[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Peter Volkov]

eiВ Втр, 16/11/2010 в 07:53 +0100, Hans de Graaff пишет:
> On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 06:40 +0000, Peter Volkov (pva) wrote:
> >  
> > +# Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> (16 Nov 2010)
> > +# Last rites: dev-python/py-rrdtool #345701
> > +# Old python bindins that currently are included into net-analyzer/rrdtool
> > +# Removal on 16 Dec 2010
> > +dev-python/py-rrdtool
> 
> I have a similar todo item on my list for the standalone ruby bindings,
> but I have not masked them yet because rrdtool 1.0.50 doesn't include
> them and is still in the tree. I'm not sure when the python bindings got
> incorporated into rrdtool, but I'm guessing it might be similar.

> Any plans to remove rrdtool-1.0.50 from the tree? Or should I just go
> ahead and remove the ruby bindings anyway?

rrdtool-1.0 is used by SFlowtool and last time I've tried it worked so I
don't see any reason to drop rrdtool-1.0.50 from the tree. As for
bindings, py-rrdtool have known problems and thus I've decided to drop
it. Probably it's good idea to do the same for ruby bindings as rrdtool
ChangeLog suggests that some problems were fixed there too.

If users need bindings they better use recent rrdtool and bundled
bindings, rrdtool-1.0.x for sflowtool only.

-- 
Peter.

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Samuli Suominen]

On 13/08/13 03:14, Alexis Ballier (aballier) wrote:
> aballier    13/08/13 00:14:02
>
>    Modified:             ChangeLog package.mask
>    Log:
>    unmask libcaca/toilet, relevant bugs seem fixed here
>
> Revision  Changes    Path
> 1.8151               profiles/ChangeLog
>
> file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/profiles/ChangeLog?rev=1.8151&view=markup
> plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/profiles/ChangeLog?rev=1.8151&content-type=text/plain
> diff : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/profiles/ChangeLog?r1=1.8150&r2=1.8151
>
> Index: ChangeLog
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/ChangeLog,v
> retrieving revision 1.8150
> retrieving revision 1.8151
> diff -u -r1.8150 -r1.8151
> --- ChangeLog	12 Aug 2013 17:52:08 -0000	1.8150
> +++ ChangeLog	13 Aug 2013 00:14:02 -0000	1.8151
> @@ -1,11 +1,14 @@
>   # ChangeLog for profile directory
>   # Copyright 1999-2013 Gentoo Foundation; Distributed under the GPL v2
> -# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/ChangeLog,v 1.8150 2013/08/12 17:52:08 graaff Exp $
> +# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/ChangeLog,v 1.8151 2013/08/13 00:14:02 aballier Exp $
>   #
>   # This ChangeLog should include records for all changes in profiles directory.
>   # Only typo fixes which don't affect portage/repoman behaviour could be avoided
>   # here. If in doubt put a record here!
>
> +  13 Aug 2013; Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> package.mask:
> +  unmask libcaca/toilet, relevant bugs seem fixed here
> +
>     12 Aug 2013; Hans de Graaff <graaff@gentoo.org> package.mask:
>     Remove dev-ruby/pry:0 from the ruby18 mask for now since adhearsion still
>     depends on it.
>
>
>
> 1.15018              profiles/package.mask
>
> file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask?rev=1.15018&view=markup
> plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask?rev=1.15018&content-type=text/plain
> diff : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask?r1=1.15017&r2=1.15018
>
> Index: package.mask
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask,v
> retrieving revision 1.15017
> retrieving revision 1.15018
> diff -u -r1.15017 -r1.15018
> --- package.mask	12 Aug 2013 17:52:08 -0000	1.15017
> +++ package.mask	13 Aug 2013 00:14:02 -0000	1.15018
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
>   ####################################################################
>
> -# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask,v 1.15017 2013/08/12 17:52:08 graaff Exp $
> +# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask,v 1.15018 2013/08/13 00:14:02 aballier Exp $
>   #
>   # When you add an entry to the top of this file, add your name, the date, and
>   # an explanation of why something is getting masked. Please be extremely
> @@ -456,13 +456,6 @@
>   # Masked for testing
>   =dev-java/jython-2.7*
>
> -# Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> (05 Mar 2013)
> -# Fails to compile unless system has previously installed copy
> -# wrt bugs 411443 and 413753
> -# Masked temporarily until fixed
> -=media-libs/libcaca-0.99_beta18
> -=app-misc/toilet-0.3

Mask restored, mentioned bugs are still present and the package can't be 
compiled unless bootstrapped with _beta17.

