[gentoo-dev] Bugzilla muckup

[Robin H. Johnson]

Ok, my bad. I screwed up. I changed something in cfengine, then rushed
off to a family dinner, and caused a couple of hours of bugzilla
badness because I didn't fully review my change.

Approximately:
2008/07/03 02h38 till 05h06.

The following bugs may have duplicate comments, or the various other
fields might not be the correct final versions:
124383
208016
219283
229067
229431
230131
230231
230417
230597
230598
230599
230600
230601
230602
230603
230605
230607

I also lost a single attachment on bug #229431. I can't recover it at
all, it was a binary blob, and it's mucked to hell.

Everything should be back online in about 15 minutes.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy
E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85


pgpV2PUA9DiVk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla muckup

[Rémi Cardona]

Robin H. Johnson a écrit :

Ok, my bad. I screwed up. I changed something in cfengine, then rushed
off to a family dinner, and caused a couple of hours of bugzilla
badness because I didn't fully review my change.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shit_happens :)


Everything should be back online in about 15 minutes.


Well thanks anyway for admitting your mistakes and fixing them. Such 
behavior is rare enough these days that you deserve to be commended for it.


Cheers

Rémi
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-scheme/drscheme: ChangeLog reversion.patch drscheme-4.0.1.ebuild drscheme-0.372-r1.ebuild

[Marijn Schouten (hkBst)]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 04:53:06PM +, Marijn Schouten (hkbst) wrote:
>> hkbst   08/06/28 16:53:06
>>
>>   Modified: ChangeLog
>>   Added:reversion.patch drscheme-4.0.1.ebuild
>> drscheme-0.372-r1.ebuild
>>   Log:
>>   add new major version 4.0.1 and reversion latest ~
>>   (Portage version: 2.2_rc1/cvs/Linux 2.6.23-gentoo-r8 x86_64)
> ...
>> 1.1  dev-scheme/drscheme/reversion.patch
>> file : 
>> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/dev-scheme/drscheme/reversion.patch?rev=1.1&view=markup
>> plain: 
>> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/dev-scheme/drscheme/reversion.patch?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
> Why was reversion.patch committed directly to dev-scheme/drscheme
> instead of files/?
> 

Because it is a patch I would've liked to apply to some ebuilds, not something
I'm applying to sources. The tools won't let me keep it uncommitted easily.

Marijn

- --
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkhsqIUACgkQp/VmCx0OL2xnGwCgwy1QiSruuSFBLHgw4aMHvMCD
gjwAn0oi7WAoTozSdprszabKgLmlugBJ
=Ywad
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla muckup

[Michael Hammer]

* Rémi Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080703 11:04]:
> Well thanks anyway for admitting your mistakes and fixing them. Such 
> behavior is rare enough these days that you deserve to be commended for it.

ack ;)

-- 

Michael Hammer|<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Graz, AT
Gentoo Developer (Kerberos)  |  http://www.michael-hammer.at

pgpk2Gt4MxA34.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-irc/quassel: ChangeLog quassel-9999-r1.ebuild quassel-0.2.0_rc1.ebuild quassel-0.2.9999.ebuild

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

On Thursday 03 July 2008 01:06:17 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> -r1 has this values:
>
> P=quassel-
> PN=quassel
> PV=
> PF=quassel--r1
> PVR=-r1 (was this the right variable name? I sincerely forgot)

PVR is right. You only forgot PR=r1.

http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html

-- 
Bo Andresen
Gentoo KDE Dev


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla muckup

[Wernfried Haas]

On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:10:27PM +0200, Michael Hammer wrote:
> * Rémi Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080703 11:04]:
> > Well thanks anyway for admitting your mistakes and fixing them. Such 
> > behavior is rare enough these days that you deserve to be commended for it.
> 
> ack ;)

++

After all you did such a lot of work without screwing up, so this one
was overdue anyway :-)
Thanks for your work!

cheers,
Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org
#gentoo-forums (freenode)


pgpbPIQ5ZPurI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-scheme/drscheme: ChangeLog reversion.patch drscheme-4.0.1.ebuild drscheme-0.372-r1.ebuild

[Ryan Hill]

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:23:01 +0200
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 04:53:06PM +, Marijn Schouten (hkbst)
> > wrote:
> >> hkbst   08/06/28 16:53:06
> >>
> >>   Modified: ChangeLog
> >>   Added:reversion.patch drscheme-4.0.1.ebuild
> >> drscheme-0.372-r1.ebuild
> >>   Log:
> >>   add new major version 4.0.1 and reversion latest ~
> >>   (Portage version: 2.2_rc1/cvs/Linux 2.6.23-gentoo-r8 x86_64)
> > ...
> >> 1.1  dev-scheme/drscheme/reversion.patch
> >> file :
> >> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/dev-scheme/drscheme/reversion.patch?rev=1.1&view=markup
> >> plain:
> >> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/dev-scheme/drscheme/reversion.patch?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
> > Why was reversion.patch committed directly to dev-scheme/drscheme
> > instead of files/?
> > 
> 
> Because it is a patch I would've liked to apply to some ebuilds, not
> something I'm applying to sources. The tools won't let me keep it
> uncommitted easily.

