Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Paul de Vrieze]

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

On Tuesday 06 January 2004 08:36, Allen Parker wrote:
>
> Avenj, as I recently was interested in submitting ebuilds myself.
> Could we possibly come up with a quick and easy system for devs to pop
> in, check a list of submitted ebuilds, grab ones that look interesting
> to them, test to see if they build/self-destruct, mark them as ~ARCH
> (for ARCH they can test on), either clear the initial listing and slap
> them into the tree or kick it back to the user?

With many ebuilds the actual maintenance and bugfixing is more work than 
just committing an ebuild to the tree. Basically what most devs do is 
maintain or co-maintain a number of ebuilds and handle their bugs. If 
you would be the defacto maintainer of a number of ebuilds you would 
basically be doing the same as a real dev, but with the limitation that 
there's allways someone between you and the tree. (and less bugzilla 
power)

> Personally, I found it to be a pain in the rear to see 1 1/2 yr old
> ebuilds relating to the packages I was developing ebuilds for in
> bugzilla, yet with information so stale as to be stinking the place
> up. I think that there are a lot of things that could be offered to
> Gentoo users without too much hassle by other Gentoo users as long as
> dev says "ok, that sounds fun." I mean, I got passed back and forth
> from hardened to general and back a few times and it was all because
> the devs reviewing my bug(s) didn't understand the packages.

I'm sorry for that. It however can be a sign that the tree is not ready 
for those ebuilds, or that they are in very low demand.

> I may not know C/C++ very well (minimal understanding at most), so I
> wouldn't be able to "fix" something that was broken via diff, but I
> sure as heck have the computing power to do 100s of compiles :-D and
> thoroughly test certain things before I put them live on my OWN
> production machines. Basically, I'm not a programmer, but I can
> *still* write a darned good ebuild with the proper help (thx
> Spyderous, obz and others in #gentoo-dev). Simply because I can't
> program, I can't be a dev... does that mean I can't do thorough
> package mangling/testing? Not really... In fact, I've been told, that
> with most things, if anyone can break it, I can :-D

Writing ebuilds is programming. In ebuilds you just use a different 
language (bash shell script language), but beyond being able to write 
ebuilds there is no need for an ebuild handling dev to be able to 
program. A willingness to learn is always an advantage though. In any 
case programming is absolutely not the same as knowing C or C++.

> Basically, I just find that the entire ebuild submission process could
> definitely be streamlined as to take less dev time and be more
> rewarding for the users actually doing the submissions. Including
> having user response saying, "hey, so and so just bumped package-x.y.y
> to package-x.y.z and it builds fine with a renamed and digested
> ebuild."

I would agree with that. However I don't know how to do it in a good way 
that preserves quality.

Paul

- -- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/+qr/bKx5DBjWFdsRAjeVAJ4+jgmhB+lvwB/5V+qTjDuNae4L7QCg0O09
bbcwfONCp82pufrRAGV2y+Q=
=GDi4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Robert Cole]

On Tue January 06 2004 4:33 am, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
<snip>
> > dev says "ok, that sounds fun." I mean, I got passed back and forth
> > from hardened to general and back a few times and it was all because
> > the devs reviewing my bug(s) didn't understand the packages.
>
> I'm sorry for that. It however can be a sign that the tree is not ready
> for those ebuilds, or that they are in very low demand.

If someone has gone their entire life using a rock to hammer nails and has 
never heard of a hammer before and thus doesn't have the demand for it does 
that mean that if they are told about the hammer they won't use it or have a 
demand for always having it?

Sometimes you create demand where one doesn't currently exist by simply 
telling people about the hammer.

> > Basically, I just find that the entire ebuild submission process could
> > definitely be streamlined as to take less dev time and be more
> > rewarding for the users actually doing the submissions. Including
> > having user response saying, "hey, so and so just bumped package-x.y.y
> > to package-x.y.z and it builds fine with a renamed and digested
> > ebuild."
>
> I would agree with that. However I don't know how to do it in a good way
> that preserves quality.

There is but it will take effort and time to setup. Sometimes if not always 
time is required to save time in the long run. Kind of like it takes money to 
make money. It takes time to save it. Fine grain controls on cvs are required 
now. If you want until they are fully needed then there will be a ton of 
pressure to get it done yesterday. Lets not REact let's be proactive.

If there is a way to make cvs ownership based that would be the easiest 
administration wise. As in the ebuild(s) I submit I have access to and 
nothing else.

