[gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 725 bytes --]

Currently pam stuff (implementations, modules) are organized in the worst way 
I ever seen.
Most of them are in sys-libs, some of them in app-admin, other in app-crypt, 
pam_smb in net-misc and so on.

I think we should reorganize them and have a sys-pam category with 
implementations (Linux-PAM and OpenPAM) and the modules needed.

Such a change would require a lot of work and we can't count on epkgmove I 
think, but if someone is going to help me or at least tell me how to do such 
a change without breaking everything (always if such a change is accepted, 
obv.)..

Comments?
-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64)

http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Alin Nastac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1282 bytes --]

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:

>Currently pam stuff (implementations, modules) are organized in the worst way 
>I ever seen.
>Most of them are in sys-libs, some of them in app-admin, other in app-crypt, 
>pam_smb in net-misc and so on.
>
>I think we should reorganize them and have a sys-pam category with 
>implementations (Linux-PAM and OpenPAM) and the modules needed.
>
>Such a change would require a lot of work and we can't count on epkgmove I 
>think, but if someone is going to help me or at least tell me how to do such 
>a change without breaking everything (always if such a change is accepted, 
>obv.)..
>
>Comments?
>  
>
here is how I do package moves:
- first I search all tree to see which packages depends on the package I
wanna move
- copy src -> dst and erase CVS dirs from dst
- cvs add dst dst/files
- cvs add all_files
- search and replace the old name with the new name (usually you should
edit only the first line of the ChangeLog)
- add a comment in ChangeLog
- repoman commit dst
- put a record in /profiles/updates/?Q-200?
- cvs delete all_files_from src
- cvs commit src
- replace & repoman commit dependencies found at first step

it is a laborious work, but it could be done.
too bad we don't use subversion :(


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Mike Doty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 642 bytes --]

On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 17:44 +0300, Alin Nastac wrote:
[snip]
> it is a laborious work, but it could be done.
> too bad we don't use subversion :(

I wonder if there is a svn interface to cvs, or if one could be written.

-- 
=======================================================
Mike Doty                           kingtaco@gentoo.org
Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead         PGP Key: 0xA797C7A7
Gentoo Developer Relations                                       
                 ===GPG Fingerprint===                 
   0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB  06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7  
=======================================================

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Alin Nastac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 200 bytes --]

Mike Doty wrote:

>I wonder if there is a svn interface to cvs, or if one could be written.
>
>  
>
rename/move is a feature of the svn database, not of the svn interface.
also support symlinks, btw.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Ned Ludd]

On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 16:22 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Currently pam stuff (implementations, modules) are organized in the worst way 
> I ever seen.
> Most of them are in sys-libs, some of them in app-admin, other in app-crypt, 
> pam_smb in net-misc and so on.
> 
> I think we should reorganize them and have a sys-pam category with 
> implementations (Linux-PAM and OpenPAM) and the modules needed.
> 
> Such a change would require a lot of work and we can't count on epkgmove I 
> think, but if someone is going to help me or at least tell me how to do such 
> a change without breaking everything (always if such a change is accepted, 
> obv.)..
> 
> Comments?

Diego:
This is not directed at you solely but expresses my general feelings on 
the topic of ever moving packages.

I think they are fine where they are. Moving stuff around is a waste of 
time. Makes things more complex. Makes more work on everybody. 
Invalidates binary package trees. It places stress on rsync servers. It
makes people have to rewrite rsync_exclude files. Makes it harder for 
scripts that interact with portage. And in the end really gains us next
to nothing. Please stop moving stuff around for cosmetic reasons. I see
far to many threads about changing stuff. No real valuable work ever
gets done. Stuff simply just gets shifted around somebody can think of a
new way to categorize existing data.