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Alexis Ballier]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 05:29:32 +0300
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > -# Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> (05 Mar 2013)
> > -# Fails to compile unless system has previously installed copy
> > -# wrt bugs 411443 and 413753
> > -# Masked temporarily until fixed
> > -=media-libs/libcaca-0.99_beta18
> > -=app-misc/toilet-0.3
> 
> Mask restored, mentioned bugs are still present and the package can't
> be compiled unless bootstrapped with _beta17.
> 

it builds very fine here, I didn't have time to comment on the bugs
that are at best unclear, that's all

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Alexis Ballier]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 07:37:08 -0400
Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 05:29:32 +0300
> Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > -# Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> (05 Mar 2013)
> > > -# Fails to compile unless system has previously installed copy
> > > -# wrt bugs 411443 and 413753
> > > -# Masked temporarily until fixed
> > > -=media-libs/libcaca-0.99_beta18
> > > -=app-misc/toilet-0.3
> > 
> > Mask restored, mentioned bugs are still present and the package
> > can't be compiled unless bootstrapped with _beta17.
> > 
> 
> it builds very fine here, I didn't have time to comment on the bugs
> that are at best unclear, that's all
> 

OTOH, it's sad to say but that kind of smartass commit from my part
lead to some fixes that had not happened in 5+ months :)

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Alexis Ballier]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:16:32 +0000 (UTC)
"Ben de Groot (yngwin)" <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Index: package.mask
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask,v
> retrieving revision 1.14667
> retrieving revision 1.14668
> diff -u -r1.14667 -r1.14668
> --- package.mask	19 Apr 2013 06:20:50 -0000	1.14667
> +++ package.mask	19 Apr 2013 09:16:32 -0000	1.14668
[...]
> @@ -133,6 +133,7 @@
>  # Non-maintainer ebuild with experimental multilib features
>  # masked for further testing
>  =media-libs/freetype-2.4.11-r2
> +=media-libs/fontconfig-2.10.2-r1
>  

Is there any real reason behind this mask I may have missed ? Because
so far, it is only breaking the deptree:
 dependency.bad                14
   x11-libs/libXft/libXft-2.3.1-r1.ebuild: DEPEND:
   ~amd64(default/linux/amd64/13.0)
   ['media-libs/freetype[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?]',
   'media-libs/fontconfig[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?]']



Alexis.

PS: btw, some hunks are weird in your commit, a locale issue ?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:30:43 +0200
Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Is there any real reason behind this mask I may have missed ? Because
> so far, it is only breaking the deptree:
>  dependency.bad                14
>    x11-libs/libXft/libXft-2.3.1-r1.ebuild: DEPEND:
>    ~amd64(default/linux/amd64/13.0)
>    ['media-libs/freetype[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?]',
>    'media-libs/fontconfig[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?]']

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=466546


     jer

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Ben de Groot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1797 bytes --]

On 19 April 2013 21:30, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:16:32 +0000 (UTC)
> "Ben de Groot (yngwin)" <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > Index: package.mask
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask,v
> > retrieving revision 1.14667
> > retrieving revision 1.14668
> > diff -u -r1.14667 -r1.14668
> > --- package.mask      19 Apr 2013 06:20:50 -0000      1.14667
> > +++ package.mask      19 Apr 2013 09:16:32 -0000      1.14668
> [...]
> > @@ -133,6 +133,7 @@
> >  # Non-maintainer ebuild with experimental multilib features
> >  # masked for further testing
> >  =media-libs/freetype-2.4.11-r2
> > +=media-libs/fontconfig-2.10.2-r1
> >
>
> Is there any real reason behind this mask I may have missed ?


This ebuild, with multilib features, was committed without my consent,
while I am the de facto maintainer of freetype and fontconfig (other devs
in fonts herd are inactive). I don't want to deal with bug reports because
of this.

