking about making an ass of yourself for being so childish. > Steve pops up every now and again and tries to disrupt things. You do the exact same in you own way. Please allow me to take that beam from your eye. Now, I suggest you do not reply to this mail in public as this would, again, be off-topic. Feel free to contact me in private though, I'll be happy to discuss that with you in case you need to. Denis.
Re: [gentoo-dev] About time to unify 'cdda' and 'cdaudio' USE flags and make the remaining one global?
On Tue, July 7, 2009 15:35, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > Le mardi 07 juillet 2009 à 13:57 +0100, AllenJB a écrit : > [snip] > >> Are users really going to want to fine-tune between just playing or >> also being able to rip/write audio cd's? > > I myself would probably not separate those features but they might be > because they pull a number of different libs. I would. Ripping a cd just requires raw access to the device. You don't need anything for that, just a working kernel as far as I know. Playing cdaudio requires a lot more stuff, besides many other thing it will require a working sound system (and some even blindly assume that will be alsa, which pisses me the most). You might use a computer to rip cdaudio to fill your portable mp3 player or to do backups, that doesn't mean that you want alsa in that machine, you might not even have speakers attached. It's one example but I could think of many more, it's just a matter of being creative. > Getting informations from > cddb or musicbrainz is another story and I wouldn't like to see this > notion merged with cdaudio. Agreed. For example, those using gentoo as a base to create an OS for an embedded device will probably not have a way to lookup cddb's on the internet, and they for sure don't want to pull all of that on a device where the storage space is really limited. cddb must stay as it is, there's no reason to change that. Whether you pick cdda, cdaudio or audiocd is completely unimportant to me, the other two functionalities shouldn't have anything to do with this. Let's concentrate on the original purpose of the thread: choose what flag is the right one to designate "audio cd support", and forget the rest of creative ideas. :) -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A Little Council Reform Anyone?
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:34:32 +0200 Rémi Cardona wrote: > Le 07/07/2009 18:20, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit : > > I would be entirely happy if you could get the people whose stated > > aim is to disrupt PMS and / or third party package managers to stop > > poisoning the atmosphere. > > Then _please_ for the love of God just _ignore_ him. I tried that. Unfortunately, then people consider his arguments to be valid (without having read them). Any objection to a proposal that hasn't been addressed every time it has been raised, regardless of the merit of the objection, is considered by the Council to be grounds to delay things indefinitely or reject them. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A Little Council Reform Anyone?
Le 07/07/2009 18:20, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit : I would be entirely happy if you could get the people whose stated aim is to disrupt PMS and / or third party package managers to stop poisoning the atmosphere. Then _please_ for the love of God just _ignore_ him. Thank you
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A Little Council Reform Anyone?
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 10:09:09 -0600 Denis Dupeyron wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Ciaran > McCreesh wrote: > > Perhaps you should consider that it's your behaviour that's the > > issue here. > > It's both your behaviors, because they're extremely similar. Except > that you seem to have more time available than slong to express your > defensive personality on our various media. No, Denis, it's not. I contribute productively and usefully, despite repeated pot-shots from the peanut gallery. Steve pops up every now and again and tries to disrupt things. > I'm going to have to ask the two of you to stop arguing in public, > because very frankly we don't care. Plus it's completely off-topic and > an abuse of our mailing-list system. I would be entirely happy if you could get the people whose stated aim is to disrupt PMS and / or third party package managers to stop poisoning the atmosphere. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] maintainer needed for app-accessibility/festival and app-accessibility/speech-tools
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 01:44:20PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > we have multiple open bugs for app-accessibility/festival and > app-accessibility/speech-tools. > > These packages are very difficult to maintain and upstream appears to be > dead. The latest on this is that the package maintainer contacted me, so I will be working with him on these for the next couple of weeks, then we will see what happens from there. - -- William Hubbs gentoo accessibility team lead willi...@gentoo.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkpTc/kACgkQblQW9DDEZTikCACguK5iN34qsV9q3Q/CuSUB1pJ2 TSsAnRIfG/8on2cns5saXHgCm2Nuz6Hf =+l5h -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A Little Council Reform Anyone?