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Jonas Geiregat]

Ned Ludd wrote:

>On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 16:22 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
>  
>
>>Currently pam stuff (implementations, modules) are organized in the worst way 
>>I ever seen.
>>Most of them are in sys-libs, some of them in app-admin, other in app-crypt, 
>>pam_smb in net-misc and so on.
>>
>>I think we should reorganize them and have a sys-pam category with 
>>implementations (Linux-PAM and OpenPAM) and the modules needed.
>>
>>Such a change would require a lot of work and we can't count on epkgmove I 
>>think, but if someone is going to help me or at least tell me how to do such 
>>a change without breaking everything (always if such a change is accepted, 
>>obv.)..
>>
>>Comments?
>>    
>>
>
>Diego:
>This is not directed at you solely but expresses my general feelings on 
>the topic of ever moving packages.
>
>I think they are fine where they are. Moving stuff around is a waste of 
>time. Makes things more complex. Makes more work on everybody. 
>Invalidates binary package trees. It places stress on rsync servers. It
>makes people have to rewrite rsync_exclude files. Makes it harder for 
>scripts that interact with portage. And in the end really gains us next
>to nothing. Please stop moving stuff around for cosmetic reasons. I see
>far to many threads about changing stuff. No real valuable work ever
>gets done. Stuff simply just gets shifted around somebody can think of a
>new way to categorize existing data.
>
>  
>
I do agree with you but some package just have completely wrong place
within portage, such package placements migh confuse the user.
To give an example: mzscheme was placed in dev-lisp while portage had a
dev-scheme directory.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[foser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 502 bytes --]

On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 18:34 +0200, Jonas Geiregat wrote:
> I do agree with you but some package just have completely wrong place
> within portage, such package placements migh confuse the user.
> To give an example: mzscheme was placed in dev-lisp while portage had a
> dev-scheme directory.

The current set-up isn't user-browseable anyway and hasn't been for a
long time. I don't think the focus should be on correcting that in the
tree, the user tools should be improved really.

- foser

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Nathan L. Adams]

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

foser wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 18:34 +0200, Jonas Geiregat wrote:
> 
>>I do agree with you but some package just have completely wrong place
>>within portage, such package placements migh confuse the user.
>>To give an example: mzscheme was placed in dev-lisp while portage had a
>>dev-scheme directory.
> 
> The current set-up isn't user-browseable anyway and hasn't been for a
> long time. I don't think the focus should be on correcting that in the
> tree, the user tools should be improved really.
> 

Then why is their a browsable "Categories" link on the packages site?

http://packages.gentoo.org/categories/

I don't agree with Ned. Organizing the packages logically makes things
less confusing for the end-user and developers alike and doesn't qualify
as a "cosmetic reason". It *is* valuable work, IMHO.

That's not to say that the user tools shouldn't be improved where
possible, of course. I don't think anyone would argue with that.

Nathan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCozWL2QTTR4CNEQARAoVuAJ439WPwSg8qj0+pUWusNWMhtYMXKQCfZlTU
w8wP8vkA5nTTLFoqRlWvsK4=
=sbo+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Ned Ludd]

On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 13:25 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> foser wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 18:34 +0200, Jonas Geiregat wrote:
> > 
> >>I do agree with you but some package just have completely wrong place
> >>within portage, such package placements migh confuse the user.
> >>To give an example: mzscheme was placed in dev-lisp while portage had a
> >>dev-scheme directory.
> > 
> > The current set-up isn't user-browseable anyway and hasn't been for a
> > long time. I don't think the focus should be on correcting that in the
> > tree, the user tools should be improved really.
> > 
> 
> Then why is their a browsable "Categories" link on the packages site?
> 
> http://packages.gentoo.org/categories/
> 
> I don't agree with Ned. Organizing the packages logically makes things
> less confusing for the end-user and developers alike and doesn't qualify
> as a "cosmetic reason". It *is* valuable work, IMHO.

And how long before somebody proposes sys-auth?

*poof* we now reshuffle, but then we can do auth with ldap. So lets
move 
all the */ldap* related subjects under it sys-auth/... Then a month or 
six later comes along sys-ldap and it gets moved there. The logic will 
go full circle before long if we consistently keep shuffling packages
around.