And I'd rather see this developed in an overlay instead, as I have said
before. We also need more consensus on this multilib approach before I am
happy to support this.



> Because
> so far, it is only breaking the deptree:
>  dependency.bad                14
>    x11-libs/libXft/libXft-2.3.1-r1.ebuild: DEPEND:
>    ~amd64(default/linux/amd64/13.0)
>    ['media-libs/freetype[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?]',
>    'media-libs/fontconfig[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?]']
>
>
> Alexis.
>
> PS: btw, some hunks are weird in your commit, a locale issue ?
>

No, just a line in my vimrc that removes trailing whitespace.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2646 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Denis Dupeyron]

I'm hoping this kind of immature and abrasive behaviours will not
propagate (notice the plural here). Yes, when you see a package being
actively maintained by somebody else you should absolutely not touch
it without talking to that person or team first. This is probably the
single most important rule in Gentoo and I would like to thank Ben for
reminding us of it. But nobody owns anything in Gentoo. As a developer
you're not king of the hill but servant of the users. The only way to
make yourself more relevant is by doing a better job, not by barking
at the others to protect your territory. By the way folks, a better
job also involves communication and behaviour which is what we all
generally suck at.

Denis.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Denis Dupeyron <calchan@gentoo.org> wrote:
> But nobody owns anything in Gentoo. As a developer
> you're not king of the hill but servant of the users. The only way to
> make yourself more relevant is by doing a better job, not by barking
> at the others to protect your territory.

I think that has to be qualified.

If you're developing a package, and somebody else wants to add new
functionality/features/etc, and is willing to put in the time to
support them, then yes, it isn't your territory, and they can
co-maintain.

However, if somebody just commits something to your package, and it
causes you headaches, and they aren't committing to long-term
maintenance of the package, then yes, you can revert, etc.

The bottom line is that package maintenance is a long-term commitment.
 You can't modify an ebuild and walk away, in general.  Oh, sure, if
you're just renaming a dependency or something there is room for
exceptions.  However, you don't change how a package works without
cooperating with the maintainer, or becoming one yourself.

The alternative is a Gentoo where packages that are working just fine
get abandoned because somebody messes with them, and then the
maintainer isn't allowed to maintain them the way they like and so
they find something better to do with their time, leaving nobody
maintaining the package.

I don't know the specifics of this case so nobody should take this as
finger-pointing unless it is your conscience doing the pointing.
Maintainers don't "own" packages, but it is in everybody's interest to
keep maintainers happy.  Any dev can step up and co-maintain any
package, but they have to be in it for the long term.  If you don't
like how somebody else is maintaining their package, and you're not
willing to assume responsibility for it long term, then just consider
yourself an end-user, and pretend you don't have commit rights.  The
only exceptions to this apply to projects like council, QA, etc, and
those should represent even larger long-term commitments (and for the
most part these bodies use more discretion anyway).

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Denis Dupeyron]

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> However, if somebody just commits something to your package, and it
> causes you headaches, and they aren't committing to long-term
> maintenance of the package, then yes, you can revert, etc.

That's where you're wrong. You can revert if necessary *after* you've
talked to the person. Either he's wrong or you're wrong, but most
likely you are both wrong to argue about it. By the way, the real fix
for headaches is ibuprofene and then some rest, not reverting commits.

Denis.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Denis Dupeyron schrieb:
> I'm hoping this kind of immature and abrasive behaviours will not
> propagate (notice the plural here). Yes, when you see a package being
> actively maintained by somebody else you should absolutely not touch
> it without talking to that person or team first.

I fail to see any wrong behavior here. A bug report was created and a review
of the changes was requested. The first reaction came after several weeks
after the bug filing, and the first objection almost two months after the
change was applied.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455074

Then the maintainer came and masked his package, which I see nothing wrong
with either. Except for the violation of visibility requirements only in this
particular case.

> By the way folks, a better
> job also involves communication and behaviour which is what we all
> generally suck at.

When someone asks about changing a package which someone else maintains, I
always suggest reporting a bug about it. Do you think that is generally ok,
or not the proper way to communicate?


