Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On 30/10/2012 08:21, Rich Freeman wrote: > That might warrant a news item. Sure, they're ~arch, but they're not > going to know about this unless somebody tells them. Is it just my impression or did you just volunteer? ;) -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 30/10/2012 00:22, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> reminder: plan on landing this week. glibc-2.17 is in the process of shaking >> out upstream. > > *shrug* we've got the warning so it's fair for it to land. I recommend > people who're using ~arch to mask it on their systems for a short while > though, as we still have quite a few failures that haven't been solved — That might warrant a news item. Sure, they're ~arch, but they're not going to know about this unless somebody tells them. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On 30/10/2012 00:22, Mike Frysinger wrote: > reminder: plan on landing this week. glibc-2.17 is in the process of shaking > out upstream. *shrug* we've got the warning so it's fair for it to land. I recommend people who're using ~arch to mask it on their systems for a short while though, as we still have quite a few failures that haven't been solved — but if they haven't been solved this month they'll require the maintainer to stumble across them *hard*. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=glibc-2.16 Speaking of which, I confirm my plan to unmask GnuTLS 3.1 for basically the same reason. Upstream is moving on to new versions, we're behind one major and one minor right now. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=gnutls-3 -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On Tuesday 02 October 2012 15:53:41 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 17 August 2012 23:31:36 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > with glibc-2.15 gone stable, it's time to get 2.16 in the pipe. the big > > issues have been sorted out already. there's a few packages still known > > to build fail, but they've had quite some time to sort their stuff out, > > so i don't see delaying further making a difference there. if anything, > > they'll be more inclined to get their stuff fixed ;). > > this will be happening by the end of October or when boost-1.50 is sorted > out. whichever comes first. reminder: plan on landing this week. glibc-2.17 is in the process of shaking out upstream. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On Friday 17 August 2012 23:31:36 Mike Frysinger wrote: > with glibc-2.15 gone stable, it's time to get 2.16 in the pipe. the big > issues have been sorted out already. there's a few packages still known to > build fail, but they've had quite some time to sort their stuff out, so i > don't see delaying further making a difference there. if anything, > they'll be more inclined to get their stuff fixed ;). this will be happening by the end of October or when boost-1.50 is sorted out. whichever comes first. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On Monday 20 August 2012 10:54:03 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> I agree with your point. I'm fine with setting deadlines and such, > >> but my main concern is that the first deadline shouldn't be two days > >> after it is announced. > > > > The tracker has been open since July 4th. > > Yes, and it does not contain any deadlines at all (not even the one > announced on the mailing list). glibc is on a known release period (~every 6 months). i posted some time ago that Gentoo will be rolling along as well: - have a version in the stable pipeline - have a version in the unstable pipeline - have a version in the masked pipeline as versions in the lower pipeline clear out, the next one will be moving into place. so while exact times haven't been posted (because i don't have them), glibc versions will continue to be released, so maintainers can't sit on their bugs. 2.15 has gone stable which means there's now room for 2.16 which has largely settled down. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> I agree with your point. I'm fine with setting deadlines and such, >> but my main concern is that the first deadline shouldn't be two days >> after it is announced. > > The tracker has been open since July 4th. > Yes, and it does not contain any deadlines at all (not even the one announced on the mailing list). There are bugs that have been open for years. If suddenly making some change breaks end-user systems the fact that a bug has been open for years isn't really justification. The first mention of "you must do this by this date" was on Friday, with the deadline being today. I'm fine with trying to push things through within reason (otherwise nothing gets done). However, the key part is "within reason." If that bug had a deadline announced two weeks ago I'd be less concerned. