[gentoo-dev] GLEP concerning ebuild-development

[gentoo-dev] GLEP concerning ebuild-development

[Adrian Lambeck]

Hello everybody,
I filed a GLEP this weekend. 
It has to do with "Automated consistency checks for ebuilds"

Please have a look at it and tell me what you think:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0035.html

It is a draft and needs some more work in order to become usefull.

Adrian Lambeck
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP concerning ebuild-development

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 480 bytes --]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:49:40 +0100 Adrian Lambeck
<adrian.lambeck@basicsedv.de> wrote:
| Please have a look at it and tell me what you think:
| http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0035.html

Any automatic machine-done changes to ebuilds will break the tree far
more than the occasional developer screwup.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP concerning ebuild-development

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 855 bytes --]

On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 19:00 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:49:40 +0100 Adrian Lambeck
> <adrian.lambeck@basicsedv.de> wrote:
> | Please have a look at it and tell me what you think:
> | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0035.html
> 
> Any automatic machine-done changes to ebuilds will break the tree far
> more than the occasional developer screwup.

To my shame I must concur with Ciaran ;p  Maybe sending reports QA's
way, or such would be more preferred, as you can never be 100% sure that
your checking/fixing state machine is 100% correct - meaning I do think
that an human eye (which at least can contact the responsible parties)
should still be the last defence in *actually changing* ebuilds.


-- 
Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP concerning ebuild-development

[Dan Armak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 986 bytes --]

On Sunday 13 March 2005 20:49, Adrian Lambeck wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> I filed a GLEP this weekend.
> It has to do with "Automated consistency checks for ebuilds"
>
> Please have a look at it and tell me what you think:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0035.html
Sorry if I'm missing the obvious, but doesn't this describe precisely what 
repoman's already doing? People already run automated repoman scans of the 
tree and mail developers who own broken ebuilds. (If that's not on official 
gentoo infrastructure, it'd be nice for it to be.) Yet the GLEP doesn't even 
mention repoman.

As for closing trivial user-reported bugs about eg bad SRC_URI, I've never 
really been bothered by it. It only takes a few seconds to write 'fixed' and 
click on 'Fixed', 'Commit'...

-- 
Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE)
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD  0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP concerning ebuild-development

[Mark Loeser]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:49:40 +0100 Adrian Lambeck
| <adrian.lambeck@basicsedv.de> wrote:
| | Please have a look at it and tell me what you think:
| | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0035.html
|
| Any automatic machine-done changes to ebuilds will break the tree far
| more than the occasional developer screwup.
|

It doesn't sound like he's describing something to automatically fix the
ebuilds, or I missed that in the document.  Seems to me that he's
describing enhancements to repoman, and to have repoman run against the
tree regularly.

Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCNJt1CRZPokWLroQRAgYgAJ9kJa/ZfOJr8VUniXZCJqgXYjfc+gCfUAdJ
xZqETSI7VCkSTGR4Ma4F2sU=
=1E1l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP concerning ebuild-development

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 674 bytes --]

On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 19:00 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:49:40 +0100 Adrian Lambeck
> <adrian.lambeck@basicsedv.de> wrote:
> | Please have a look at it and tell me what you think:
> | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0035.html
> 
> Any automatic machine-done changes to ebuilds will break the tree far
> more than the occasional developer screwup.

I'm afraid that I would have to agree.  While automatic checks that send
nasty-grams to the maintainer would be feasible, it shouldn't go around
editing ebuilds on its own.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP concerning ebuild-development

[Maurice van der Pot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1073 bytes --]

On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 09:27:03PM +0200, Dan Armak wrote:
> Sorry if I'm missing the obvious, but doesn't this describe precisely what 
> repoman's already doing? People already run automated repoman scans of the 
> tree and mail developers who own broken ebuilds. (If that's not on official 
> gentoo infrastructure, it'd be nice for it to be.) Yet the GLEP doesn't even 
> mention repoman.

I agree that it could probably be repoman's job, but I also think there are 
still things that repoman doesn't do and that could be very useful. 