Robert

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1486 bytes --]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:26:50 -0800 Robert Cole
<robert.cole@support4linux.com> wrote:
| > I'm sorry for that. It however can be a sign that the tree is not
| > ready for those ebuilds, or that they are in very low demand.
| 
| If someone has gone their entire life using a rock to hammer nails and
| has never heard of a hammer before and thus doesn't have the demand
| for it does that mean that if they are told about the hammer they
| won't use it or have a demand for always having it?
| 
| Sometimes you create demand where one doesn't currently exist by
| simply telling people about the hammer.

*bzzzzt*, silly analogy detected. Putting something in portage is not
telling people about it.
 
| If there is a way to make cvs ownership based that would be the
| easiest administration wise. As in the ebuild(s) I submit I have
| access to and nothing else.

Uh, that's still enough to screw up portage completely. One suitably
broken ebuild can still cause lots and lots of errors all over the
place.

I still don't see what's wrong with having a seperate repositry (eg
"breakmygentoo") for things that don't make it into the "official" tree.
(Well, actually, I see the whole "submitting bugs about things that
are caused by breakmygentoo ebuilds" issue, but a few messy public
executions by, say, Spider should sort that out... A 'tainted' flag on
emerge info would be good for that...)

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail:    ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web:     http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Robert Cole]

On Tue January 06 2004 9:39 am, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:26:50 -0800 Robert Cole
>
> <robert.cole@support4linux.com> wrote:
> | > I'm sorry for that. It however can be a sign that the tree is not
> | > ready for those ebuilds, or that they are in very low demand.
> |
> | If someone has gone their entire life using a rock to hammer nails and
> | has never heard of a hammer before and thus doesn't have the demand
> | for it does that mean that if they are told about the hammer they
> | won't use it or have a demand for always having it?
> |
> | Sometimes you create demand where one doesn't currently exist by
> | simply telling people about the hammer.
>
> *bzzzzt*, silly analogy detected. Putting something in portage is not
> telling people about it.

Really? I find new software all the time in the portage tree I never even knew 
about and go to the referenced webpage to check it out. Now with the new 
online packages area that has the days ebuilds its even easier to see new 
stuff. I doubt I'm the only one but maybe I am.

> | If there is a way to make cvs ownership based that would be the
> | easiest administration wise. As in the ebuild(s) I submit I have
> | access to and nothing else.
>
> Uh, that's still enough to screw up portage completely. One suitably
> broken ebuild can still cause lots and lots of errors all over the
> place.

Then portage is more fragile than it should be. If I make an ebuild for a game 
and submit it and it causes corruption then there is a deeper problem with 
the portage tree than there should be. Submitting a new app should in no way 
effect the integrity of the portage tree. 

If what you say is true portage is badly broken. From my view outside of the 
dev circle and cvs area portage seems fine and not broken. To me postage is 
the killer app of the linux world. Damn thing has me hooked to the point I 
can't stand other distros. :)

> I still don't see what's wrong with having a seperate repositry (eg
> "breakmygentoo") for things that don't make it into the "official" tree.

Or maybe this is the staging area that I've been pushing for. All that needs 
to be done is an easy and painless way for a person with cvs access to the 
gentoo tree to approve something in the breakmygentoo tree and move it over 
to the gentoo tree if there isn't already. 

Robert

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 960 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 13:01, Robert Cole wrote:
> Or maybe this is the staging area that I've been pushing for. All that needs 
> to be done is an easy and painless way for a person with cvs access to the 
> gentoo tree to approve something in the breakmygentoo tree and move it over 
> to the gentoo tree if there isn't already. 

cp -r /path/to/breakmygentoo/category/package ~cvsroot/category/package
cd ~cvsroot/category
cvs add package package/files package/files/{filnames}
package/{filenames}
repoman scan
repoman commit

done...

This would of course only apply for a package that has already gone
through testing and is deemed stable enough for inclusion.


Also, here's a little hint for everyone:

Use repoman to check your ebuilds before submitting them, even if
submitting them to breakmygentoo.  Improper ebuilds help no one.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a pengiun?

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Peter Ruskin]

On Tuesday 06 Jan 2004 19:26, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Also, here's a little hint for everyone:
>
> Use repoman to check your ebuilds before submitting them, even if
> submitting them to breakmygentoo.  Improper ebuilds help no one.