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Perhaps you should consider that it's your behaviour that's the issue here. It's both your behaviors, because they're extremely similar. Except that you seem to have more time available than slong to express your defensive personality on our various media. I'm going to have to ask the two of you to stop arguing in public, because very frankly we don't care. Plus it's completely off-topic and an abuse of our mailing-list system. Thanks, Denis.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Preparing profiles for EAPI 3 IUSE strictness
I don't see the point for this reply seeing that Andrew admitted he was in error half-an-hour ago in this very thread. On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:08:01 -0400 > Andrew D Kirch wrote: >> I've talked with the pkgcore people and they don't use the EAPI's (or >> PMS) in the first place. > > If that were true, which it isn't, then by Council decision pkgcore > should have been package.masked. > >> This essentially leaves you writing documents you're requiring for >> paludis support. > > No, it leaves me writing documents used by Portage, Pkgcore, Paludis > and at least two more independent under-development third party package > management libraries. > >> As this seems to be mostly a PM issue, it should be taken elsewhere. > > This thread is necessary for Portage support for EAPI 3, which is being > worked on. It also has considerable developer impact, since depending > upon the decisions made, certain existing conventions may no longer > apply to EAPI 3 things. > > Given that your stated intention is for "Paludis to fail", and that > "opposing [me] and everything [I] do was an initiative [you] started > only after careful consideration", I'll kindly ask you to stop randomly > jumping out and flinging turds, since it adds nothing to the discussion > at hand and only serves to make it harder for Gentoo to function as a > community. > > -- > Ciaran McCreesh > -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan
Re: [gentoo-dev] Preparing profiles for EAPI 3 IUSE strictness
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:08:01 -0400 Andrew D Kirch wrote: > I've talked with the pkgcore people and they don't use the EAPI's (or > PMS) in the first place. If that were true, which it isn't, then by Council decision pkgcore should have been package.masked. > This essentially leaves you writing documents you're requiring for > paludis support. No, it leaves me writing documents used by Portage, Pkgcore, Paludis and at least two more independent under-development third party package management libraries. > As this seems to be mostly a PM issue, it should be taken elsewhere. This thread is necessary for Portage support for EAPI 3, which is being worked on. It also has considerable developer impact, since depending upon the decisions made, certain existing conventions may no longer apply to EAPI 3 things. Given that your stated intention is for "Paludis to fail", and that "opposing [me] and everything [I] do was an initiative [you] started only after careful consideration", I'll kindly ask you to stop randomly jumping out and flinging turds, since it adds nothing to the discussion at hand and only serves to make it harder for Gentoo to function as a community. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A Little Council Reform Anyone?
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:49:34 +0100 Steven J Long wrote: > I'll second that; it's impossible to discuss on bugzilla, as you just > get trolled or spammed. Funny. Other people manage just fine. Perhaps you should consider that it's your behaviour that's the issue here. In the mean time, please provide examples of PMS bugs where you feel you've been unable to provide a useful contribution -- I had a look through bugs with your comments in the PMS/EAPI component, and I found: 182028: You post a 'solution' that doesn't solve the requirements, and then go off and start hurling abuse at David when he tells you that. 201499: You suggest a few things involving metadata.xml, and you are told why that can't be done. The discussion continues productively. 230725: You helpfully implement a patch. The Council decides it doesn't like the feature in question and rejects it. 250077: You jump in the middle of a discussion and start muddying the waters with something we're not addressing. > The process appears to be moving to "get discussion off ML and onto > bugzilla where it can be killed" which appears to be a subversion of > things, from where I'm sitting; I thought the idea was to have ML > discussion _before_ stuff was proposed for a new EAPI? That's up to the developers that file the bug. The PMS team has been fairly flexible in how it handles input, although per Council request we're going to try to do everything on bugzilla for EAPI 4. > As it is, we're now getting long lists of stuff dumped on to the ML > as "the new EAPI" with little review beyond a post-hoc justification > that "a Gentoo dev filed a bug asking for it." This is a no-win situation. When I do review features and suggest modifications or not including them, I'm accused of meddling and only allowing through things I like. When I don't, I'm accused of allowing features through without review. Also, did you miss the whole extensive review thing the Council and any developer who feels like it does? I shall remind you that a good number of features on the EAPI 3 proposal didn't make it. > NB: I'm happy for there to be discussion via bugzilla, but not under > ciaranm's supervision. After all, he's been proven to have issues > when it comes to social interaction, which is pretty much essential > to leading a project. I'll agree I get confused easily when people start sockpuppeting or posting pages of incoherent nonsense to unrelated bugs. If you can find someone capable of dealing with the odd bad apple who does that then I'd be happy for them to handle that part. > And even then, I think ideas should be mooted to the list (via the > RFC mechanism?) in line with the agreed process. The agreed process is to go to bugzilla, not the list. > The PMS list has the same problem: it's seen as ciaranm's domain, and > we all know he doesn't set a collaborative tone, but rather one of > conflict, which anyone on a clock can't be bothered with. Please point to examples of conflict on the PMS mailing list. Also, I shall remind you that the PMS list was a Council decision and that it was primarily to replace the alias we were using for sending patches for review -- that's still what it's being used for. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] About time to unify "cdda" and "cdaudio" USE flags and make the remaining one global?