All in all this is seriously the reason why ebuilds have a DESCRIPTION= 
and one of the reasons we have metadata.xml files.

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Nathan L. Adams]

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

Ned Ludd wrote:
> *poof* we now reshuffle, but then we can do auth with ldap. So lets
> move 
> all the */ldap* related subjects under it sys-auth/... Then a month or 
> six later comes along sys-ldap and it gets moved there. The logic will 
> go full circle before long if we consistently keep shuffling packages
> around.
> 
> All in all this is seriously the reason why ebuilds have a DESCRIPTION= 
> and one of the reasons we have metadata.xml files.
>

Well obviously there needs to be a consensus on *how* to logically
organize things before anyone goes willy nilly changing stuff. Do you
group by what the package is used for (email vs. game vs. web browser)
or by what it is built from (PERL stuff, Gnome apps, KDE apps). It
appears that currently its a mix. Is that documented anywhere?

I personally think the organization should be from an end-user
perspective as much as possible. Imagine for a moment that you are a
Genewbie (new Gentoo user). You have a new minimal installation and you
want to add some applications. How do you know what your choices are for
an email client, for instance? You could find most things here:

http://packages.gentoo.org/packages/?category=mail-client

But that wouldn't let you know about kmail, a fairly important option.

If you were to do a search, you wouldn't get much either:

# emerge -s email
Searching...
[ Results for search key : email ]
[ Applications found : 5 ]

*  dev-perl/Email-Find
*  dev-perl/Email-Valid
*  net-mail/archivemail
*  net-mail/email
*  net-mail/sendEmail

So while the metadata.xml files do exist, I don't see how they are
_currently_ very useful to the end-users. Again, I think better
organization and improved tools are both worth while.

Nathan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCo2cv2QTTR4CNEQARAo5tAJ0STkaF2m46JPxysx9tGGCz4wZHZQCfUElz
6RRmFZVvhp2Otr9ZA9yUVHE=
=gW6X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Nathan L. Adams]

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

Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> Well obviously there needs to be a consensus on *how* to logically
> organize things before anyone goes willy nilly changing stuff. Do you
> group by what the package is used for (email vs. game vs. web browser)
> or by what it is built from (PERL stuff, Gnome apps, KDE apps). It
> appears that currently its a mix. Is that documented anywhere?
> 
> I personally think the organization should be from an end-user
> perspective as much as possible. Imagine for a moment that you are a
> Genewbie (new Gentoo user). You have a new minimal installation and you
> want to add some applications. How do you know what your choices are for
> an email client, for instance? You could find most things here:
> 
> http://packages.gentoo.org/packages/?category=mail-client
> 
> But that wouldn't let you know about kmail, a fairly important option.
> 
> If you were to do a search, you wouldn't get much either:
> 
> # emerge -s email
> Searching...
> [ Results for search key : email ]
> [ Applications found : 5 ]
> 
> *  dev-perl/Email-Find
> *  dev-perl/Email-Valid
> *  net-mail/archivemail
> *  net-mail/email
> *  net-mail/sendEmail
> 
> So while the metadata.xml files do exist, I don't see how they are
> _currently_ very useful to the end-users. Again, I think better
> organization and improved tools are both worth while.
> 
> Nathan
> 

Oooops. I just realized that I did a --search instead of a --searchdesc.
But I doubt most users even realize that --searchdesc even exists, so my
argument there still applies. ;)

Nathan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCo2iK2QTTR4CNEQARAjgtAJ0TysMfDTptn9U1v7NlquVpONevVQCZAbA6
TYcZJnMAAhsgcNwpKw6fiO4=
=H/f5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Ned Ludd]

On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 16:57 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> > *poof* we now reshuffle, but then we can do auth with ldap. So lets
> > move 
> > all the */ldap* related subjects under it sys-auth/... Then a month or 
> > six later comes along sys-ldap and it gets moved there. The logic will 
> > go full circle before long if we consistently keep shuffling packages
> > around.
> > 
> > All in all this is seriously the reason why ebuilds have a DESCRIPTION= 
> > and one of the reasons we have metadata.xml files.
> >
> 


> Well obviously there needs to be a consensus on *how* to logically
> organize things before anyone goes willy nilly changing stuff. Do you
> group by what the package is used for (email vs. game vs. web browser)
> or by what it is built from (PERL stuff, Gnome apps, KDE apps). It
> appears that currently its a mix. Is that documented anywhere?

