Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
On Sunday 08 of November 2009 23:19:13 Mike Frysinger wrote: So, you didn't get my point. It must be true then, what they say about geeks and social skills... i dont think your point is relevant to this thread -mike Indeed it is - it's not about what's been said, but about the way it's been said. cheers MM signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
On Monday 09 November 2009 07:36:31 Maciej Mrozowski wrote: On Sunday 08 of November 2009 23:19:13 Mike Frysinger wrote: So, you didn't get my point. It must be true then, what they say about geeks and social skills... i dont think your point is relevant to this thread Indeed it is - it's not about what's been said, but about the way it's been said. except that this thread has largely been timid. the issue is patrick cant seem to accept the fact that laziness is no excuse to add crap to the tree. we shouldnt need to tell him how much we love him unrelated to his crap adding. go buy a teddy bear if your confidence needs reinforcing, or find some baby boomers to raise you. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
On Sunday 08 November 2009 18:36:00 Richard Freeman wrote:
Petteri Räty wrote:
#SRC_URI=mirror://sourceforge/${PN}/${P}.tar.gz
# starting to hate sf.net ...
SRC_URI=http://foremost.sourceforge.net/pkg/foremost-1.5.6.tar.gz;
The filename that violates our policies hasn't changed between the new
and old SRC_URI.
Is this policy actually written down someplace?
the gentoo dev handbook lists this as a common ebuild error
I don't think quizzes can be considered policy since by design their answers
aren't written anywhere.
the exact answer is generally not found, but the info to arrive there should
largely be documented and/or obvious. the issue raised is even worse because
it is almost verbatim from the quiz. any prospective dev who got this wrong
would have been forced to go back and review things. i.e. it isnt acceptable
for newbies, so there's no excuse for people who are supposed to be past that
point -- especially considering they're doing it knowingly.
The only downside to not being clever with the SRC_URI is that to bump
the package you'd need to edit the URL. That isn't exactly the end of
the world, and while this is a trivial one to fix
since it must have been changed in order to be bumped, there is no excuse for
having added it like this in the first place.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
В Вск, 08/11/2009 в 11:56 +, Patrick Lauer (patrick) пишет:
patrick 09/11/08 11:56:46
Log:
Bump
file :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/app-forensics/foremost/foremost-1.5.6.ebuild?rev=1.1view=markup
Index: foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
===
inherit eutils toolchain-funcs
DESCRIPTION=A console program to recover files based on their headers and
footers
HOMEPAGE=http://foremost.sourceforge.net/;
#SRC_URI=mirror://sourceforge/${PN}/${P}.tar.gz
# starting to hate sf.net ...
SRC_URI=http://foremost.sourceforge.net/pkg/foremost-1.5.6.tar.gz;
Patrick, do you remember the answer on question number 1 in end-quiz?
KEYWORDS=~ppc ~x86 ~amd64
src_install() {
dobin foremost
This question did not existed in end-quiz at times you were mentored,
but still you are supposed to follow gentoo development and you are
supposed to know the answers on quizzes. Please check question 15 of
end-quiz.
--
Peter.
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
On Sunday 08 November 2009 15:21:18 Peter Volkov wrote:
В Вск, 08/11/2009 в 11:56 +, Patrick Lauer (patrick) пишет:
patrick 09/11/08 11:56:46
Log:
Bump
file :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/app-forensics/foremost/fo
remost-1.5.6.ebuild?rev=1.1view=markup
Index: foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
===
inherit eutils toolchain-funcs
DESCRIPTION=A console program to recover files based on their headers
and footers HOMEPAGE=http://foremost.sourceforge.net/;
#SRC_URI=mirror://sourceforge/${PN}/${P}.tar.gz
# starting to hate sf.net ...
SRC_URI=http://foremost.sourceforge.net/pkg/foremost-1.5.6.tar.gz;
Patrick, do you remember the answer on question number 1 in end-quiz?