Ahh but...
$ esearch repoman
[ Results for search key : repoman ]
[ Applications found : 0 ]

Peter
-- 
======================================================================
Gentoo Linux:	Portage 2.0.49-r20 (default-x86-1.4, gcc-3.2.3, 
glibc-2.3.2-r3, 2.6.0-gentoo-r2-w4l)	i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3200+
======================================================================


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: creating ebuilds

[Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.-]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN, Size: 584 bytes --]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Peter Ruskin wrote:

> On Tuesday 06 Jan 2004 19:26, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Also, here's a little hint for everyone:
> >
> > Use repoman to check your ebuilds before submitting them, even if
> > submitting them to breakmygentoo.  Improper ebuilds help no one.
> 
> Ahh but...
> $ esearch repoman
> [ Results for search key : repoman ]
> [ Applications found : 0 ]

qpkg -f `which repoman`
sys-apps/portage *

I think you probably have repoman on you gentoo system.

Michael Sterrett
  -Mr. Bones.-
mr_bones_@gentoo.org

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: creating ebuilds

[Peter Ruskin]

On Tuesday 06 Jan 2004 20:11, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Peter Ruskin wrote:
> > Ahh but...
> > $ esearch repoman
> > [ Results for search key : repoman ]
> > [ Applications found : 0 ]
>
> qpkg -f `which repoman`
> sys-apps/portage *
>
> I think you probably have repoman on you gentoo system.
>
Oooops!  So I had it all along ... thanks.

Peter
-- 
======================================================================
Gentoo Linux:	Portage 2.0.49-r20 (default-x86-1.4, gcc-3.2.3, 
glibc-2.3.2-r3, 2.6.0-gentoo-r2-w4l)	i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3200+
======================================================================


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 506 bytes --]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 19:53:38 +0000 Peter Ruskin
<Peter.Ruskin@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
| On Tuesday 06 Jan 2004 19:26, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
| > Also, here's a little hint for everyone:
| >
| > Use repoman to check your ebuilds before submitting them, even if
| > submitting them to breakmygentoo.  Improper ebuilds help no one.
| 
| Ahh but...
| $ esearch repoman

You already have it installed.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail:    ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web:     http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 729 bytes --]

On 01/06/04  Peter Ruskin wrote:

> On Tuesday 06 Jan 2004 19:26, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Also, here's a little hint for everyone:
> >
> > Use repoman to check your ebuilds before submitting them, even if
> > submitting them to breakmygentoo.  Improper ebuilds help no one.
> 
> Ahh but...
> $ esearch repoman
> [ Results for search key : repoman ]
> [ Applications found : 0 ]

You already have it on your system (as 99.9% of all Gentoo users have it
and don't know about it) as it's part of portage.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Jan Schubert]

Peter Ruskin wrote:

>Ahh but...
>$ esearch repoman
>  
>
It's part of  sys-apps/portage.

HTH,
Jan

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 526 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 14:53, Peter Ruskin wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 Jan 2004 19:26, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Also, here's a little hint for everyone:
> >
> > Use repoman to check your ebuilds before submitting them, even if
> > submitting them to breakmygentoo.  Improper ebuilds help no one.
> 
> Ahh but...
> $ esearch repoman
> [ Results for search key : repoman ]
> [ Applications found : 0 ]

emerge gentoolkit

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a pengiun?

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 722 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 14:53, Peter Ruskin wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 Jan 2004 19:26, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Also, here's a little hint for everyone:
> >
> > Use repoman to check your ebuilds before submitting them, even if
> > submitting them to breakmygentoo.  Improper ebuilds help no one.
> 
> Ahh but...
> $ esearch repoman
> [ Results for search key : repoman ]
> [ Applications found : 0 ]
> 
> Peter

OK... I got a bit happy on the send button... that should have been:

emerge gentoolkit
qpkg -q `which repoman`

Anyway, it is included with portage and is pretty good at checking
ebuild syntax.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a pengiun?

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2488 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 12:26, Robert Cole wrote:
> On Tue January 06 2004 4:33 am, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> <snip>
> > > dev says "ok, that sounds fun." I mean, I got passed back and forth
> > > from hardened to general and back a few times and it was all because
> > > the devs reviewing my bug(s) didn't understand the packages.
> >
> > I'm sorry for that. It however can be a sign that the tree is not ready
> > for those ebuilds, or that they are in very low demand.
> 
> If someone has gone their entire life using a rock to hammer nails and has 
> never heard of a hammer before and thus doesn't have the demand for it does 
> that mean that if they are told about the hammer they won't use it or have a 
> demand for always having it?
> 
> Sometimes you create demand where one doesn't currently exist by simply 
> telling people about the hammer.