Then put it in an overlay or something?


-- 
gcc-porting,  by design, by neglect
treecleaner,  for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for July

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

2008-07-01 07:30:01 Mike Frysinger napisał(a):
> This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically
> the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
> (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
> 
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.

Please vote on my proposition of default LDFLAGS if they aren't introduced
until Council meeting.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [v3] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs

[Mark Loeser]

Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jim Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> excerpted below, on  Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:29:56 -0400:
> 
> > Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Its a good idea, but since our users don't always provide useful
> >> reports, it seems like we are just shifting work around.
> > 
> > I'd suggest that this would /spread/ work around - Instead of a few
> > folks wrangling bugs, everyone would be doing it.
> > 
> > That said, I have no idea how many duplicate / incomplete bugs I have
> > never seen due to the wonderful work of the wranglers.  In some ways it
> > would be a shame to lose that quality pre-reading of the bugs.
> 
> Perhaps the best solution is to get the implementation in place, but not 
> completely automate it.  Put the tools there so if it looks right, all 
> the wrangler needs to do is a single click, and it's auto-assigned, but 
> that single click is still necessary so that a human actually gets to 
> review things before doing the assignment.
> 
> That would make it /much/ easier for the wranglers.
> 
> If desired, a cron script or some such could then be setup to go thru and 
> automatically assign anything that wasn't assigned yet and that hadn't 
> been touched (no comments asking for more info, etc) for some period, say 
> a week, just to catch anything that fell thru the cracks or if the 
> wranglers all disappeared or went on strike/vacation/whatever.  Then if 
> folks ever suddenly find themselves inundated with "raw" bugs, it'd be a 
> serious indication that the wranglers needed some help.

I like this idea.  It would address my concerns.

-- 
Mark Loeser
email -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web   -   http://www.halcy0n.com


pgp0bZKY3L5NP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] RFC: 0-day bump requests

[Jeroen Roovers]

 Hi fellow developers,


it seems I've run into a minor issue with fellow bug wrangler carlo
(who has been putting a lot of work into that, for which we should all
be grateful).

Carsten has a cut-and-paste message that he posts in comments to
version bump bug reports that he finds have been filed on the day the
software version in question was released/announced. The gist of the
message is that none of or most ebuild developers do not like these
"0-day requests" and that users (and developers) should refrain from
filing them on the same day. Waiting a week would be OK, the message
seems to say.

Being an ebuild developer myself, I have to say that I do not hold that
stance and that I welcome early version bump requests. Therefore, I
refrain from adding such messages to the bugs that I wrangle and indeed
welcome any bump requests[1].

Finding myself in conflict with someone I have come to share a certain
workload with, notably someone who has a few more years of Gentoo
experience, I wonder what the majority of our ebuild developers
actually think. In that spirit, I hope the following questions are
neutral enough for everyone to *not* start a flamewar over this. :)


-
1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request?


2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early
version bump requests?


-

I know, it's not a particularly good survey, but I hope the plenty and
diversity of your answers will shed more light on the matter. :)


Thank you and kind regards,
 JeR


[1] In fact I regularly use the opportunity to check on the HOMEPAGE
whether the release was security related, and I assign directly to
security@ when that is the case (CC'ing the package's maintainers) and
perhaps pasting ChangeLog or advisory info in a comment.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: 0-day bump requests

[Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon]

On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 01:16 +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> 1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request?

If it is for software where I am also upstream (Audacious for example),
it does tend to annoy me when people try their utmost to file bug
reports before I commit my ebuild. (I have yet to miss a release by more
then 6 hours)

> 2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early
> version bump requests?

For things like the nVidia drivers I do welcome it. The time I can spend
trawling upstream sites for new releases is limited.

Just an idea:
How about a metadata.xml tag that indicates whether early bump requests are 
welcome?
It's more of an individual developer preference, but that seems the right place 
for it.

Regards,
Tony V.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: 0-day bump requests

[Joe Peterson]

Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon wrote:
> The time I can spend
> trawling upstream sites for new releases is limited.