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Denis Dupeyron]

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
<chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> When someone asks about changing a package which someone else maintains, I
> always suggest reporting a bug about it. Do you think that is generally ok,
> or not the proper way to communicate?

Exactly. Bugzilla is not a communication tool, it's a process
management tool. The process in question is dealing with bugs. Don't
substitute filing a bug for communication. The main reason people end
up having these abrasive behaviours is they don't communicate
properly. If they did they'd find out they are actually very much
alike and agree on most things. Communication is (in order of
effectivity) in-person meeting, phone, irc, email. If you're not using
any of these tools you're not communicating effectively and you can't
expect things to go smoothly.

Denis.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Denis Dupeyron schrieb:
>> When someone asks about changing a package which someone else maintains, I
>> always suggest reporting a bug about it. Do you think that is generally ok,
>> or not the proper way to communicate?
> 
> Exactly. Bugzilla is not a communication tool, 

> Communication is (in order of
> effectivity) in-person meeting, phone, irc, email.

But all comments in bugs are sent to the maintainer via email, at least in
default settings. So in my opinion, the communication aspect of email is also
included in bugzilla.

> If you're not using
> any of these tools you're not communicating effectively and you can't
> expect things to go smoothly.

I think that over direct email, bugzilla has the advantage of being visible
in the public record. And in contrast to mailing lists, only interested
parties will receive the messages.

But if you think that is not the case, we can ask council to clarify whether
a change announced in bugzilla counts as proper communication with the
maintainer.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Alexis Ballier]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 17:07:41 +0200
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Denis Dupeyron schrieb:
> >> When someone asks about changing a package which someone else
> >> maintains, I always suggest reporting a bug about it. Do you think
> >> that is generally ok, or not the proper way to communicate?
> > 
> > Exactly. Bugzilla is not a communication tool, 
> 
> > Communication is (in order of
> > effectivity) in-person meeting, phone, irc, email.
> 
> But all comments in bugs are sent to the maintainer via email, at
> least in default settings. So in my opinion, the communication aspect
> of email is also included in bugzilla.
> 
> > If you're not using
> > any of these tools you're not communicating effectively and you
> > can't expect things to go smoothly.
> 
> I think that over direct email, bugzilla has the advantage of being
> visible in the public record. And in contrast to mailing lists, only
> interested parties will receive the messages.
> 
> But if you think that is not the case, we can ask council to clarify
> whether a change announced in bugzilla counts as proper communication
> with the maintainer.

It's probably something in between: proper communication is when the
other party has received and understood your message. It can fail in
every of the above mentioned methods for a wide variety of reasons ;)
(eg: poorly explained, not listening, not willing to listen, being
drunk, gmail ate my email, etc.)

Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Ben de Groot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2317 bytes --]

On 21 April 2013 22:38, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@gentoo.org>wrote:

> Denis Dupeyron schrieb:
> > I'm hoping this kind of immature and abrasive behaviours will not
> > propagate (notice the plural here). Yes, when you see a package being
> > actively maintained by somebody else you should absolutely not touch
> > it without talking to that person or team first.
>
> I fail to see any wrong behavior here. A bug report was created and a
> review
> of the changes was requested. The first reaction came after several weeks
> after the bug filing, and the first objection almost two months after the
> change was applied.
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455074
>

You are missing an important part of the story.
See https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455070 where we discuss
the same issue for freetype. (Yes I should have been explicit for fontconfig
too, my bad.)

I initially reacted within hours, saying that his proposal was in my eyes
not ready yet. I assumed I was clear enough in my refusal, but
apparently Michał didn't understand it that way. He then contacted
the herd a few weeks later, when I was on holiday, and got Luca's permission
to commit, not taking into account he hadn't touched those packages in
many years.

After I found out, I was a bit pissed off about it, but I was too busy with
work to deal with it (and thought it wise to cool down a bit before taking
action). I then saw bug reports about the freetype multilib ebuild revision
flooding in, and was satisfied after it got masked.

But then it got unmasked again (I assume by Michał), and when I found
some time to take a closer look again at freetype and fontconfig, I decided
to mask those versions, as I still don't think they are ready (especially
for
ebuilds that might go stable soon).