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Alec Warner wrote: >> >> I think part of Mike's point is that time and time again has proven >> that the way to a mans heart^H^H^H^H to get things fixed is to break >> them. The aforementioned example of a tracker open for months with no >> progress is an example of halted progress. If we waited to fix all >> known issues prior to launch, then we would never launch. This is very >> common in software development. Some features are v2 features, some >> bugs are not worth fixing. Some bugs we will fix with a patch >> post-launch; I don't see how this is any different. >> > > I agree with your point. I'm fine with setting deadlines and such, > but my main concern is that the first deadline shouldn't be two days > after it is announced. The tracker has been open since July 4th. > > If the announcement were that we have a tracker and some languishing > bugs, and we'd like to push to get them closed in two weeks I'd feel > differently. I can't really say Mike is the shining example of how we should communicate; but then again, neither am I :) -A > > Rich >
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > I think part of Mike's point is that time and time again has proven > that the way to a mans heart^H^H^H^H to get things fixed is to break > them. The aforementioned example of a tracker open for months with no > progress is an example of halted progress. If we waited to fix all > known issues prior to launch, then we would never launch. This is very > common in software development. Some features are v2 features, some > bugs are not worth fixing. Some bugs we will fix with a patch > post-launch; I don't see how this is any different. > I agree with your point. I'm fine with setting deadlines and such, but my main concern is that the first deadline shouldn't be two days after it is announced. If the announcement were that we have a tracker and some languishing bugs, and we'd like to push to get them closed in two weeks I'd feel differently. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Sunday 19 August 2012 04:41:17 Luca Barbato wrote: >>> On 8/18/12 5:31 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> > i'll probably land it later this weekend/monday. >>> >>> Would be nice having a list of bugs open so people might have a look and >>> see if there is something big left. >> >> we've been making trackers for the glibc upgrades: >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=glibc-2.16 > > While trackers are of course the right way to handle this, it is > generally best to announce timelines more than two days in advance. > > You're certainly not the only case of this problem - I've noticed a > tendency to post a tracker for some issue, watch nothing happen for > six months, and then see an announcement that the change is being > pushed through in a few days. > > Changes with a big impact should be announced on the lists well before > they are made. > > Also, while users running unstable systems are naturally going to be > at risk for unforeseen issues, this isn't an unforeseen issue. When > we know a problem exists, we generally should fix it before we commit > it. If some uncommon package breaks I think we can live with that, > but gnutls doesn't fall into that category. > > I'm not really interested in the blame game either. This isn't your > problem, or the gnutls maintainer's problem - this is Gentoo's > problem, and I hope we don't make it our user's problem for failure to > work together. I think part of Mike's point is that time and time again has proven that the way to a mans heart^H^H^H^H to get things fixed is to break them. The aforementioned example of a tracker open for months with no progress is an example of halted progress. If we waited to fix all known issues prior to launch, then we would never launch. This is very common in software development. Some features are v2 features, some bugs are not worth fixing. Some bugs we will fix with a patch post-launch; I don't see how this is any different. -A > > Rich >
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Sunday 19 August 2012 04:41:17 Luca Barbato wrote: >> On 8/18/12 5:31 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> > i'll probably land it later this weekend/monday. >> >> Would be nice having a list of bugs open so people might have a look and >> see if there is something big left. > > we've been making trackers for the glibc upgrades: > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=glibc-2.16 While trackers are of course the right way to handle this, it is generally best to announce timelines more than two days in advance. You're certainly not the only case of this problem - I've noticed a tendency to post a tracker for some issue, watch nothing happen for six months, and then see an announcement that the change is being pushed through in a few days. Changes with a big impact should be announced on the lists well before they are made. Also, while users running unstable systems are naturally going to be at risk for unforeseen issues, this isn't an unforeseen issue. When we know a problem exists, we generally should fix it before we commit it. If some uncommon package breaks I think we can live with that, but gnutls doesn't fall into that category. I'm not really interested in the blame game either. This isn't your problem, or the gnutls maintainer's problem - this is Gentoo's problem, and I hope we don't make it our user's problem for failure to work together. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On 19/08/2012 20:07, Mike Frysinger wrote: > gnutls is not valid and i will not wait for it. boost i'll give the > maintainer time to resolve as the patch to boost-1.49 can be made to work, > but > it's not that great, and there are already plans on moving boost-1.50 to > unstable which is all i need. The same applies to GnuTLS 3, you know — would be nice if you fixed the games, and the other packages you maintain, that break with it. For reference these are the other two trackers: http://bugs.gentoo.org/alias/gnutls-3 http://bugs.gentoo.org/alias/boost-1.50 FWIW GnuTLS 3.1 is perfectly fine to go into ~arch IMHO as I've been using it for a while and most of the bugs are only present on gnutls USE flag turned on (and not for all SSL support). -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On Sunday 19 August 2012 04:41:17 Luca Barbato wrote: > On 8/18/12 5:31 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > i'll probably land it later this weekend/monday. > > Would be nice having a list of bugs open so people might have a look and > see if there is something big left. we've been making trackers for the glibc upgrades: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=glibc-2.16 > boost and gnutls seem big enough already to spend some time to get those > fixed before unleashing the beast. gnutls is not valid and i will not wait for it. boost i'll give the maintainer time to resolve as the patch to boost-1.49 can be made to work, but it's not that great, and there are already plans on moving boost-1.50 to unstable which is all i need. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On 8/18/12 5:31 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: i'll probably land it later this weekend/monday. Would be nice having a list of bugs open so people might have a look and see if there is something big left. boost and gnutls seem big enough already to spend some time to get those fixed before unleashing the beast. lu
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 12:00:17 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > *yawn* such a drama queen. > > i never said "i am going to do this everyone else be damned". i did > say "i will probably do this soon". but that is why i posted to > gentoo-dev in the first place -- to get feedback from others. > > gnutls breakage: not relevant. you're causing that breakage by not > adding a simple patch that most every other package has merged. > conflating the issue to a major ABI bump is also irrelevant. > > boost breakage: if 1.50 is going to be unmasked soon, i can wait for > that. > > general breakage: we can't sit around waiting for all packages to get > fixed. if people aren't going to fix packages after being given > notice, then they get tree cleaned. not a big deal. > -mike You both (Mike and Diego) make good and valid points regarding the unmasking of glibc-2.16 and its impact on other packages (and, subsequently, users). However, the personal attacks against one another add nothing to the discussion. Resorting to ad hominem relegates the discourse to a less-than-helpful state for everyone involved. Please try to focus on the points raised by other developers and users, so that the end result is something that benefits the community and distribution as a whole. Cheers, Nathan Zachary
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
*yawn* such a drama queen. i never said "i am going to do this everyone else be damned". i did say "i will probably do this soon". but that is why i posted to gentoo-dev in the first place -- to get feedback from others. gnutls breakage: not relevant. you're causing that breakage by not adding a simple patch that most every other package has merged. conflating the issue to a major ABI bump is also irrelevant. boost breakage: if 1.50 is going to be unmasked soon, i can wait for that. general breakage: we can't sit around waiting for all packages to get fixed. if people aren't going to fix packages after being given notice, then they get tree cleaned. not a big deal. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > yes, the patch here is trivial. it removes 1 line of unused code and has > fixed > a lot of other packages. deflecting the argument to a flawed system of your > own > creation doesn't change it. if you're worried about gnutls breakage, you've > only yourself to blame. I'm worried that one developer thinks that he can make a change to _the_ base library for the tree over a weekend, without informing anybody else of his plan if not one day before. I'm worried that Gentoo's health depends on the whim of a person who can't see the needs of others and only care about his own. So unless you're so full of yourself that you still think it's okay for you to do this by announcing it the day before, start actually working _with_ others instead than _against_ other: fix your crap that is blocking glibc 2.16, and see how soon the others can fix theirs. If you can't do that, then I'd suggest you step down and take a vacation, because you're totally out of your mind.