You raise a good point and sadly that is the unfortunate thing here.. 
There is no clear consensus right now and we have yet to really have a 
fruitful thread on the subject. I not aware of any intelligent 
documentation on this subject either.

> I personally think the organization should be from an end-user
> perspective as much as possible. Imagine for a moment that you are a
> Genewbie (new Gentoo user). You have a new minimal installation and you
> want to add some applications. How do you know what your choices are for
> an email client, for instance? You could find most things here:


> Again, I think better
> organization and improved tools are both worth while.

I fully agree with you on improved tools and would rather see us go 
this route before we end up with >300 top level categories.

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Jan Jitse Venselaar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2377 bytes --]

On Sunday 05 June 2005 23:55, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 16:57 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> > Well obviously there needs to be a consensus on *how* to logically
> > organize things before anyone goes willy nilly changing stuff. Do you
> > group by what the package is used for (email vs. game vs. web browser)
> > or by what it is built from (PERL stuff, Gnome apps, KDE apps). It
> > appears that currently its a mix. Is that documented anywhere?
>
> You raise a good point and sadly that is the unfortunate thing here..
> There is no clear consensus right now and we have yet to really have a
> fruitful thread on the subject. I not aware of any intelligent
> documentation on this subject either.
>
> > I personally think the organization should be from an end-user
> > perspective as much as possible. Imagine for a moment that you are a
> > Genewbie (new Gentoo user). You have a new minimal installation and you
> > want to add some applications. How do you know what your choices are for
> > an email client, for instance? You could find most things here:
> >
> >
> > Again, I think better
> > organization and improved tools are both worth while.
>
> I fully agree with you on improved tools and would rather see us go
> this route before we end up with >300 top level categories.
>
Recently I spoke with Enrico Zini (Debian Developer). Debian has the same 
problems in this area, and he is working on Debtags, which is designed to 
solve this exact problem. Basically what it does is take a few different 
classifications (like, purpose, environment, language it was written in 
etc.), and make it configurable what to put in the top level, what to put 
underneath the top level, etc. This is called faceted classification, and was 
invented by the Indian librarian and classificationist S.R. Ranganathan in 
the early 1930s.
The system is expandable, users can add their own classifications and 
categories. 
The main problem is performance, but I understood that that is mainly due to 
lack of focus on that area. 
For more information see the Debtags website, 
http://debtags.alioth.debian.org/
It may not be the ideal solution yet, but what I understood of it, it is a 
very powerful system, and quite intuitive for end-users.

Jan Jitse

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Jonas Geiregat]

Nathan L. Adams wrote:

>
>>Then why is their a browsable "Categories" link on the packages site?
>>
>>http://packages.gentoo.org/categories/
>>    
>>
Very good question , ..

>>I don't agree with Ned. Organizing the packages logically makes things
>>less confusing for the end-user and developers alike and doesn't qualify
>>as a "cosmetic reason". It *is* valuable work, IMHO.
>>
>>    
>>
I often use simple unix tools like ls grep etc .. to search for things
in my portage tree I find that this goes alot quicker then using the
user utilities , so I guess your right those need more attention then
the tree structure.

>>That's not to say that the user tools shouldn't be improved where
>>possible, of course. I don't think anyone would argue with that.
>>
>>Nathan
>>
>>    
>>
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 854 bytes --]

On Sunday 05 June 2005 17:37, Ned Ludd wrote:
> I think they are fine where they are. Moving stuff around is a waste of
> time. Makes things more complex. Makes more work on everybody.
Sorry but I don't agree with that, at least for the particular case of pam.
The way it's now, makes my work hardware than it could be having them in 
order. If I want to look for pam modules which needs to be fixed, I need to 
go through a list with eix looking for them. Also two similar modules like 
pam_ssh and pam_ssh_agent are respectively in app-crypt and sys-libs.
And sorry, I don't think that everytime I need to find out what I need to 
change or test I need to do some strange query like "eix -r [^s]\?pam -o 
^pam".