>
> Then the maintainer came and masked his package, which I see nothing wrong
> with either. Except for the violation of visibility requirements only in
> this
> particular case.
>
>
I understand this is a bit of a mess, and I'm sorry for my part in it, but
I'm
not part of the x11 herd, so I would rather leave it up to you to decide
how
you want to handle this.
-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2231 bytes --]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:43:22 +0800
Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 21 April 2013 22:38, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@gentoo.org>wrote:
> 
> > Denis Dupeyron schrieb:
> > > I'm hoping this kind of immature and abrasive behaviours will not
> > > propagate (notice the plural here). Yes, when you see a package being
> > > actively maintained by somebody else you should absolutely not touch
> > > it without talking to that person or team first.
> >
> > I fail to see any wrong behavior here. A bug report was created and a
> > review
> > of the changes was requested. The first reaction came after several weeks
> > after the bug filing, and the first objection almost two months after the
> > change was applied.
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455074
> >
> 
> You are missing an important part of the story.
> See https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455070 where we discuss
> the same issue for freetype. (Yes I should have been explicit for fontconfig
> too, my bad.)
> 
> I initially reacted within hours, saying that his proposal was in my eyes
> not ready yet. I assumed I was clear enough in my refusal, but
> apparently Michał didn't understand it that way. He then contacted
> the herd a few weeks later, when I was on holiday, and got Luca's permission
> to commit, not taking into account he hadn't touched those packages in
> many years.

Just to be clear -- I misunderstood you indeed. I thought you mean that
you would agree if the idea is discussed and the discussion results in
a general agreement on proceeding with the solution.

> After I found out, I was a bit pissed off about it, but I was too busy with
> work to deal with it (and thought it wise to cool down a bit before taking
> action). I then saw bug reports about the freetype multilib ebuild revision
> flooding in, and was satisfied after it got masked.

Those bugs weren't relevant to the final version of the ebuild which
you have masked. The only actual bug left open was the one which I
forgot to close after fixing it instantly after it was opened.

So please don't say that I don't take responsibility for my changes.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Ben de Groot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3542 bytes --]

On 23 April 2013 01:13, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:43:22 +0800
> Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > On 21 April 2013 22:38, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <
> chithanh@gentoo.org>wrote:
> >
> > > Denis Dupeyron schrieb:
> > > > I'm hoping this kind of immature and abrasive behaviours will not
> > > > propagate (notice the plural here). Yes, when you see a package being
> > > > actively maintained by somebody else you should absolutely not touch
> > > > it without talking to that person or team first.
> > >
> > > I fail to see any wrong behavior here. A bug report was created and a
> > > review
> > > of the changes was requested. The first reaction came after several
> weeks
> > > after the bug filing, and the first objection almost two months after
> the
> > > change was applied.
> > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455074
> > >
> >
> > You are missing an important part of the story.
> > See https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455070 where we discuss
> > the same issue for freetype. (Yes I should have been explicit for
> fontconfig
> > too, my bad.)
> >
> > I initially reacted within hours, saying that his proposal was in my eyes
> > not ready yet. I assumed I was clear enough in my refusal, but
> > apparently Michał didn't understand it that way. He then contacted
> > the herd a few weeks later, when I was on holiday, and got Luca's
> permission
> > to commit, not taking into account he hadn't touched those packages in
> > many years.
>
> Just to be clear -- I misunderstood you indeed.


I know, and it's water under the bridge. We're people and we make mistakes
sometimes. Let's move on.


> I thought you mean that
> you would agree if the idea is discussed and the discussion results in
> a general agreement on proceeding with the solution.


That and ample testing. I think it has been going all a bit too quick, with
the eclass(es) in flux, and so on. I'm still not convinced it's mature
enough
at this point, which is why I believe this should still be masked.

As to the discussion, I see only a few people speaking up, but obviously
you cannot be blamed for the silent majority.

But it's starting to look more and more like I'm the only one objecting
at this point. So maybe I should stop being cautious (or even cranky)
and let you guys go ahead and do your work. I do need someone to
co-maintain freetype and fontconfig then, as I am personally still not
happy with these changes and the maintenance burden they create.