For instance, checking (for all arches, for all use flag combos) if the
dependencies are as stable or more stable (x86 > ~x86 > hard masked) than 
the thing depending on it.

I suppose a lot of people have thought of this before, but I thought I'd
mention it anyway. I for one would be grateful to whoever implemented this.

Maurice.

-- 
Maurice van der Pot

Gentoo Linux Developer   griffon26@gentoo.org     http://www.gentoo.org
Creator of BiteMe!       griffon26@kfk4ever.com   http://www.kfk4ever.com


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP concerning ebuild-development

[Sami Samhuri]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 736 bytes --]

* On Sun Mar-13-2005 at 02:58:45 PM -0500, Mark Loeser said:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:49:40 +0100 Adrian Lambeck
> | <adrian.lambeck@basicsedv.de> wrote:
> | | Please have a look at it and tell me what you think:
> | | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0035.html
> |
> | Any automatic machine-done changes to ebuilds will break the tree far
> | more than the occasional developer screwup.
> |
> 
> It doesn't sound like he's describing something to automatically fix the
> ebuilds, or I missed that in the document.

Under Specification, 3rd last paragraph mentions changing keywords of
broken ebuild to "-*".

-- 
Sami Samhuri

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP concerning ebuild-development

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 575 bytes --]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:05:09 +0100 Maurice van der Pot
<griffon26@gentoo.org> wrote:
| For instance, checking (for all arches, for all use flag combos) if
| the dependencies are as stable or more stable (x86 > ~x86 > hard
| masked) than  the thing depending on it.

Hasn't repoman been doing this correctly for a year or more now? I know
it wasn't the case when I joined, but bug 24160 is long fixed...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP concerning ebuild-development

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 998 bytes --]

On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 21:17 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:05:09 +0100 Maurice van der Pot
> <griffon26@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | For instance, checking (for all arches, for all use flag combos) if
> | the dependencies are as stable or more stable (x86 > ~x86 > hard
> | masked) than  the thing depending on it.
> 
> Hasn't repoman been doing this correctly for a year or more now? I know
> it wasn't the case when I joined, but bug 24160 is long fixed...

What if we had a service that did this check plus other stuff repoman
doesn't count and report it to some web site that developers can look at
daily to see QA bugs? Maybe run it daily or every 6-12 hours? I think
someone mentioned something like that once.

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP concerning ebuild-development

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1168 bytes --]

On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 15:31 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 21:17 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:05:09 +0100 Maurice van der Pot
> > <griffon26@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > | For instance, checking (for all arches, for all use flag combos) if
> > | the dependencies are as stable or more stable (x86 > ~x86 > hard
> > | masked) than  the thing depending on it.
> > 
> > Hasn't repoman been doing this correctly for a year or more now? I know
> > it wasn't the case when I joined, but bug 24160 is long fixed...
> 
> What if we had a service that did this check plus other stuff repoman
> doesn't count and report it to some web site that developers can look at
> daily to see QA bugs? Maybe run it daily or every 6-12 hours? I think
> someone mentioned something like that once.
> 

I think it would be worth a lot more if it was mailed to the maintainer
of the ebuild (and perhaps QA?), as it takes time and effort to wade
through a list (like the been in ~ for x days list that we used to get).


-- 
Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP concerning ebuild-development

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 440 bytes --]

Sami Samhuri wrote:
> * On Sun Mar-13-2005 at 02:58:45 PM -0500, Mark Loeser said:
>>It doesn't sound like he's describing something to automatically fix the
>>ebuilds, or I missed that in the document.
> 
> 
> Under Specification, 3rd last paragraph mentions changing keywords of
> broken ebuild to "-*".
> 

You would be correct, I missed that.  Very evil.  Automatically updating 
anything is only going to lead to more breakages.