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64)

http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Ned Ludd]

On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 19:34 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Sunday 05 June 2005 17:37, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > I think they are fine where they are. Moving stuff around is a waste of
> > time. Makes things more complex. Makes more work on everybody.
> Sorry but I don't agree with that, at least for the particular case of pam.
> The way it's now, makes my work hardware than it could be having them in 
> order. If I want to look for pam modules which needs to be fixed, I need to 
> go through a list with eix looking for them. Also two similar modules like 
> pam_ssh and pam_ssh_agent are respectively in app-crypt and sys-libs.
> And sorry, I don't think that everytime I need to find out what I need to 
> change or test I need to do some strange query like "eix -r [^s]\?pam -o 
> ^pam".

14 files matching the pam prefix and 18 thing matching description.

app-admin/pam_dotfile (Mail related)
 pam module to allow password-storing in $HOME/dotfiles

app-crypt/pam_krb5 (Should of been put in sys-libs)
 Pam module for MIT Kerberos V

app-vim/pam-syntax (Seems logical)
 vim plugin: PAM configuration syntax highlighting

dev-perl/Authen-PAM (Seems logical)
 Interface to PAM library

kde-base/kcheckpass (Seems logical)
 KDE pam client that allows you to auth as a specified user without
 actually doing anything as that user.

kde-base/kdebase-pam (Seems logical)
 pam.d files used by several KDE components.

kde-base/secpolicy (Not sure)
 KDE: Display PAM security policies

net-libs/pam_ldap (Should of been sys-libs)
 PAM LDAP Module

net-mail/checkpassword-pam (Seems logical)
 checkpassword-compatible authentication program w/pam support

net-mail/poppassd_ceti (Seems logical)
 Password change daemon with PAM support

net-misc/pam_smb (Should of been sys-libs)
 The PAM SMB module, which allows authentication against an NT server.

net-www/mod_auth_pam (Seems logical)
 PAM authentication module for Apache

sys-apps/pam-login (Seems logical not a lib but a program)
 Based on the sources from util-linux, with added pam and shadow
features

sys-libs/pam_mysql (Seems logical)
 pam_mysql is a module for pam to authenticate users with mysql

sys-libs/pam_passwdqc (Seems logical)
 Password strength checking for PAM aware password changing programs

sys-libs/pam_pwdfile (Seems logical)
 PAM module for authenticating against passwd-like files.

sys-libs/pam_ssh_agent (Seems logical)
 PAM module that spawns a ssh-agent and adds identities using the
 password supplied at login

sys-libs/pam_usb (Seems logical)
 A PAM module that enables authentication using an USB-Storage device
 (such as an USB Pen) through DSA private/public keys.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you really feel you must invalidate everybody else binary trees 
and adding a workload on others for your gain then go for it.
But adding another category for what are clearly mostly system 
libraries does not make sense me in this case. 
So sorry I object to new category creation for PAM.

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1568 bytes --]

On Sunday 05 June 2005 21:03, Ned Ludd wrote:
> 14 files matching the pam prefix and 18 thing matching description.
You missed pam_ssh. And that's just an example.
By the way... mind telling everyone here how did you do that search? I still 
feel that looking for pam things in a *single* place is more useful than 
looking in many different places.

If you feel that sys-auth is more logical, seems good to me. I haven't said 
that it *must* be sys-pam.. was a proposal and as proposal is something I'd 
like to discuss.

> If you really feel you must invalidate everybody else binary trees
> and adding a workload on others for your gain then go for it.
For my gain? Wait I was talking of me in this case but it's not just me.
I think everyone which is looking for pam modules would like to search 
something like sys-pam, instead of looking here and there on the tree or 
trying to use some strange black-magic queries.
By the way, if you're looking for pam modules, your results are quite full of 
cruft.