> > After I found out, I was a bit pissed off about it, but I was too busy
> with
> > work to deal with it (and thought it wise to cool down a bit before
> taking
> > action). I then saw bug reports about the freetype multilib ebuild
> revision
> > flooding in, and was satisfied after it got masked.
>
> Those bugs weren't relevant to the final version of the ebuild which
> you have masked. The only actual bug left open was the one which I
> forgot to close after fixing it instantly after it was opened.
>
> So please don't say that I don't take responsibility for my changes.


I'm not saying that at all. You respond quickly. I can only commend you
on that.

But I do have doubts about long term maintainance. I know you are
more than willing to do your part, but it's simply beyond any one
person to (co-)maintain half the tree.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5082 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Ben de Groot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 409 bytes --]

On 21 April 2013 22:11, Denis Dupeyron <calchan@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I'm hoping this kind of immature and abrasive behaviours will not
> propagate (notice the plural here).
>

I'm not sure exactly which behaviours you're calling immature and abrasive,
but it seems to me you're overreacting again. Please stay out if this.
-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 848 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Alexis Ballier]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 20:53:28 +0800
Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 19 April 2013 21:30, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:16:32 +0000 (UTC)
> > "Ben de Groot (yngwin)" <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Index: package.mask
> > > ===================================================================
> > > RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask,v
> > > retrieving revision 1.14667
> > > retrieving revision 1.14668
> > > diff -u -r1.14667 -r1.14668
> > > --- package.mask      19 Apr 2013 06:20:50 -0000      1.14667
> > > +++ package.mask      19 Apr 2013 09:16:32 -0000      1.14668
> > [...]
> > > @@ -133,6 +133,7 @@
> > >  # Non-maintainer ebuild with experimental multilib features
> > >  # masked for further testing
> > >  =media-libs/freetype-2.4.11-r2
> > > +=media-libs/fontconfig-2.10.2-r1
> > >
> >
> > Is there any real reason behind this mask I may have missed ?
> 
> 
> This ebuild, with multilib features, was committed without my consent,
> while I am the de facto maintainer of freetype and fontconfig (other
> devs in fonts herd are inactive). I don't want to deal with bug
> reports because of this.

Fair enough, but there is a lack of coordination there (who started the
mess is irrelevant), leaving as only choices: unmask ft/fc or mask a
good part of the multilib x11 stuff. The current situation is broken.

I suppose you talked with Michal about this and couldn't reach an
agreement, like him joining the fonts herd, or at least the mail alias
to monitor ft/fc bugs.

If you want I can join the fonts herd also, I already have a foot in
there for some small packages used within texlive anyway.

> And I'd rather see this developed in an overlay instead, as I have
> said before. We also need more consensus on this multilib approach
> before I am happy to support this.

I believe we reached consensus last time. Also, I believe we are at the
step "it is mature enough to give it a wide ~arch testing"; otherwise
we may just repeat multilib-portage history and have it in an overlay
for several years to never give it wide adoption in the end.

[...]

Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Ben de Groot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2980 bytes --]

On 21 April 2013 22:59, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 20:53:28 +0800
> Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > On 19 April 2013 21:30, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:16:32 +0000 (UTC)
> > > "Ben de Groot (yngwin)" <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Index: package.mask
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask,v
> > > > retrieving revision 1.14667
> > > > retrieving revision 1.14668
> > > > diff -u -r1.14667 -r1.14668
> > > > --- package.mask      19 Apr 2013 06:20:50 -0000      1.14667
> > > > +++ package.mask      19 Apr 2013 09:16:32 -0000      1.14668
> > > [...]
> > > > @@ -133,6 +133,7 @@
> > > >  # Non-maintainer ebuild with experimental multilib features
> > > >  # masked for further testing
> > > >  =media-libs/freetype-2.4.11-r2
> > > > +=media-libs/fontconfig-2.10.2-r1
> > > >
> > >
> > > Is there any real reason behind this mask I may have missed ?
> >
> >
> > This ebuild, with multilib features, was committed without my consent,
> > while I am the de facto maintainer of freetype and fontconfig (other
> > devs in fonts herd are inactive). I don't want to deal with bug
> > reports because of this.
>
> Fair enough, but there is a lack of coordination there (who started the
> mess is irrelevant), leaving as only choices: unmask ft/fc or mask a
> good part of the multilib x11 stuff. The current situation is broken.
>

I agree it is broken. I'm trying to do my part for the packages I maintain.
In my opinion all the recent multilib stuff should be masked, but I don't
maintain those other (x11) packages. So you may want to handle it in
a different way.