Yeah, and if sf.net would even tangentially try to work I might care.
Took me long enough to get a file out of it, and if I feel like it I might
even fix that SRC_URI to make people happy.
Ah well. Since they love changing paths around it won't work for the next bump
anyway ...
KEYWORDS=~ppc ~x86 ~amd64
src_install() {
dobin foremost
This question did not existed in end-quiz at times you were mentored,
but still you are supposed to follow gentoo development and you are
supposed to know the answers on quizzes. Please check question 15 of
end-quiz.
Please check history of the ebuilds. It's been like this since 2004 in
foremost. I don't intend to clean up every ebuild I touch.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Sunday 08 November 2009 15:21:18 Peter Volkov wrote:
В Вск, 08/11/2009 в 11:56 +, Patrick Lauer (patrick) пишет:
patrick 09/11/08 11:56:46
Log:
Bump
file :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/app-forensics/foremost/fo
remost-1.5.6.ebuild?rev=1.1view=markup
Index: foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
===
inherit eutils toolchain-funcs
DESCRIPTION=A console program to recover files based on their headers
and footers HOMEPAGE=http://foremost.sourceforge.net/;
#SRC_URI=mirror://sourceforge/${PN}/${P}.tar.gz
# starting to hate sf.net ...
SRC_URI=http://foremost.sourceforge.net/pkg/foremost-1.5.6.tar.gz;
Patrick, do you remember the answer on question number 1 in end-quiz?
Yeah, and if sf.net would even tangentially try to work I might care.
Took me long enough to get a file out of it, and if I feel like it I might
even fix that SRC_URI to make people happy.
Ah well. Since they love changing paths around it won't work for the next
bump
anyway ...
The filename that violates our policies hasn't changed between the new
and old SRC_URI.
Regards,
Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
On Sunday 08 November 2009 15:56:24 Petteri Räty wrote:
Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Sunday 08 November 2009 15:21:18 Peter Volkov wrote:
В Вск, 08/11/2009 в 11:56 +, Patrick Lauer (patrick) пишет:
patrick 09/11/08 11:56:46
Log:
Bump
file :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/app-forensics/foremost/
fo remost-1.5.6.ebuild?rev=1.1view=markup
Index: foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
===
inherit eutils toolchain-funcs
DESCRIPTION=A console program to recover files based on their headers
and footers HOMEPAGE=http://foremost.sourceforge.net/;
#SRC_URI=mirror://sourceforge/${PN}/${P}.tar.gz
# starting to hate sf.net ...
SRC_URI=http://foremost.sourceforge.net/pkg/foremost-1.5.6.tar.gz;
Patrick, do you remember the answer on question number 1 in end-quiz?
Yeah, and if sf.net would even tangentially try to work I might care.
Took me long enough to get a file out of it, and if I feel like it I
might even fix that SRC_URI to make people happy.
Ah well. Since they love changing paths around it won't work for the next
bump anyway ...
The filename that violates our policies hasn't changed between the new
and old SRC_URI.
Correct. Just the PATH. Which is not the filename.
And because I'm a lazy bum I copypasta'ed it out of the mess the sourceforge
people call a website. And then I even managed to fetch that file after 3 or 4
tries, so I was happy to have gotten it and cared more to see if it works.