> But adding another category for what are clearly mostly system
> libraries does not make sense me in this case.
Currently sys-libs contains a very wide range of things, just a couple of them 
seems to be strictly related. As I said, if you feel sys-auth is better, 
good. That would probably take also other things like courier-authlib for 
example.
But sys-libs doesn't seem the right place for me.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64)

http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Ned Ludd]

On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 21:21 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Sunday 05 June 2005 21:03, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > 14 files matching the pam prefix and 18 thing matching description.
> You missed pam_ssh. And that's just an example.
> By the way... mind telling everyone here how did you do that search? I still 
> feel that looking for pam things in a *single* place is more useful than 
> looking in many different places.
I ran 
q search pam | grep -i -v SPAM
and it took 0.665 seconds. Quite a bit faster than having to cd 
$PORTDIR and cd foo ; cd .. ; cd bar ; cd ..

> If you feel that sys-auth is more logical, seems good to me. I haven't said 
> that it *must* be sys-pam.. was a proposal and as proposal is something I'd 
> like to discuss.

Not really.
We currently have about 138 categories and 19443 ebuilds in 9413 uniq
package names. That's something like 68 on average packages per category
with the addition 1 new category it only brings that 
average down to 67 things. I counted about ~20 PAM things in the entire 
tree which is less than one third of the global per package average 
category count.

> > If you really feel you must invalidate everybody else binary trees
> > and adding a workload on others for your gain then go for it.
> For my gain? Wait I was talking of me in this case but it's not just me.

Sure it is. You proposed it. You make reference of being the one that 
needs to fix things more than one time.

> I think everyone which is looking for pam modules would like to search 
> something like sys-pam, instead of looking here and there on the tree or 
> trying to use some strange black-magic queries.
> By the way, if you're looking for pam modules, your results are quite full of 
> cruft.

No strictly all PAM listed in the description. 
If something was missing from the description then that given ebuild 
should be fixed to reflect it.

> > But adding another category for what are clearly mostly system
> > libraries does not make sense me in this case.
> Currently sys-libs contains a very wide range of things, just a couple of them 
> seems to be strictly related. As I said, if you feel sys-auth is better, 
> good. That would probably take also other things like courier-authlib for 
> example.


> But sys-libs doesn't seem the right place for me.

Please hold off on the creation of any new categories till robbat2 
and Azarah get a chance to comment, if they are for it I'll shutup.

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Kevin F. Quinn]

I'm with Ned & fozer on this, in general at least. This is the second time this issue has come up over the last month or so; it's what kicks off the flat-tree debate.  My preference in practice is to leave the current tree allocation of packages to categories well alone (to avoid unnecessary disruption), de-emphasize the tree categories as useful data (I find them more of a hindrance than a help) and focus on query tools and metadata.xml.

It'd be nice to ditch categories completely of course, but obviously that's not practical :)

A suggestion, if I may. One simple way to manage a set of packages spread across the tree is to create set of softlinks to them in a directory outside the tree.  So you could create a directory "pam" somewhere handy, and softlink from the relevant packages in your CVS tree or sync tree to it.

Kev.



-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Michael Cummings]

Solar,
	I realize you meant this as a general statement of opinion and not a 
flame-baiter, but can you elaborate on:

On Sunday 05 June 2005 11:37, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Invalidates binary package trees. 

My (wrong?) understanding was that this is addressed when portage runs a 
fixpackages (otherwise what's it doing to all those binary packages?). I ask 
because its no secret that I'm working on a split up of dev-perl from the 
500+ packages to a better organized, reasonable scenario where packages are 
categorized based on, well, category :) rather than on the fact that they 
"contain some perl bits or module bits, stuff them in dev-perl". 