> I suppose you talked with Michal about this and couldn't reach an
> agreement, like him joining the fonts herd, or at least the mail alias
> to monitor ft/fc bugs.
>
> If you want I can join the fonts herd also, I already have a foot in
> there for some small packages used within texlive anyway.
>

We could certainly use a hand in fonts herd. Most members have
left or are on extended non-active status. It's just lu_zero (and I am
not sure how active he is wrt fonts packages, but it certainly doesn't
cover freetype and fontconfig) and me.

> And I'd rather see this developed in an overlay instead, as I have
> > said before. We also need more consensus on this multilib approach
> > before I am happy to support this.
>
> I believe we reached consensus last time. Also, I believe we are at the
> step "it is mature enough to give it a wide ~arch testing"; otherwise
> we may just repeat multilib-portage history and have it in an overlay
> for several years to never give it wide adoption in the end.
>

Maybe I missed something, but I haven't seen anything like that.
Can you point me to those discussions?

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4410 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Alexis Ballier]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:56:49 +0800
Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I agree it is broken. I'm trying to do my part for the packages I
> maintain. In my opinion all the recent multilib stuff should be
> masked, but I don't maintain those other (x11) packages. So you may
> want to handle it in a different way.

Part of what one is supposed to check prior to changing the visibility
of a package is that it doesn't break the deptree ;)


> > I suppose you talked with Michal about this and couldn't reach an
> > agreement, like him joining the fonts herd, or at least the mail
> > alias to monitor ft/fc bugs.
> >
> > If you want I can join the fonts herd also, I already have a foot in
> > there for some small packages used within texlive anyway.
> >
> 
> We could certainly use a hand in fonts herd. Most members have
> left or are on extended non-active status. It's just lu_zero (and I am
> not sure how active he is wrt fonts packages, but it certainly doesn't
> cover freetype and fontconfig) and me.

Ok; added myself to the mail alias at least.


> > And I'd rather see this developed in an overlay instead, as I have
> > > said before. We also need more consensus on this multilib approach
> > > before I am happy to support this.
> >
> > I believe we reached consensus last time. Also, I believe we are at
> > the step "it is mature enough to give it a wide ~arch testing";
> > otherwise we may just repeat multilib-portage history and have it
> > in an overlay for several years to never give it wide adoption in
> > the end.
> >
> 
> Maybe I missed something, but I haven't seen anything like that.
> Can you point me to those discussions?

[gentoo-dev] [PATCHES] multilib-build: public API for header wrapping
[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Support wrapping headers for multilib ABIs.
[gentoo-dev] [PATCHES] Header wrapping support for multilib


These 3 came after discussing that multilib-portage does it, that it is
needed for multilib, and thus should be done by an eclass based system.

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] multilib-build.eclass and restricting unsupported
ABIs

and maybe others, but on this last thread tommy clearly said that he
was ok with the approach (under some conditions); I don't know what
else you need as consensus :)

Alexis.

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1171 bytes --]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:56:49 +0800
Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > I suppose you talked with Michal about this and couldn't reach an
> > agreement, like him joining the fonts herd, or at least the mail alias
> > to monitor ft/fc bugs.
> >
> > If you want I can join the fonts herd also, I already have a foot in
> > there for some small packages used within texlive anyway.
> >
> 
> We could certainly use a hand in fonts herd. Most members have
> left or are on extended non-active status. It's just lu_zero (and I am
> not sure how active he is wrt fonts packages, but it certainly doesn't
> cover freetype and fontconfig) and me.

As the previous maintainer of these packages, I think they should be maintained
by the x11 team as well as fonts.  Fonts has been dead for a while and freetype
at least needs a dedicated maintainer.

No offense to lu_zero, but he has a habit of popping in, applying some
non-upstreamed patch to a critical project, and then disappearing again.