So I'd appreciate if y'all stopped obsessing about such details and just fix
it instead of whining at me until my motivation takes a long walk on the beach
and doesn't return for quite some time. At least I'm trying to keep these
packages alive, which noone else seems to do.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
On 08-11-2009 16:06:58 +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote: So I'd appreciate if y'all stopped obsessing about such details and just fix it instead of whining at me until my motivation takes a long +1 walk on the beach and don't return for quite some time. At least I'm trying to keep these packages alive, which noone else seems to do. thanks -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
Patrick Lauer wrote: So I'd appreciate if y'all stopped obsessing about such details and just fix it instead of whining at me until my motivation takes a long walk on the beach and doesn't return for quite some time. At least I'm trying to keep these packages alive, which noone else seems to do. In the long time more time is spent in total if you do a crappy job and others clean up after you. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
On Sunday 08 November 2009 10:06:58 Patrick Lauer wrote: So I'd appreciate if y'all stopped obsessing about such details and just fix it instead of whining at me until my motivation takes a long walk on the beach and doesn't return for quite some time. At least I'm trying to keep these packages alive, which noone else seems to do. if you're introducing crap into the tree, then it is better if you took that long walk -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Patrick Lauer wrote: At least I'm trying to keep these packages alive, which noone else seems to do. If you spot that a new version is available, you're more than welcome to post a version bump bug assigned to the appropriate herd and developer (forensics and me, in this instance). I don't necessarily have time to stayed glued to exactly when new versions of a package come out, but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to spend the time to keep it up to date once I'm aware a new version's come out. If nobody tells me, it'll have to wait until I spot it myself. Foremost has a single bug open against it, which is a stabilization bug, that means it still compiles, and works, or that no one's bothered to complain about it. So I'd class the package as far from dead. Please don't claim no one else wants to keep the package alive, when you don't afford them the opportunity to demonstrate that they do. If you take responsibility for bumping a package from the appropriate maintainer, you can't then turn around and claim you're allowed to cut corners because no one was maintaining it. It's quite rude to the people who are willing to look after it... Mike 5:) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkr25AYACgkQu7rWomwgFXrIxQCgnVdigpUJZnaW28HcJ2U8qQZy b9IAoJc2Afv0UfrrYu7xe7EdP1DCP2Ze =m8Os -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
В Вск, 08/11/2009 в 16:06 +0100, Patrick Lauer пишет: And because I'm a lazy I'd appreciate if y'all stopped obsessing about such details and just fix it instead Do you mean that whatever you commit to the tree is not your responsibility? Sorry but it's your job. Also it's nice to see how you touch packages without even minimal negotiation with maintainers and at the same time you are not subscribed to bug mail of relevant herds and you do not add yourself into metadata.xml. Such behaviour is prohibited. Please, stop doing that. -- Peter.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
On Sunday 08 November 2009 18:37:10 Peter Volkov wrote: В Вск, 08/11/2009 в 16:06 +0100, Patrick Lauer пишет: And because I'm a lazy I'd appreciate if y'all stopped obsessing about such details and just fix it instead Do you mean that whatever you commit to the tree is not your responsibility? Sorry but it's your job. I make things work. Cosmetics are quite low on my list of priorities. Feel free to fix such things. All my packages are free for all to bump, fix and extend, as long as whoever touched it is willing to fix any issues that happen from it. Also it's nice to see how you touch packages without even minimal negotiation with maintainers and at the same time you are not subscribed to bug mail of relevant herds and you do not add yourself into metadata.xml. Such behaviour is prohibited. Please, stop doing that. I'm the only person in the benchmarks herd and with dragonheart the only one in forensics herd. What's the exact problem here? Also, if I break anything ... assign the bugs to me. I'll unbreak it. Easy as that. And if you're rude enough I'll avoid touching your packages in the future and yell at you when things don't get fixed in a reasonable time. Have fun, Patrick
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