Great!  Then tell people about your wonderful "hammer" and get some
support behind it.  Something does not have to be in the official
portage tree to gain support.  I can guarantee you that if there's
momentum behind it, that a developer will either pick it up and add it
officially, or possibly a new developer will be added to work with the
"hammer" if it proves to be big enough.

> > > Basically, I just find that the entire ebuild submission process could
> > > definitely be streamlined as to take less dev time and be more
> > > rewarding for the users actually doing the submissions. Including
> > > having user response saying, "hey, so and so just bumped package-x.y.y
> > > to package-x.y.z and it builds fine with a renamed and digested
> > > ebuild."
> >
> > I would agree with that. However I don't know how to do it in a good way
> > that preserves quality.
> 
> There is but it will take effort and time to setup. Sometimes if not always 
> time is required to save time in the long run. Kind of like it takes money to 
> make money. It takes time to save it. Fine grain controls on cvs are required 
> now. If you want until they are fully needed then there will be a ton of 
> pressure to get it done yesterday. Lets not REact let's be proactive.
> 
> If there is a way to make cvs ownership based that would be the easiest 
> administration wise. As in the ebuild(s) I submit I have access to and 
> nothing else.
> 
> Robert
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a pengiun?

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Eldad Zack]

On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 14:33, Paul de Vrieze wrote:

> I'm sorry for that. It however can be a sign that the tree is not ready 
> for those ebuilds, or that they are in very low demand.

Perhaps we can create some sort of repository for these kind of ebuilds,
as an outlet for the low-demand ebuilds, where a user could search for
an ebuild, and not reinvent the wheel, if a package he'd like to install
falls under this category.

Searching bugzilla would yield the same results, I assume, but it's
seems to me somewhat less inviting.


Eldad 


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Eldad Zack]

On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 19:56, Eldad Zack wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 14:33, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> 
> > I'm sorry for that. It however can be a sign that the tree is not ready 
> > for those ebuilds, or that they are in very low demand.
> 
> Perhaps we can create some sort of repository for these kind of ebuilds,
> as an outlet for the low-demand ebuilds, where a user could search for
> an ebuild, and not reinvent the wheel, if a package he'd like to install
> falls under this category.
> 
> Searching bugzilla would yield the same results, I assume, but it's
> seems to me somewhat less inviting.

I Just noticed breakmygentoo. maybe a link with a disclaimer from
gentoo.org would come in handy?


Eldad


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Robert Cole]

On Tue January 06 2004 10:02 am, Eldad Zack wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 19:56, Eldad Zack wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 14:33, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > > I'm sorry for that. It however can be a sign that the tree is not ready
> > > for those ebuilds, or that they are in very low demand.
> >
> > Perhaps we can create some sort of repository for these kind of ebuilds,
> > as an outlet for the low-demand ebuilds, where a user could search for
> > an ebuild, and not reinvent the wheel, if a package he'd like to install
> > falls under this category.
> >
> > Searching bugzilla would yield the same results, I assume, but it's
> > seems to me somewhat less inviting.
>
> I Just noticed breakmygentoo. maybe a link with a disclaimer from
> gentoo.org would come in handy?

I too found and looked at breakmygentoo.net and it appears not to be much 
different than just downloading ebuilds out of bugs.gentoo.org. Kinda takes 
the joys of portage out of the picture. Seems just a lot more presentable 
than bugs.gentoo.org and a better location for those ebuilds. Still not sure 
why the dev release of gnome 2.5.x has to be there while KDE 3.2 beta is in 
the tree just masked. Seems odd. I'm a KDE person so it really doesn't matter 
other than just for understanding.

Someone in this thread said that ACCEPT_KEYWORDS isn't for unstable 
ebuilds/packages. If that's the case we don't need ACCEPT_KEYWORDS do we? I 
must have it wrong that things go from masked to ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to the 
stable tree route. I'll do more reading and educate myself as to what 
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS is for and why apps are flagged that way.

Robert

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 884 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 13:33, Robert Cole wrote:
> Someone in this thread said that ACCEPT_KEYWORDS isn't for unstable 
> ebuilds/packages. If that's the case we don't need ACCEPT_KEYWORDS do we? I 
> must have it wrong that things go from masked to ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to the 
> stable tree route. I'll do more reading and educate myself as to what 
> ACCEPT_KEYWORDS is for and why apps are flagged that way.