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On Saturday 18 August 2012 02:01:12 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49 work. forcing people to use > > 1.50 is purely the boost's maintainers choice. > > [...] > > > there's a trivial patch long been available that you've refused to merge. > > so any errors here are of your choosing. > > So you pretend that people apply "trivial patches" because you're in a > hurry to unmask something yes, the patch here is trivial. it removes 1 line of unused code and has fixed a lot of other packages. deflecting the argument to a flawed system of your own creation doesn't change it. if you're worried about gnutls breakage, you've only yourself to blame. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Tiziano Müller wrote: > I'm already working on some of the boost-1.49/50 breakages and 1.51 is > already in the pipeline, so 1.50 has to leave p.mask in a month or so > anyway. Thanks, at least somebody's doing something to help. By the way I forgot to say in my previous mail that the famous "trivial patch" for boost causes at least some of the same failures that 1.50 would cause. Why? Because the problem is an _API collision_ which requires _an API change_. So, thanks Tiziano for doing the right thing.
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49 work. forcing people to use 1.50 > is purely the boost's maintainers choice. [...] > there's a trivial patch long been available that you've refused to merge. so > any errors here are of your choosing. So you pretend that people apply "trivial patches" because you're in a hurry to unmask something, but when it's time to actually do some fixing yourself you procrastinate because you don't like the way the bug is open? What a team player uh? Just for the sake of argument, why don't you instead look at https://bugs.gentoo.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=421391&hide_resolved=1 and see that two bugs blocking the tracker are actually from herds you're part of? And on https://bugs.gentoo.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=boost-1.50&hide_resolved=1 I count four just for games.
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
Am Samstag, den 18.08.2012, 01:44 -0400 schrieb Mike Frysinger: > On Saturday 18 August 2012 01:16:29 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > > - everything depending on boost (current 1.49 won't work, you need > > 1.50, and quite a few things break with 1.50); > > there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49 work. forcing people to use 1.50 > is purely the boost's maintainers choice. I'm already working on some of the boost-1.49/50 breakages and 1.51 is already in the pipeline, so 1.50 has to leave p.mask in a month or so anyway. > > > - everything depending on gnutls (current 2.x version does not build > > with glibc 2.16, and quite a few things don't build with gnutls 3); > > there's a trivial patch long been available that you've refused to merge. so > any errors here are of your choosing. > > > Congrats, this is just the kind of behaviour that makes Gentoo look > > professional... no wait I meant the other way around I guess. Because > > the automake 1.12 breakage is not enough to have in tree, hm? > > *yawn*. don't use unstable if you want stability. > -mike
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On Saturday 18 August 2012 01:16:29 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > - everything depending on boost (current 1.49 won't work, you need > 1.50, and quite a few things break with 1.50); there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49 work. forcing people to use 1.50 is purely the boost's maintainers choice. > - everything depending on gnutls (current 2.x version does not build > with glibc 2.16, and quite a few things don't build with gnutls 3); there's a trivial patch long been available that you've refused to merge. so any errors here are of your choosing. > Congrats, this is just the kind of behaviour that makes Gentoo look > professional... no wait I meant the other way around I guess. Because > the automake 1.12 breakage is not enough to have in tree, hm? *yawn*. don't use unstable if you want stability. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > there's a few packages still known to > build fail, but they've had quite some time to sort their stuff out, so i > don't > see delaying further making a difference there. So you're saying you're fine to break: - everything depending on boost (current 1.49 won't work, you need 1.50, and quite a few things break with 1.50); - everything depending on gnutls (current 2.x version does not build with glibc 2.16, and quite a few things don't build with gnutls 3); Congrats, this is just the kind of behaviour that makes Gentoo look professional... no wait I meant the other way around I guess. Because the automake 1.12 breakage is not enough to have in tree, hm? -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
[gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch
with glibc-2.15 gone stable, it's time to get 2.16 in the pipe. the big issues have been sorted out already. there's a few packages still known to build fail, but they've had quite some time to sort their stuff out, so i don't see delaying further making a difference there. if anything, they'll be more inclined to get their stuff fixed ;). i'll probably land it later this weekend/monday. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