On Sunday 08 November 2009 13:10:34 Patrick Lauer wrote: On Sunday 08 November 2009 18:37:10 Peter Volkov wrote: В Вск, 08/11/2009 в 16:06 +0100, Patrick Lauer пишет: And because I'm a lazy I'd appreciate if y'all stopped obsessing about such details and just fix it instead Do you mean that whatever you commit to the tree is not your responsibility? Sorry but it's your job. I make things work. Cosmetics are quite low on my list of priorities. Feel free to fix such things. All my packages are free for all to bump, fix and extend, as long as whoever touched it is willing to fix any issues that happen from it. using this definition of correct (the package installs w/out failure and it seems to work), there is a lot of crap that could be in the tree. that doesnt mean the ebuild should be in the tree. this kind of work and opinion belongs in sunrise, not the main tree. we dont have a QA team to fix installed packages; they're here to maintain the *quality* of the tree. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
On Sunday 08 November 2009 19:24:47 Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sunday 08 November 2009 13:10:34 Patrick Lauer wrote: On Sunday 08 November 2009 18:37:10 Peter Volkov wrote: В Вск, 08/11/2009 в 16:06 +0100, Patrick Lauer пишет: And because I'm a lazy I'd appreciate if y'all stopped obsessing about such details and just fix it instead Do you mean that whatever you commit to the tree is not your responsibility? Sorry but it's your job. I make things work. Cosmetics are quite low on my list of priorities. Feel free to fix such things. All my packages are free for all to bump, fix and extend, as long as whoever touched it is willing to fix any issues that happen from it. using this definition of correct (the package installs w/out failure and it seems to work), there is a lot of crap that could be in the tree. that doesnt mean the ebuild should be in the tree. this kind of work and opinion belongs in sunrise, not the main tree. I hope you realize what percentage of packages are completely unmaintained or only tangentially maintained. By that reasoning we better cut out everything apart from the base system, xorg, kde and gnome. Oh, and python. (If I missed anyone here, please don't take this personal. It's a reductio ad absurdum I'm doing here, so it better be absurd!) If you haven't noticed (here's a really hilarious one!) ... We currently do not have anyone seriously maintaining all the perl bits. There's, uhm, ... err ... there used to be Tove, who did an awesome job. I took over benchmark and forensics herd because they were empty, not because I care about those packages. sgml and ha-cluster herds are quite vacant as far as I can tell. bugwranglers are understaffed and can barely keep up with the current flood from our motivated and skillfull bug-finding users. So maybe now you understand my mentality of just fixing whatever bugs I encounter. I don't care at all about your idealistic views of how we were to do things if everything worked. Reality doesn't tolerate it well. Bugs happen, and we better start fixing them. we dont have a QA team to fix installed packages; they're here to maintain the *quality* of the tree. That's good. So start fixing stuff. Maybe take over the empty herds until you manage to recruit some replacements. If you feel you have too much time you could search on bugzilla for patch and start fixing those bugs. Bump is also a funny search. Or if you don't know what else to do, there's this nice Bug Wranglers search at the bottom of the bugzilla pages. Click on it and get the amount of bugs in the bugwrangler queue under 100 if you can! Once you've done that for 3 months we can renegotiate cosmetic bugs and QA. Kthxbai, Patrick
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org said: If you feel you have too much time you could search on bugzilla for patch and start fixing those bugs. Bump is also a funny search. If you are just bumping random packages and applying patches when you have no idea how the package works, we have a problem on our hands. Please don't do that, you are only making more work for others. Perhaps some of the things that are not maintained should go away. Once you've done that for 3 months we can renegotiate cosmetic bugs and QA. Renegotiate QA? Do not commit anything to the tree that doesn't comply to QA standards. Its really that simple. Don't be lazy and do things the right way, or don't do them at all. Kthxbai, Also, please learn how to communicate in a manner that is constructive instead of acting like a dick at every opportunity. -- Mark Loeser email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://www.halcy0n.com pgpgRzcnPXpT9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