Same here - I would never mind getting a 0-day bump request, since
someone else might have noticed before I did that a new version is
available.

> Just an idea:
> How about a metadata.xml tag that indicates whether early bump requests are 
> welcome?
> It's more of an individual developer preference, but that seems the right 
> place for it.

It might make sense if the default were that 0-day is OK (especially if
most devs don't mind).  If not, then the tag could specifiy the number
of days to wait...

-Joe
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: 0-day bump requests

[Thomas Anderson]

On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 12:26:13AM +0100, Tony Chainsaw Vroon wrote:
> > 2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early
> > version bump requests?
> Just an idea:
> How about a metadata.xml tag that indicates whether early bump requests are 
> welcome?
> It's more of an individual developer preference, but that seems the right 
> place for it.
> 
> Regards,
> Tony V.

I think Tony's metadata.xml idea is perhaps the proper way to handle
this issue. 

As for your questions, I like getting bump requests as soon as possible, as I 
can't check
upstream's website every day or two. One thing to watch out for is
a huge amount duplicates.


pgpALlD7eNq3X.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: 0-day bump requests

[Torsten Rehn]

On Friday 04 July 2008, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon wrote:
> How about a metadata.xml tag that indicates whether early bump requests are
> welcome?

People obviously don't care about what it says on the website, why should they 
start looking into metadata.xml?

I think we should remove the useless restrictions on filing bump requests and 
welcome users to open bugs. Closing (valid) bugs feels good and is also sort 
of a psychological reward for the user who opened the bug, perhaps 
encouraging them to stay in direct contact with Gentoo and contribute other, 
less trivial work.

-- 
Torsten Rehn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo AMD64 Arch Tester
http://scel.info


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: 0-day bump requests

[Marius Mauch]

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:16:09 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Disclaimer: I'm not really a package maintainer anymore.

> 1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request?

I guess like with most people it depends 
a) If I'm already aware of the new version, or would have noticed it
myself very soon I'd get a bit annoyed by them
b) How the request is worded. Is it a demand "$foo has been released 5
minutes ago, why isn't it in the tree yet?!?"), or just a friendly
notification, possibly including helpful hints about changes (new deps
or configure options for example).
c) The nature of the release. If the release is "important" (e.g.
because it contains fixes for security or data corruption issues, or
problems affecting many users) then I'm more likely to appreciate an
early notification.

> 2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early
> version bump requests?

Not in general, only if they are worded in some way offensive or don't
contain useful information. But that applies to almost any bug report.

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

[Duncan]

"Tony \"Chainsaw\" Vroon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on  Fri, 04 Jul 2008
00:26:13 +0100:

>> 2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early
>> version bump requests?

AFAIK, it has been at least informal policy to discourage bump requests 
for the first week or two.  After that, it's fair game, but of course 
check for dups b4 filing.

> Just an idea:
> How about a metadata.xml tag that indicates whether early bump requests
> are welcome? It's more of an individual developer preference, but that
> seems the right place for it.

While I like the /idea/ of a metadata tag, all in all, I think a blanket 
policy remains best (read least confusing).  Make it 72 hours or a week 
or whatever.  Devs who know and prefer not to be bothered after that can 
file their own bug, thus letting people know /they/ know, and giving 
people a place to CC for updates.

BTW, is there a supported and easily user usable metadata viewer.  
Something at the level of gentoolkit?  I've not seen or read of such a 
thing, which indicates it's likely pretty obscure if so.  What good would 
a metadata tag do if it's not info exposed to the users?  Practically, 
that's just more confusing.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: 0-day bump requests

[Luis Francisco Araujo]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Jeroen Roovers wrote:
| -
| 1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request?
|
|

It's generally fine with me; though I would handle it differently
depending upon the situation.

For example, sometimes these version bumps require some researching or
testing for some fix or feature, and I really like to test or check out
that first by myself, in such a cases, it could take a while for me to
version bump and I also try to keep the user informed about it through
the bug report (it has worked fine for me so far). If it is a straight
bump with minimal changes, I could take care of it immediately , in
either cases, I don't care the user filing an early request ... as long
as they don't care how long it might take for me to get it into portage :-)

| 2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early
| version bump requests?
|

No. It's fine with me.

| -
|
| I know, it's not a particularly good survey, but I hope the plenty and
| diversity of your answers will shed more light on the matter. :)
|
|
| Thank you and kind regards,
|  JeR
|
|
| [1] In fact I regularly use the opportunity to check on the HOMEPAGE
| whether the release was security related, and I assign directly to
| security@ when that is the case (CC'ing the package's maintainers) and
| perhaps pasting ChangeLog or advisory info in a comment.