Le mardi 07 juillet 2009 à 13:57 +0100, AllenJB a écrit : [snip] > Are users really going to want to fine-tune between just playing or > also being able to rip/write audio cd's? I myself would probably not separate those features but they might be because they pull a number of different libs. Getting informations from cddb or musicbrainz is another story and I wouldn't like to see this notion merged with cdaudio. > A quick check with "quse -D cdaudio cdda" (below) shows that the > current > use flag descriptions, as far as I read them, don't make any > discrepancy > between these definitions anyway - they all basically say "play audio > cd's" to me (with some additionally enabling cddb, which as a side > note > already has a global use flag) > > Current use flag descriptions: > local:cdaudio:media-plugins/audacious-plugins: Enable cd audio > playback > support > local:cdaudio:media-sound/amarok: Enable cdaudio functionality > local:cdaudio:media-sound/decibel-audio-player: Adds support for CD > audio playback and lookups via CDDB > local:cdaudio:media-sound/mpfc: Enable cd audio playback support > local:cdaudio:media-sound/picard: Enable support for CD Index > Lookups. > local:cdda:gnome-base/gvfs: Enables Compact Disc Digital Audio > (standard audio CDs) support > local:cdda:media-sound/aqualung: Enables libcdda cd audio playback > support > local:cdda:media-video/vlc: Enables audio CD and VCD playback > support. > > So ultimately, this isn't even bike shedding in my opinion. There's > only > one color to paint with anyway. agreed this sample is actually referring to the same thing. But then, it is getting confusing wrt to [1], why would we use the correct technical abbreviation in one case and not in the other ? Or should we rename jabber to gtalk ? [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216300 -- Gilles Dartiguelongue Gentoo
Re: [gentoo-dev] Preparing profiles for EAPI 3 IUSE strictness
Yeah, that was definately a misunderstanding of something bonzaikitten said. Mea culpa. Andrew Brian Harring wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 02:08:01AM -0400, Andrew D Kirch wrote: > >> Ciaran, >> >> I've talked with the pkgcore people and they don't use the EAPI's (or >> PMS) in the first place. >> > > No clue who you talked to, but they weren't speaking for pkgcore- I > speak for pkgcore pretty much solely. Pkgcore utilizes EAPIs- hell I > added the original support to portage. Not sure what info you got > fed, but it was a bit off. > > >> I think that ending this discussion here and moving it over to a forum >> more appropriate to package manager development would reduce the >> temperature around your proposals and get them implemented (as Zac seems >> willing to do so). >> > > I don't particularly care one way or another (subscribed to both > MLs), just mostly correcting one large misstatement... > > ~harring >
Re: [gentoo-dev] About time to unify "cdda" and "cdaudio" USE flags and make the remaining one global?
Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > Le lundi 06 juillet 2009 à 14:18 -0700, Josh Saddler a écrit : >> Sebastian Pipping wrote: >>> Rémi Cardona wrote: And now for some bikeshedding fun, which flag are we going to keep? ;) >>> My vote would be for cdaudio as that >>> >>> - is more general (including analog playback) >>> - is more user friendly >>> >>> but let those decide who "implement" it. >> I'm also in favor of cdaudio: it's a bit more self-explanatory. I also >> think it's better to have such a generic description for apps that use >> libcdio/cdparanoia/cddb combinations, such as the package I maintain, >> media-sound/decibel-audio-player. > > As I said in [1], cdda has a precise meaning and cdaudio is all but a > blurry alternative. Also your examples are bad because they are blurring > the definition even more. Are we talking audio cdrom ripping, audio cd > data retrieving or simple audio cd playing support ? > > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=274818#c1 > > While cdda might be the correct technical term, how many users will actually recognize what it means? Personally I think "cdaudio" (or, to throw in another alternative "audiocd") would be recognized by most users as support for playing audio cd's (as in the things you buy in the shops and stick into any stereo made in the last 15+ years). Are users really going to want to fine-tune between just playing or also being able to rip/write audio cd's? A quick check with "quse -D cdaudio cdda" (below) shows that the current use flag descriptions, as far as I read them, don't make any discrepancy between these definitions anyway - they all basically say "play audio cd's" to me (with some additionally enabling cddb, which as a side note already has a global use flag) Current use flag descriptions: local:cdaudio:media-plugins/audacious-plugins: Enable cd audio playback support local:cdaudio:media-sound/amarok: Enable cdaudio functionality local:cdaudio:media-sound/decibel-audio-player: Adds support for CD audio playback and lookups via CDDB local:cdaudio:media-sound/mpfc: Enable cd audio playback support local:cdaudio:media-sound/picard: Enable support for CD Index Lookups. local:cdda:gnome-base/gvfs: Enables Compact Disc Digital Audio (standard audio CDs) support local:cdda:media-sound/aqualung: Enables libcdda cd audio playback support local:cdda:media-video/vlc: Enables audio CD and VCD playback support. So ultimately, this isn't even bike shedding in my opinion. There's only one color to paint with anyway. AllenJB
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A Little Council Reform Anyone?