ACCEPT_KEYWORDS is for testing *ebuilds* not for testing packages.  A
packages stability/lack thereof has little to do with its KEYWORDS.

Yes, there are many packages in the tree which would be considered
"unstable", such as the beta KDE or the development-sources, but those
are generally left unsupported and usually there for the benefit of the
project/authors.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a pengiun?

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Jan Schubert]

Eldad Zack wrote:

>I Just noticed breakmygentoo. maybe a link with a disclaimer from
>gentoo.org would come in handy?
>  
>
There would also some other sites to mention then. I personaly prefer 
www/cvs.gentoo.de, to where i submit my ebuilds which i contribute in 
bugzilla.

HTH,
Jan

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3822 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 20:02:13 +0200
Eldad Zack <eldad@stoneshaft.ath.cx> wrote:

> On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 19:56, Eldad Zack wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 14:33, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm sorry for that. It however can be a sign that the tree is not
> > > ready for those ebuilds, or that they are in very low demand.
> > 
> > Perhaps we can create some sort of repository for these kind of
> > ebuilds, as an outlet for the low-demand ebuilds, where a user could
> > search for an ebuild, and not reinvent the wheel, if a package he'd
> > like to install falls under this category.
> > 
> > Searching bugzilla would yield the same results, I assume, but it's
> > seems to me somewhat less inviting.
> 
> I Just noticed breakmygentoo. maybe a link with a disclaimer from
> gentoo.org would come in handy?
> 
NO DAMMIT NO!!


<soundtrack artist="sundown" cd="glimmer" track="07" title="stab">

Okay, This thread has detoriated beyond the minimum level of sanity
needed for me to allow said people to continue their breathing.

Not personal to you, Edlad, But to everyone who are involved in the
argument  "creating ebuilds"

  BMG is broken by design.  Most of the people haven't even heard
about syntax, yet lest know the basic about the few weak concepts that
are logic and case studies.  Dont get me into dependencies and quality
control here.

I have dev status, and I've got enough old time status here to take it
on me that if BMG is linked to in the current state, I will personally
maim the one who does it, and revert their links and commits.  



Second point I want to make : If anyone touches, installs or tries to
work with BMG ebuilds, their systems should be completely -Wiped- at a
low level before ever being allowed in bugzilla. preferrably they should
be blacklisted as support-impossible.    Conflicting namespaces, library
links and pkg_  time modifications of live systems all make me want to
track down and do preventive QA.

</soundtrack>



<soundtrack artist="sundown" cd="glimmer" track="04" title="prey">

Following the idea of accepting user tested ebuilds?  Don't make me
laugh. please.  I've seen the amount of complete crud , and the lack of
the even most basic concept and ideas of quality .. . "ohh, we need
gnome here gnome-base/gnome is gnome.. yeeey...  DEPEND="gtk+" is a
great way to solve it, and so is x11-libs/qt ... of coouurse.

Or the othertime favourite.. ."but you shouldn't need that cause it will
compile without it.... And then break when it is removed because
theres no dependency on it but it was linked in an update when you had
it installed" ...  Yeaaah right.  * -GAH- *




My level of frustration here is multifold..  At one point came the idea
up that ACCEPT_KEYWORDS = ~ARCH was for broken packages..  Yeahoo yahoo.
I think you should sit down and think over the documentation and
principial ideas of QA and QC for a while.  ~arch is for -testing-
builds.  For the sake of finding such nice issues like that
libao-1.8.4-r1 doesn't work with autoconf 2.57 but will work with
2.58...

Not, because libao is a fun ultrabeta that is known to eat files in
random spite, or cause complete breakage in the system.

The fact that the author who claimed that ACCEPT_KEYWORDS should be the
broken playground  is running the hard-masked version of KDE-3.2_beta, a
version which is in itself  beyond the scope of  ACCEPT_KEYWORDS , 
ought to be enough.

</soundtrack>


Others have argumented the point about "developer care" and "developer
responsibility" as well as that of "guaranteed response time"  for me
earlier in this thread, so I won't have to go into that again here, do
I?



*sigh*

//Spider

-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Jon Portnoy]

On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 11:05:45PM -0800, Robert Cole wrote:
> I would like to start creating ebuilds for products and maintaining them but 
> I'm a little concerned that my contributions won't be accepted. Will I be 
> wasting my time asking to be a maintainer for a couple of ebuilds I create 
> and get them in the tree?
> 

Generally, when someone asks, my response is an automatic no.