Mark

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP concerning ebuild-development

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1737 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 00:08 +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 15:31 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 21:17 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:05:09 +0100 Maurice van der Pot
> > > <griffon26@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > | For instance, checking (for all arches, for all use flag combos) if
> > > | the dependencies are as stable or more stable (x86 > ~x86 > hard
> > > | masked) than  the thing depending on it.
> > > 
> > > Hasn't repoman been doing this correctly for a year or more now? I know
> > > it wasn't the case when I joined, but bug 24160 is long fixed...
> > 
> > What if we had a service that did this check plus other stuff repoman
> > doesn't count and report it to some web site that developers can look at
> > daily to see QA bugs? Maybe run it daily or every 6-12 hours? I think
> > someone mentioned something like that once.
> > 
> 
> I think it would be worth a lot more if it was mailed to the maintainer
> of the ebuild (and perhaps QA?), as it takes time and effort to wade
> through a list (like the been in ~ for x days list that we used to get).

How about both options? Some people prefer getting email reports, others
prefer just going to a website. I don't see how this could be a problem,
so why not offer both? :) Perhaps we should ask the author to rewrite
his proposed GLEP to be more of a QA monitoring system that devs could
use.

Just my random thoughts...

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP concerning ebuild-development

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 644 bytes --]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:58:58 -0600 Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| How about both options? Some people prefer getting email reports,
| others prefer just going to a website. I don't see how this could be a
| problem, so why not offer both? :) Perhaps we should ask the author to
| rewrite his proposed GLEP to be more of a QA monitoring system that
| devs could use.

Mmm, I think it'd help more if the author was actually aware of how
development works.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP concerning ebuild-development

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1325 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 00:29 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:58:58 -0600 Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | How about both options? Some people prefer getting email reports,
> | others prefer just going to a website. I don't see how this could be a
> | problem, so why not offer both? :) Perhaps we should ask the author to
> | rewrite his proposed GLEP to be more of a QA monitoring system that
> | devs could use.
> 
> Mmm, I think it'd help more if the author was actually aware of how
> development works.

In a perfect world, thats the case. Last time I checked, we don't live
in a perfect world. Are you talking general development practices, or
Gentoo specific practices? If its the latter, do we have a doc that
covers some QA/practices related topics that maybe aren't covered in the
dev handbook? 

Its going to be hard to get around this problem with people, so why not
create something that might make them aware of their problems and offer
ways to help them get better instead of complaining about them?

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP concerning ebuild-development

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1154 bytes --]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:40:07 -0600 Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 00:29 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:58:58 -0600 Lance Albertson
| In a perfect world, thats the case. Last time I checked, we don't live
| in a perfect world. Are you talking general development practices, or
| Gentoo specific practices? If its the latter, do we have a doc that
| covers some QA/practices related topics that maybe aren't covered in
| the dev handbook? 

Officially, no, we don't.

| Its going to be hard to get around this problem with people, so why
| not create something that might make them aware of their problems and
| offer ways to help them get better instead of complaining about them?

Oh come on. There are some things that need experience. Would you
consider yourself to be in a position to propose changes to the debian
development system? Half of this GLEP is in effect already covered by
repoman anyway...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP concerning ebuild-development

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1656 bytes --]

On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 18:40 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 00:29 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:58:58 -0600 Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:
> > | How about both options? Some people prefer getting email reports,
> > | others prefer just going to a website. I don't see how this could be a
> > | problem, so why not offer both? :) Perhaps we should ask the author to
> > | rewrite his proposed GLEP to be more of a QA monitoring system that
> > | devs could use.
> > 
> > Mmm, I think it'd help more if the author was actually aware of how
> > development works.
> 
> In a perfect world, thats the case. Last time I checked, we don't live
> in a perfect world. Are you talking general development practices, or
> Gentoo specific practices? If its the latter, do we have a doc that
> covers some QA/practices related topics that maybe aren't covered in the
> dev handbook? 
> 
> Its going to be hard to get around this problem with people, so why not
> create something that might make them aware of their problems and offer
> ways to help them get better instead of complaining about them?
> 

Also the other issue is for instance that say some eclass gets
depreciated, or some new function is used to add stuff to say /etc/env.d
(doenvd, check if ebuild does 'insinto /etc/env.d'), and the dev missed
that - this could be nice things to add to this checker, as it will
ensure we do not sit with 20 ways of doing the same thing, but not
exactly wrong.


-- 
Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]