Brian Harring wrote: > In terms of involvement in PMS, frankly it's not worth it from where > I'm sitting due to ciarans behaviour. > > It's not a matter of having thicker skin- it's literally a question of > worth. Is it worth trying to have a voice if it means exposing > yourself to BS behaviour? I'll second that; it's impossible to discuss on bugzilla, as you just get trolled or spammed. The process appears to be moving to "get discussion off ML and onto bugzilla where it can be killed" which appears to be a subversion of things, from where I'm sitting; I thought the idea was to have ML discussion _before_ stuff was proposed for a new EAPI? You know, so that alternative approaches could be considered, the problem defined adequately, and so on, with reference to the wider, knowledgeable readership. As it is, we're now getting long lists of stuff dumped on to the ML as "the new EAPI" with little review beyond a post-hoc justification that "a Gentoo dev filed a bug asking for it." NB: I'm happy for there to be discussion via bugzilla, but not under ciaranm's supervision. After all, he's been proven to have issues when it comes to social interaction, which is pretty much essential to leading a project. And even then, I think ideas should be mooted to the list (via the RFC mechanism?) in line with the agreed process. The PMS list has the same problem: it's seen as ciaranm's domain, and we all know he doesn't set a collaborative tone, but rather one of conflict, which anyone on a clock can't be bothered with. Regrettably, if we don't get our 2c in, which is a hassle, we end up with more hassle further down the line. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] About time to unify "cdda" and "cdaudio" USE flags and make the remaining one global?
Le lundi 06 juillet 2009 à 14:18 -0700, Josh Saddler a écrit : > Sebastian Pipping wrote: > > Rémi Cardona wrote: > >> And now for some bikeshedding fun, which flag are we going to keep? ;) > > > > My vote would be for cdaudio as that > > > > - is more general (including analog playback) > > - is more user friendly > > > > but let those decide who "implement" it. > > I'm also in favor of cdaudio: it's a bit more self-explanatory. I also > think it's better to have such a generic description for apps that use > libcdio/cdparanoia/cddb combinations, such as the package I maintain, > media-sound/decibel-audio-player. As I said in [1], cdda has a precise meaning and cdaudio is all but a blurry alternative. Also your examples are bad because they are blurring the definition even more. Are we talking audio cdrom ripping, audio cd data retrieving or simple audio cd playing support ? [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=274818#c1
Re: [gentoo-dev] Preparing profiles for EAPI 3 IUSE strictness
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Andrew D Kirch wrote: > Ciaran, > > I've talked with the pkgcore people and they don't use the EAPI's (or > PMS) in the first place. This essentially leaves you writing documents > you're requiring for paludis support. As this seems to be mostly a PM > issue, it should be taken elsewhere. To that end, here is a > gentoo-portage-dev mailing list that is more appropriate for minor > process issues such as those brought up below. > I think that ending this discussion here and moving it over to a forum > more appropriate to package manager development would reduce the > temperature around your proposals and get them implemented (as Zac seems > willing to do so). While I realize this is a general purpose mailing > list, it is general purpose, and there is a mailing list specifically > for portage development. I think you are slightly misreading his intent (or I am misreading it). I believe Ciaran is talking about "what gentoo should put in make.defaults such that the user experience doesn't totally suck for this new EAPI3 thing" and provided some ideas. I'm pretty sure whether or not PM foo has implemented these things is a moot point as far as this thread is concerned. -A > > Andrew > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> *SNIP* > >
