On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:55:16 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But more importantly, it still means that people *know* that a
> > failing src_test is to be investigated. Currently they instead have
> > to guess whether it's a lazy developer issue or a genuine bug being
> > shown.
>
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:57:35 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > You assume that users have working, properly configured compilers.
> > It's fairly well established that a lot of them don't, particularly
> > on Gentoo.
>
> "if your code sucks isn't our fault.
This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council
meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the
channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
If you're supposed to show up, please show up. If you're not supposed
to show up, then show up a
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:57:35 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
You assume that users have working, properly configured compilers.
It's fairly well established that a lot of them don't, particularly
on Gentoo.
"if your code sucks isn't o
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:14:03 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:57:35 +0200
> > Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> You assume that users have working, properly configured compilers.
> >>> It's fair
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Ok, if EAPI 2 turns on src_test except where explicitly overridden by
the ebuild, explain how EAPI 2 src_test failures are meaningless in the
same way that EAPI 0/1 src_test failures are.
Test failures aren't meaningless right now. Applications with good test
suites got
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:18:07 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Ok, if EAPI 2 turns on src_test except where explicitly overridden
> > by the ebuild, explain how EAPI 2 src_test failures are meaningless
> > in the same way that EAPI 0/1 src_test failures are.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 08:18, Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>
>> Ok, if EAPI 2 turns on src_test except where explicitly overridden by
>> the ebuild, explain how EAPI 2 src_test failures are meaningless in the
>> same way that EAPI 0/1 src_test failures are.
>
>
If you need eapi in file name what are the technical reasons of putting
it into file name extension? Why don't you suggest better ebuild name
like:
pkg-ver-eapi.ebuild or pkg-eapi-ver.ebuild ?
I remember last time I've asked this genone told me that this is not
backward compatible. Ok, it's not,
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:25:50 +0400
Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you need eapi in file name what are the technical reasons of
> putting it into file name extension? Why don't you suggest better
> ebuild name like:
>
> pkg-ver-eapi.ebuild or pkg-eapi-ver.ebuild ?
a) breaks current p
On 00:11 Wed 11 Jun , Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> I would like the portage devs to comment upon which of the following features
> they think could easily be implemented before portage 2.2 goes stable.
These ones meet the criteria of "I know people are working around them
because they don't
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 04:14:58AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:14:11 +0200
> Olivier Galibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:02:28PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Except that currently, the ebuild file isn't opened for read. So
> > > it's
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:14:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
*Then* would be the time to change the extension. As long as the
ebuild is bash-parseable with an appropriate environment, it doesn't
make sense to change the extension because a env-variable set or a
comment are more natural met
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> A whole bunch of science packages have upstreams that say "If you're
>> building from source, run 'make check' and if it fails don't carry on".
>
> Their rationale behind that is that their code is severely broken, using
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council
> meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the
> channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
>
> If you're supposed to s
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:02:48 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Had you bothered to write even trivial test suites for EAPI 1,
you'd've found at least one major bug straight away.
http://www.pkgcore.org/trac/pkgcore/newticket
http://www.pkgcore.org/trac/pkgco
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:55:45 -0400
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:02:48 +0200
> > Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Had you bothered to write even trivial test suites for EAPI 1,
> >>> you'd've found at least one major bug
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 06:51:46AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:46:39 +0200
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:33:41 -0700
> > > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Lay out how .006/.6 would work pr
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 08:23:59AM +0100, Richard Brown wrote:
> Also, I think you seem to be suggesting that gentoo is so well tested
> that once something's marked stable, there's no point in testing it.
A very good point. Just last week the *stable* perl cairo bindings were
broken by a x11-libs
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:15:35 -0700
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Being that you can't understand the problem you're commenting on,
> I'll explain it for you.
>
> While you can remove _p1, or _ you cannot change the
> ordering of an existing version component. Simple example you shou
On Wednesday 11 June 2008 12:11:33 Brian Harring wrote:
> Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard
> that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt,
> ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore
> standpoint)- it's about time th
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:31:45 +0200
> Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 2008/06/11, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > You're missing the cases where the cache isn't usable.
>>
>> I
On 11 Jun 2008, at 13:11, Brian Harring wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council
meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the
channel topic for the exact time (but it's pr
Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would prefer something that
> doesn't add extra lines to ebuild.
I think I would disagree with you here. I think that having a special
'eblank' or 'eseparator' command is much more readable in an ebuild.
Consider:
pkg_postinst() {
elog "Kn
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:58, Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot
--
Richard Brown
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the
developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure,
weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup that a
couple of quick unit tests would catch straight away.
No, you are
Santiago M. Mola wrote:
It's not as simple as that. A package may fail tests because compiler
bugs, build environment misconfiguration, problems in a library which
is being used, a setup problem or, of course, a bug in the package
which shows up in rare cases and haven't been spotted by upstream
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the
developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure,
weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup that a
couple of quick unit tests would catch strai
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the
developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure,
weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup that a
couple of quick un
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 10 Jun
2008 15:00:18 +0100:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:49:04 -0400
> Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 4) Putting EAPI inside the ebuild, but in a manner that does not
>> require sourcing using bash (
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:49:19 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why is "Create tests for EAPI=1 stuff." not a way to describe how
> > to reproduce a problem?
>
> because EAPI1 isn't specified completely so you don't have a large
> field to cover but you also do not know the bounds o
Patrick Lauer schrieb:
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the
developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure,
weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup t
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
EAPI 1 is entirely specified in terms of a diff against EAPI 0.
That doesn't have a complete definition by itself.
Checking every part that's changed before releasing an EAPI 1 package
manager is the least any responsible person would do. That they would
release a versi
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the
developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure,
weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup th
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 02:00:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:49:19 +0200
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Why is "Create tests for EAPI=1 stuff." not a way to describe how
> > > to reproduce a problem?
> >
> > because EAPI1 isn't specified completely so
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the
developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure,
weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup that a
couple of quick un
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:05:47 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > EAPI 1 is entirely specified in terms of a diff against EAPI 0.
>
> That doesn't have a complete definition by itself.
It's more than enough to write unit tests to ensure that all things
change
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:08:20 -0700
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ya know ciaran, I've just got to point out that you spend quite a
> large amount of time talking about pkgcore. Literaly- you talk about
> it more then I do.
Unfortunately, since you don't care about implementing EAPI
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
He doesn't point any issue in particular.
And that wasn't the point. He pointed out, that there is an issue, that
hasn't been caught because of missing tests.
That may or may not exist
because EAPI1 isn't specified completely so you don't have a large
field to cover
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:20:55 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> because EAPI1 isn't specified completely so you don't have a large
> >> field to cover but you also do not know the bounds of it.
> > It really doesn't matter how it is specified. You have an
> > implementation of it a
On Wednesday 11 June 2008 14:20:55 Luca Barbato wrote:
> Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
> > And that wasn't the point. He pointed out, that there is an issue, that
> > hasn't been caught because of missing tests.
>
> That may or may not exist
Since at least one ebuild has already been modified specifica
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:20:55 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
because EAPI1 isn't specified completely so you don't have a large
field to cover but you also do not know the bounds of it.
It really doesn't matter how it is specified. You have an
im
David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since at least one ebuild has already been modified specifically to
> work around the bug, I'd say it's pretty real.
For those of us trying to play along at home, which one is this?