- --

Luis F. Araujo "araujo at gentoo.org"
Gentoo Linux

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkhteEsACgkQNir3WYj9aLrrjgCfZZMejTL8o0VtHCWnD1s48SuJ
ZjkAn3X0aW0uq3cwF7gSl8aZv8HVB309
=L06A
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

[Sven Köhler]

I'd like to add a few words from the users perspective:


-
1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request?


I hope developers are not annoyed - well, sometimes the words chosen are 
maybe a bit too offensive.


I like these bump requests. I add myself as a CC and wait for some email 
in my inbox saying "it's in the tree" like most devs like to express it.
Unfortunatly, i still have to wait half on hour, until the ebuild is 
available in the mirrors.



Here's my little theory why there are these 0-day bump requests:

Gentoo Maintainers seem to be very different. There are packages (opera 
for example) where we're offered the latest of the latest (even betas 
and pre-releases and stuff), and new versions are in portage before 
you've read the news on your favourite news-site.
And on the other hand, there are packages like filezilla (to just name 
an example) where it took ages to get a new version. In addition, 
filezilla is one of the softwares that shouts at you: "there is a new 
version of me available. get it now!"
And on the third hand (damn, humans only have two) there are important 
releases like pidgin 2.4.3 which has fixed the ICQ login issue. You saw 
the bump-request coming, didn't you?



2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early
version bump requests?
-


Oh please don't discourage bump-requests, even if they are 0-day. I like 
them because I CC to them.



Regards,
  Sven

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggested default LDFLAGS+="-Wl,-O1,--hash-style=gnu,--sort-common"

[Luca Barbato]

Fabian Groffen wrote:

On 30-06-2008 17:35:08 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:

How can you easily revert it in a profile?

You can set LDFLAGS="" in a subprofiles's make.defaults.


How elegant... but I guess I'll have no choice.


Shouldn't possible have a subprofile with compiler/linker specifics and 
move there non sharable stuff and keep base leaner?


lu

--

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: 0-day bump requests

[Hans de Graaff]

On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 02:31 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:16:09 +0200
> Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Disclaimer: I'm not really a package maintainer anymore.

I am, and Marius said all the things that I would have said. :-)

One of the reasons that it depends is also that my own involvement which
packages varies. Some things I track closely including involvement with
upstream, and then a 0-day bump can be a bit annoying since I'm already
quite aware of the bump. Other packages I've only taken up because
otherwise they would be without any maintainer, and I may only check
them every 6 months or so. Getting any bump request for them (0-day or
otherwise) is useful.

I also thought that the idea behind discouragement of 0-day bump
requests was to keep bugzilla a bit more uncluttered with bugs that
should normally be closed in a very short time anyway.

Kind regards,

Hans


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: 0-day bump requests

[Gilles Dartiguelongue]

Le vendredi 04 juillet 2008 à 07:07 +0200, Hans de Graaff a écrit :
> On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 02:31 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:16:09 +0200
> > Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > Disclaimer: I'm not really a package maintainer anymore.
> 
> I am, and Marius said all the things that I would have said. :-)
> 
> One of the reasons that it depends is also that my own involvement which
> packages varies. Some things I track closely including involvement with
> upstream, and then a 0-day bump can be a bit annoying since I'm already
> quite aware of the bump. Other packages I've only taken up because
> otherwise they would be without any maintainer, and I may only check
> them every 6 months or so. Getting any bump request for them (0-day or
> otherwise) is useful.

I'm 100% seconding that. We, the gnome guys, have at least 2 ways of
being notified of package updates (RSS & mailing-list). So for most of
the packages we manage, a 0-day bump request is annoying ("yes we know,
but we haven't had time to get to it, so please don't bother us..."). If
we aren't done one week later, then it's probably that we missed it on
our radar or we haven't had enough man power at this time. In either
case it's fine to fill a bug at this time.

-- 
Gilles Dartiguelongue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

[Christian Faulhammer]

Hi,

"Tony \"Chainsaw\" Vroon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> How about a metadata.xml tag that indicates whether early bump
> requests are welcome? It's more of an individual developer
> preference, but that seems the right place for it.

 This fixes a non-problem.  Why overload metadata.xml with information
that will rot there probably, because nobody thinks of it?  There is
only very few 0-day bump-requests, so just leave them until you fix
it.  I am not annoyed by it and having some policy like "Only allow
them when the relative moon humidity is below 0.434" will irritate
bug filers, as they won't check and it burdens
bug-wranglers if they have to check before.

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

http://www.faulhammer.org/>


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature