[gentoo-dev] Distcc and SLP - request for testing

[gentoo-dev] Distcc and SLP - request for testing

[Lisa Seelye]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 569 bytes --]

With bug 80219 a user posted a patch for OpenSLP support with Distcc
based off of the 2.18.3-r7 ebuild.  I can't seem to make it work so I'm
going to ask the dev mail list to see if anyone else can test and make
it work.  Perhaps I simply lack the SLP knowledge.

At this time the ebuild and patch are not in CVS so you'll have to
download the ebuild and patch and digest them.

Please test if you can and post to the bug with your findings.

-- 
Regards,
Lisa Seelye
GPG: 09CF5 2D6B8 2B72B 997A7 601BC B46B5 561E4 96FC5
http://www.thedoh.com/~lisa/site

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distcc and SLP - request for testing

[Donnie Berkholz]

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

Lisa Seelye wrote:
| With bug 80219 a user posted a patch for OpenSLP support with Distcc
| based off of the 2.18.3-r7 ebuild.  I can't seem to make it work so I'm
| going to ask the dev mail list to see if anyone else can test and make
| it work.  Perhaps I simply lack the SLP knowledge.
|
| At this time the ebuild and patch are not in CVS so you'll have to
| download the ebuild and patch and digest them.
|
| Please test if you can and post to the bug with your findings.

Out of curiosity, why isn't this patch just being sent upstream for
incorporation there?

Thanks,
Donnie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDgNCgXVaO67S1rtsRAvlwAJ99s/FwPZZaZj2yGvbkJSLoq48L1ACgwyhR
xukNRYu/5rxE2wOqfSWrgfI=
=NzDe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distcc and SLP - request for testing

[Lisa Seelye]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 902 bytes --]

On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 11:38 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Lisa Seelye wrote:
> | With bug 80219 a user posted a patch for OpenSLP support with Distcc
> | based off of the 2.18.3-r7 ebuild.  I can't seem to make it work so I'm
> | going to ask the dev mail list to see if anyone else can test and make
> | it work.  Perhaps I simply lack the SLP knowledge.
> |
> | At this time the ebuild and patch are not in CVS so you'll have to
> | download the ebuild and patch and digest them.
> |
> | Please test if you can and post to the bug with your findings.
> 
> Out of curiosity, why isn't this patch just being sent upstream for
> incorporation there?

It is, but there hasn't been much work on Distcc this year.

-- 
Regards,
Lisa Seelye
GPG: 09CF5 2D6B8 2B72B 997A7 601BC B46B5 561E4 96FC5
http://www.thedoh.com/~lisa/site

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distcc and SLP - request for testing

[Donnie Berkholz]

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

Lisa Seelye wrote:
| On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 11:38 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
|>Out of curiosity, why isn't this patch just being sent upstream for
|>incorporation there?
|
|
| It is, but there hasn't been much work on Distcc this year.

Our policy for X is that if upstream won't accept it, we won't either.
Perhaps you'd be interested in adopting that and convincing the reported
to get upstream interested?

Thanks,
Donnie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDgPyVXVaO67S1rtsRAjksAJ4x0liIbHCV0Qej5oHsNHIlfFoWuwCgtHtU
qMneOCpCbBsblthSnbCxtj4=
=Oj3W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distcc and SLP - request for testing

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1160 bytes --]

On Sunday 20 November 2005 23:45, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Our policy for X is that if upstream won't accept it, we won't either.
It might work for you but it's not always possible. Sometimes there are 
upstreams that simply does not accept things, or accepts them on a long 
timeframe.

I used to patch xine-lib in big ways, and the patches gone in portage before 
being accepted by upstream, this was the only way I had to try fixing the 
"unreproduced" bugs.
Sometimes you can't just sit still and wait for upstream to act.. While it's 
preferred that upstream accepts, there are things that needs to be fixed, no 
matter what.

Gentoo/FreeBSD is one of the examples. Many people won't think two times about 
fixing things for FreeBSD, don't ask me why, but it happens.

And what happens when the upstream is dead? We're plenty of those examples, 
too.

Nah it can't be made a complete official policy, depends on the upstream 
depends on the package and depends on the patch that needs to be applied.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distcc and SLP - request for testing

[Ned Ludd]

On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 14:45 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Lisa Seelye wrote:
> | On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 11:38 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> |>Out of curiosity, why isn't this patch just being sent upstream for
> |>incorporation there?
> |
> |
> | It is, but there hasn't been much work on Distcc this year.
> 
> Our policy for X is that if upstream won't accept it, we won't either.
> Perhaps you'd be interested in adopting that and convincing the reported
> to get upstream interested?

Your policy for X is somewhat questionable Donnie as it puts us in a  
catch 22. You wont accept patches unless they came from upstream and 
upstream wants some testing or to put it off till a later date..It's a 
continuing heartache dealing with X when something could of been fixed 
months ago.

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

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Distcc and SLP - request for testing

[R Hill]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Our policy for X is that if upstream won't accept it, we won't either.
> Perhaps you'd be interested in adopting that and convincing the reported
> to get upstream interested?

I remember trying that as an argument against the reiser4 patch for grub.
Nobody seemed to agree then either.

--de.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distcc and SLP - request for testing

[Donnie Berkholz]

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

Ned Ludd wrote:
| On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 14:45 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
|>Our policy for X is that if upstream won't accept it, we won't either.
|>Perhaps you'd be interested in adopting that and convincing the reported
|>to get upstream interested?
|
|
| Your policy for X is somewhat questionable Donnie as it puts us in a
| catch 22. You wont accept patches unless they came from upstream and
| upstream wants some testing or to put it off till a later date..It's a
| continuing heartache dealing with X when something could of been fixed
| months ago.

Upstream CVS is the location for testing, not distros. Distributions
should have a _more_ stable version of packages than unreleased CVS, not
less.

In addition, we're in the business of packaging source, not maintaining
source. Taking on maintainance of all the source we package is
unrealistic and is not why I do Gentoo.

Thanks,
Donnie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDgYelXVaO67S1rtsRAq6lAJ9aINu0FvPT9k+gYYXeRinsm6Ua/ACfb2bD
yKSOWhYljy2aCMVOfz0aaRo=
=nsW6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distcc and SLP - request for testing

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 641 bytes --]

On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 02:45:41PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Our policy for X is that if upstream won't accept it, we won't either.
> Perhaps you'd be interested in adopting that and convincing the reported
> to get upstream interested?

The mobile herd has the same policy. Of course, simple build related
bugs can be fixed without having the patch accepted by upstream first,
but stuff like new feature should be pushed upstream (and accepted)
before being accepted in the ebuilds maintained by the mobile herd.

Regards,
Brix
-- 
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 211 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Distcc and SLP - request for testing

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1562 bytes --]

On Monday 21 November 2005 09:39, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> | On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 14:45 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> |>Our policy for X is that if upstream won't accept it, we won't either.
> |>Perhaps you'd be interested in adopting that and convincing the reported
> |>to get upstream interested?
> |
> | Your policy for X is somewhat questionable Donnie as it puts us in a
> | catch 22. You wont accept patches unless they came from upstream and
> | upstream wants some testing or to put it off till a later date..It's a
> | continuing heartache dealing with X when something could of been fixed
> | months ago.
>
> Upstream CVS is the location for testing, not distros. Distributions
> should have a _more_ stable version of packages than unreleased CVS, not
> less.
>
> In addition, we're in the business of packaging source, not maintaining
> source. Taking on maintainance of all the source we package is
> unrealistic and is not why I do Gentoo.

I think one should look at this as there being three kinds of patches:
- Those that add new features. If they are not upstream maintained they don't
  belong in the tree.
- Those that fix bugs. If the bugs are real and the patches are reasonable in
  quality and fix the bugs they help the users make things work.
- Those that do a mix of things. Only in extreme cases useful, but in general
  should be split out into the specific things they do.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]