--
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm)
signature.asc
Des
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:34:43 +0200
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Presumably those people, if they exist, haven't tried to go through
> > and install every EAPI 1 package in the tree (excluding KDE, since
> > that's big and slow, and starting backwards since the x11-
> > categories ar
> If, as a user or an arch person, I get a src_test failure right now, I
> don't know whether this means "eek! Something's gone wrong, and I
> really need to fix this" or "oh, whoever maintains this package
> doesn't care". But with EAPI 2, I'll be able to know that a src_test
> failure really doe
2008/6/11 Richard Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:58, Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot
The following sh
Olivier Galibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:14:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >
>
> *Then* would be the time to change the extension. As long as the
> ebuild is bash-parseable with an appropriate environment, it doesn't
> make sense to change the extension beca
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Olivier Galibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:14:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>
>
> *Then* would be the time to change the extension. As long as the
> ebuild is bash-parseable with an appropriate environment, it doesn't
> make se
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:07 AM, Jim Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not just bump the filename suffix when it is required to support a
> new EAPI that breaks the sourcing rules of previous EAPIs?
>
> Or will backwards-incompatible changes be happening so frequently that
> the package suffi
В Срд, 11/06/2008 в 08:34 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:25:50 +0400
> Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you need eapi in file name what are the technical reasons of
> > putting it into file name extension? Why don't you suggest better
> > ebuild name like:
> >
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Presumably those people, if they exist, haven't tried to go through and
install every EAPI 1 package in the tree (excluding KDE, since that's
big and slow, and starting backwards since the x11- categories are nice
and pretty).
Nice game, still you aren't giving substance
Peter Volkov wrote:
> Well for me .ebuild-eapi is much more confusing.
>
> I still don't see why it's impossible to have eapi as a part of name but
> not in extension...
Although putting EAPI in the name and not the extension is *slightly*
preferable to using the extension, I still do not think t
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:52:24 +:
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 10 Jun
> 2008 15:00:18 +0100:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:49:04 -0400
>> Richard Freeman <[EMAIL P
On 2008-06-10 15:50, Fernando J. Pereda uttered these thoughts:
>
> On 10 Jun 2008, at 15:46, Joe Peterson wrote:
>> Also, I'm not sure reading XML is a problem at all - python has good
>> libs for this already.
>
> Reading XML files is easy, but it makes certain codepaths much much slower.
> Not
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > ive made this shift in profiles.desc:
> > sed -ir '/^(arm|s390|sh)/s:stable:dev:' profiles.desc
> > if/when we get dedicated arch maintainers, they can think about
> > shifting back
>
> for the confu
On Thursday 12 June 2008 02:46:03 Jim Ramsay wrote:
> David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Since at least one ebuild has already been modified specifically to
> > work around the bug, I'd say it's pretty real.
>
> For those of us trying to play along at home, which one is this?
http://tin
On Wednesday 11 June 2008 19:00:16 David Leverton wrote:
> On Thursday 12 June 2008 02:46:03 Jim Ramsay wrote:
> > David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Since at least one ebuild has already been modified specifically to
> > > work around the bug, I'd say it's pretty real.
> >
> > For tho
On 11-06-2008 20:24:18 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 June 2008 19:00:16 David Leverton wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 June 2008 02:46:03 Jim Ramsay wrote:
> > > David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Since at least one ebuild has already been modified specifically to
> > > > wor
Hi,
Peter Alfredsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Just for the extra dense among us, does this mean that when a
> security bug such as 216850[1] gets closed with no response from
> those arches, that in such cases we are allowed punt the affected
> ebuild, even though it will break your stable?
No.
V-
On 03:06 Wed 11 Jun , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council
> meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the
> channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
Here's the proposed agenda. I intend to get
"Santiago M. Mola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:07 AM, Jim Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why not just bump the filename suffix when it is required to
> > support a new EAPI that breaks the sourcing rules of previous EAPIs?
> >
> > Or will backwards-incompatible cha
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 07:00:16PM +0100, David Leverton wrote:
> On Thursday 12 June 2008 02:46:03 Jim Ramsay wrote:
> > David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Since at least one ebuild has already been modified specifically to
> > > work around the bug, I'd say it's pretty real.
> >
> >
63 matches
Mail list logo