Mike Frysinger schrieb: On Sunday 08 November 2009 13:10:34 Patrick Lauer wrote: On Sunday 08 November 2009 18:37:10 Peter Volkov wrote: В Вск, 08/11/2009 в 16:06 +0100, Patrick Lauer пишет: And because I'm a lazy I'd appreciate if y'all stopped obsessing about such details and just fix it instead Do you mean that whatever you commit to the tree is not your responsibility? Sorry but it's your job. I make things work. Cosmetics are quite low on my list of priorities. Feel free to fix such things. All my packages are free for all to bump, fix and extend, as long as whoever touched it is willing to fix any issues that happen from it. using this definition of correct (the package installs w/out failure and it seems to work), there is a lot of crap that could be in the tree. that doesnt mean the ebuild should be in the tree. this kind of work and opinion belongs in sunrise, not the main tree. we dont have a QA team to fix installed packages; they're here to maintain the *quality* of the tree. -mike Please stop such comments. Sunrise really isnt a place, where you can drop anything in without any quality check. Join the sunrise team, do our work for some months, then tell me, where it lacks quality checks or anything else. -- Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
On Sunday 08 November 2009 20:27:23 Mark Loeser wrote: Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org said: If you feel you have too much time you could search on bugzilla for patch and start fixing those bugs. Bump is also a funny search. If you are just bumping random packages and applying patches when you have no idea how the package works, we have a problem on our hands. Please don't do that, you are only making more work for others. Perhaps some of the things that are not maintained should go away. Like Perl? I like your plan already. Once you've done that for 3 months we can renegotiate cosmetic bugs and QA. Renegotiate QA? Do not commit anything to the tree that doesn't comply to QA standards. Its really that simple. Don't be lazy and do things the right way, or don't do them at all. That is an interesting opinion. But I doubt we're in a position to demand such things - I did point at a few minor issues in my last email, none of which you responded to in any way. So I guess you prefer things being unmaintained and rotting away so our users have the shittiest user experience possible instead of people trying to make things better. Now if you really were interested in QA you might want to do some things - like help bugwranglers. With the current amount of people available (not enough) and the influx of bugs (100-200 a day) we have a latency of worst case a few days until a bugwrangler looks at it. (Average case is much better). That is time the maintainers are not informed of a bug, which means we delay fixing it. Sucks from a QA point of view. Things like that would be good to have, but instead y'all spend lots of time discussing on mailinglists and not helping there. (Ok, we're all volunteers, we all have limited time, etc. etc.) So I find it a bit hard to care about your academic discussion of how to handle things when I haven't heard any idea of a solution to the problems I mentioned earlier. Head-in-the-sand is not going to work. And again, start at the basics. You can't build a tower without a solid foundation. Does it compile is more important than does it respect as- needed or is indentation beautiful, so prioritize a bit and focus on getting the big problems resolved. Take care, Patrick
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
2009/11/8 Mark Loeser halc...@gentoo.org: Also, please learn how to communicate in a manner that is constructive instead of acting like a dick at every opportunity. Looks to me this should be applied to some others in this thread first. Really, aren't there more constructive ways to communicate your (meaning all of you in this thread) concerns, without demotivating the person who does so much work for Gentoo? Cheers, -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc) __
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org said: 2009/11/8 Mark Loeser halc...@gentoo.org: Also, please learn how to communicate in a manner that is constructive instead of acting like a dick at every opportunity. Looks to me this should be applied to some others in this thread first. Really, aren't there more constructive ways to communicate your (meaning all of you in this thread) concerns, without demotivating the person who does so much work for Gentoo? If the person doing said work does not care about abiding by QA standards, then that person shouldn't be touching the tree to begin with. -- Mark Loeser email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://www.halcy0n.com pgpv1uG57G78X.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
2009/11/8 Mark Loeser halc...@gentoo.org: Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org said: Really, aren't there more constructive ways to communicate your (meaning all of you in this thread) concerns, without demotivating the person who does so much work for Gentoo? If the person doing said work does not care about abiding by QA standards, then that person shouldn't be touching the tree to begin with. So, you didn't get my point. It must be true then, what they say about geeks and social skills... Cheers, -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc) __
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
On Sunday 08 November 2009 14:46:34 Thomas Sachau wrote: Mike Frysinger schrieb: On Sunday 08 November 2009 13:10:34 Patrick Lauer wrote: On Sunday 08 November 2009 18:37:10 Peter Volkov wrote: В Вск, 08/11/2009 в 16:06 +0100, Patrick Lauer пишет: And because I'm a lazy I'd appreciate if y'all stopped obsessing about such details and just fix it instead Do you mean that whatever you commit to the tree is not your responsibility? Sorry but it's your job. I make things work. Cosmetics are quite low on my list of priorities. Feel free to fix such things. All my packages are free for all to bump, fix and extend, as long as whoever touched it is willing to fix any issues that happen from it. using this definition of correct (the package installs w/out failure and it seems to work), there is a lot of crap that could be in the tree. that doesnt mean the ebuild should be in the tree. this kind of work and opinion belongs in sunrise, not the main tree. we dont have a QA team to fix installed packages; they're here to maintain the *quality* of the tree. Please stop such comments. Sunrise really isnt a place, where you can drop anything in without any quality check. Join the sunrise team, do our work for some months, then tell me, where it lacks quality checks or anything else. you misinterpreted my post. sunrise has built in processes to get the quality up past crap. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
On Sunday 08 November 2009 15:22:19 Ben de Groot wrote: 2009/11/8 Mark Loeser halc...@gentoo.org: Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org said: Really, aren't there more constructive ways to communicate your (meaning all of you in this thread) concerns, without demotivating the person who does so much work for Gentoo? If the person doing said work does not care about abiding by QA standards, then that person shouldn't be touching the tree to begin with. So, you didn't get my point. It must be true then, what they say about geeks and social skills... i dont think your point is relevant to this thread -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
none of your points here are relevant to the original issue at hand. like Mark said, if you cant be bothered to do it right in the first place, then dont do it at all. if that means packages get removed from the tree, then so be it. it isnt that hard to do it right in the first place, so stop bemoaning the point. people have done volumes of work in the past to update random packages and didnt have trouble tackling the basics. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
Petteri Räty wrote:
#SRC_URI=mirror://sourceforge/${PN}/${P}.tar.gz
# starting to hate sf.net ...
SRC_URI=http://foremost.sourceforge.net/pkg/foremost-1.5.6.tar.gz;
The filename that violates our policies hasn't changed between the new
and old SRC_URI.
Is this policy actually written down someplace? Sure, having the
SRC_URI pick up the package version automatically is good practice and
all, but does this actually rise to the level of a QA policy violation?
To me the word policy violation means more than just something that
could have been done better. It means that someplace there is an
official rule in writing that wasn't followed, and that rule was
endorsed by some official body recognized by gentoo. I don't think
quizzes can be considered policy since by design their answers aren't
written anywhere.
The only downside to not being clever with the SRC_URI is that to bump
the package you'd need to edit the URL. That isn't exactly the end of
the world, and while this is a trivial one to fix I've certainly seen a
few that are quite messy to automate.
Now, if there were no version in the filename I'd consider that a policy
issue as it would mean that the distfiles would get confused rather
quickly. However, not every lack of ideality is a policy violation
worthy of a 30-post -dev thread.
Even so, it doesn't hurt to point out non-idealities so that they can be
corrected. Let's just try not to treat them the same as if somebody had
keyworded something that breaks stable systems...
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild
Ben de Groot wrote: 2009/11/8 Mark Loeser halc...@gentoo.org: Also, please learn how to communicate in a manner that is constructive instead of acting like a dick at every opportunity. Looks to me this should be applied to some others in this thread first. Really, aren't there more constructive ways to communicate your (meaning all of you in this thread) concerns, without demotivating the person who does so much work for Gentoo? Cheers, I totally agree. And I must say it started with the very first mail of pva. Accusing of not knowing quizzes was totally uncalled for. As patrick said, the SRC_URI thing was simply forgot to be polished after testing, and the dobin thing he didn't even touch. Who remembers what everything should have || die or not from the top of his head and spots it immediatelly? And this offensive tone just provoked adequate reaction and here we are, useless flame. People can sometimes commit much worse stuff by mistake, this didn't break anything. If the first mail was just a 'hey this should bw changed to X and Y', that could be it. It's great that somebody cares to fix stuff, it's also great that somebody watches the commits for mistakes, but let's be civilized about it. Vlastimil