Just curious, it's not my intent to hurt anyone's trees along the way :)

-mike

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1217 bytes --]

On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 13:50 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> Solar,
> 	I realize you meant this as a general statement of opinion and not a 
> flame-baiter, but can you elaborate on:
> 
> On Sunday 05 June 2005 11:37, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > Invalidates binary package trees. 
> 
> My (wrong?) understanding was that this is addressed when portage runs a 
> fixpackages (otherwise what's it doing to all those binary packages?). I ask 
> because its no secret that I'm working on a split up of dev-perl from the 
> 500+ packages to a better organized, reasonable scenario where packages are 
> categorized based on, well, category :) rather than on the fact that they 
> "contain some perl bits or module bits, stuff them in dev-perl". 

In my experience, fixpackages doesn't actually fix this sometimes. I've
had to phsyically delete the binary package and recreate it for the
category to be fixed. Sadly, I haven't had time to search for a bug on
it.

-- 
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 --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal: sys-pam category

[sf]

Michael Cummings wrote:
> Solar,
> 	I realize you meant this as a general statement of opinion and not a 
> flame-baiter, but can you elaborate on:
> 
> On Sunday 05 June 2005 11:37, Ned Ludd wrote:
>> Invalidates binary package trees. 
> 
> My (wrong?) understanding was that this is addressed when portage runs a 
> fixpackages (otherwise what's it doing to all those binary packages?). I ask 
...

I always thought it was known that fixpackages is a non-working kludge;
my portage tree/binary packages get messed up with almost every package
move, rename etc.

If fixpackages is supposed to be working who should I assign my soon to
be regular, estimated twice-weekly bug reports to?

Regards
	Stephan

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal: sys-pam category

[Jason Stubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 748 bytes --]

On Monday 06 June 2005 23:06, sf wrote:
> I always thought it was known that fixpackages is a non-working kludge;
> my portage tree/binary packages get messed up with almost every package
> move, rename etc.
>
> If fixpackages is supposed to be working who should I assign my soon to
> be regular, estimated twice-weekly bug reports to?

If you're talking about remote binary packages, personally I feel they're a 
lost cause at present. If you're talking about regular binary packages 
though, dev-portage@gentoo.org. I can't imagine you'd be experiencing a 
different type of bug twice a week though. More likely you are experiencing 
the same bug each time and you have a good system for confirming a fix.

Regards,
Jason Stubbs

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Ian Leitch]

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

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Currently pam stuff (implementations, modules) are organized in the worst way 
> I ever seen.
> Most of them are in sys-libs, some of them in app-admin, other in app-crypt, 
> pam_smb in net-misc and so on.
> 
> I think we should reorganize them and have a sys-pam category with 
> implementations (Linux-PAM and OpenPAM) and the modules needed.
> 
> Such a change would require a lot of work and we can't count on epkgmove I 
> think, but if someone is going to help me or at least tell me how to do such 
> a change without breaking everything (always if such a change is accepted, 
> obv.)..
> 
> Comments?

I made a bugfix release of epkgmove just the other day. It should now
move packages correctly, though you'll still need to check it's actions
like a hawk.

See http://dev.gentoo.org/~port001/DevTools/epkgmove/Testing/

Take a look at #84015 also.





-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCoyFjefZ4eWAXRGIRAuUJAJ9PZZ5bOrDswXdqz5vLrvMWQmukVACeJA7b
/Fw1l1GsrrjWITG8MrtIwE8=
=ZfrV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 901 bytes --]

On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 04:22:10PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
> Currently pam stuff (implementations, modules) are organized in the worst way 
> I ever seen.
> Most of them are in sys-libs, some of them in app-admin, other in app-crypt, 
> pam_smb in net-misc and so on.
> 
> I think we should reorganize them and have a sys-pam category with 
> implementations (Linux-PAM and OpenPAM) and the modules needed.
I'd say sys-auth (standing for "System authentication and
authorization"), as then all packages dealing with NSS can be moved as
well:
sys-libs/libnss-mysql
sys-libs/libnss-pgsql
sys-libs/nss-db
sys-libs/nss-mysql
net-libs/nss_ldap

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page  : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ#       : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 241 bytes --]