On the other hand, you applied infinality, so you're not on my favorite people
list either.  :P


-- 
gcc-porting
toolchain, wxwidgets
@ gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Ben de Groot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1951 bytes --]

On 23 April 2013 11:58, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:56:49 +0800
> Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > > I suppose you talked with Michal about this and couldn't reach an
> > > agreement, like him joining the fonts herd, or at least the mail alias
> > > to monitor ft/fc bugs.
> > >
> > > If you want I can join the fonts herd also, I already have a foot in
> > > there for some small packages used within texlive anyway.
> > >
> >
> > We could certainly use a hand in fonts herd. Most members have
> > left or are on extended non-active status. It's just lu_zero (and I am
> > not sure how active he is wrt fonts packages, but it certainly doesn't
> > cover freetype and fontconfig) and me.
>
> As the previous maintainer of these packages, I think they should be
> maintained
> by the x11 team as well as fonts.  Fonts has been dead for a while and
> freetype
> at least needs a dedicated maintainer.
>

Fonts herd isn't dead, but most of the member have dispersed. Matsuu and
pva are
inactive, and lu_zero is busy with other things it seems. So that leaves
me. I've
always had an interest in fonts, so I'm happy to do this, but I don't have
the time
to properly maintain all packages belonging to the herd. So help is more
than
welcome.


> No offense to lu_zero, but he has a habit of popping in, applying some
> non-upstreamed patch to a critical project, and then disappearing again.
>
> On the other hand, you applied infinality, so you're not on my favorite
> people
> list either.  :P


We'll need to agree to disagree then. Anyway, no one was taking care of
freetype
and fontconfig at the time I picked up maintenance. So there you have it.

I would be happy to have someone join the fonts team and co-maintain
freetype and fontconfig. I just want to make sure infinality will remain
available to our users.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2862 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Duncan]

Ben de Groot posted on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 00:24:13 +0800 as excerpted:

> I just want to make sure infinality will remain
> available to our users.

To save others wondering WTF infinality is the google I had to do...

http://www.infinality.net/blog/infinality-freetype-patches/

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Font_Configuration#Infinality

-- 
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] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 857 bytes --]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 00:24:13 +0800
Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:

>On 23 April 2013 11:58, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > On the other hand, you applied infinality, so you're not on my favorite
> > people
> > list either.  :P

> We'll need to agree to disagree then. Anyway, no one was taking care of
> freetype
> and fontconfig at the time I picked up maintenance. So there you have it.
> 
> I would be happy to have someone join the fonts team and co-maintain
> freetype and fontconfig. I just want to make sure infinality will remain
> available to our users.

Sorry I realized it wasn't obvious I was joking.  Infinality is just my bugbear
of the month.  You're doing a fine job.


(to save Duncan some googling:  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bugbear)
-- 
gcc-porting
toolchain, wxwidgets
@ gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 807 bytes --]

I'd like to implore ALL developers to please ensure that they don't
commit broken stuff into profiles, esp. corrupt atoms in package.mask.

This change went into profiles/package.mask, and caused breakage for one
sync window.
> +=net-p2p/ktorrent-3.2_*
A few days ago we had a different one:
> +>=dev-util/monodevelop-java--1.9
That managed to break the sync during rsync, but also by timing also
managed to end up in the daily snapshot.

If it's in profiles, or a core system package, please be very careful
with your commits. Both of the above were fixed in less than 30 minutes,
but breakage had already been seen at that point.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 329 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask

[Alec Warner]

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I'd like to implore ALL developers to please ensure that they don't
> commit broken stuff into profiles, esp. corrupt atoms in package.mask.

Imploring is ineffective, humans fail.

>
> This change went into profiles/package.mask, and caused breakage for one
> sync window.
>> +=net-p2p/ktorrent-3.2_*
> A few days ago we had a different one:
>> +>=dev-util/monodevelop-java--1.9
> That managed to break the sync during rsync, but also by timing also
> managed to end up in the daily snapshot.
>
> If it's in profiles, or a core system package, please be very careful
> with your commits. Both of the above were fixed in less than 30 minutes,
> but breakage had already been seen at that point.

I've filed bug 249761 to track a reasonable fix for this.

-Alec

>
> --
> Robin Hugh Johnson
> Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy
> E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
> GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
>