Prove yourself and you'll be picked up as a dev.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] RE: creating ebuilds

[Jeff Stuart]

Allen Parker wrote:
> Personally, I found it to be a pain in the rear to see 1 1/2 yr old
> ebuilds relating to the packages I was developing ebuilds for in bugzilla,
> yet with information so stale as to be stinking the place up. I think that
> there are a lot of things that could be offered to Gentoo users without
> too much hassle by other Gentoo users as long as dev says "ok, that sounds
> fun." I mean, I got passed back and forth from hardened to general and
> back a few times and it was all because the devs reviewing my bug(s)
> didn't understand the packages.

I have to agree with Allen on this.  I submitted some ebuilds for some
WindowMaker apps almost 3 or 4 months ago.  Since then, I've moved on and
switched WM's twice. LOL  Yet, my ebuilds are STILL sitting in bugzilla yet
to be reviewed.  Every once in a while, I'll get a comment about one or two
of the submitted ebuilds.  And to be frank, since I'm not using it anymore,
I could care LESS what happens to em.

It annoys me (on a scale of 1 - 10 where 10 is full blown anger, it's
definitely a 1!) that user submitted ebuilds can take a WHILE to get
approved.  (Note: the ebuilds that I had submitted for the XFCE 4 rc
releases on the other hand were accepted within days of me submitting
em. :))  Kinda removes the feel that "power" is in the user's hands.

--
Jeff Stuart
jstuart@computer-city.net


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RE: creating ebuilds

[Caleb Tennis]

On Wednesday 07 January 2004 01:18 am, Jeff Stuart wrote:
> I have to agree with Allen on this.  I submitted some ebuilds for some
> WindowMaker apps almost 3 or 4 months ago.  Since then, I've moved on and
> switched WM's twice. LOL  Yet, my ebuilds are STILL sitting in bugzilla yet
> to be reviewed.  Every once in a while, I'll get a comment about one or two
> of the submitted ebuilds.  And to be frank, since I'm not using it anymore,
> I could care LESS what happens to em.

I don't want to seem condescending here, but you're saying that you submitted 
ebuilds for programs that you yourself aren't even continuining to use yet 
are irritated that someone else didn't pick them up for maintainership?

It's not that there's some pending queue for ebuilds to be reviewed; they 
simply need to have an audience.  And one person in that audience has to be a 
developer.  My guess is that there just wasn't much interest by any current 
dev. for these applications.  

If there's no developer who is willing to take on an ebuild, yet there's a 
substantial need for it within the community, then we simply need another 
developer.  But somebody has to be willing to fill that niche.

I think of it like this: I used to be the coordinator of the KDevelop project, 
and we would get feature requests all of the time.  Some of the good ideas 
were relatively minor.  Others, while also good ideas, were these major 
undertakings that nobody already on the team was all that interested in.  If 
someone were willing to come along and do what it took to implement them, 
they would be welcome with open arms.  But instead, it was easier for people 
to just tell us what they wanted.

> It annoys me (on a scale of 1 - 10 where 10 is full blown anger, it's
> definitely a 1!) that user submitted ebuilds can take a WHILE to get
> approved.  (Note: the ebuilds that I had submitted for the XFCE 4 rc
> releases on the other hand were accepted within days of me submitting
> em. :))  Kinda removes the feel that "power" is in the user's hands.

The power is always in the users' hands.  I think you'll agree that you can 
basically do anything you want with Gentoo.  The only caveat is that if you 
want your ebuild to become an offical part of Gentoo, it needs a developer to 
sponsor it.  If that doesn't happen, and you still really want it to be a 
part of Gentoo, then you need to seek out becoming a developer yourself.  It 
is possible.  It just takes some effort. :)


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Robert Cole]

I would like to start creating ebuilds for products and maintaining them but 
I'm a little concerned that my contributions won't be accepted. Will I be 
wasting my time asking to be a maintainer for a couple of ebuilds I create 
and get them in the tree?

Robert

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Paul de Vrieze]

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

On Tuesday 06 January 2004 09:39, Robert Cole wrote:
>
> Those systems aren't yours or any other gentoo devs responsibility. I
> think if most gentoo users/admins would really really think about it
> they know the risks they took when they started using gentoo. It's
> bleeding edge using ACCEPT_KEYWORDS or not. I understand, and if every
> gentoo user would really be honest with themselves, that my system
> could go POOF on the next world update. I know mine has a few times in
> the earlier days of gentoo. That's life on the bleeding edge.

I would need to disagree with this. The gentoo project is responsible for 
doing everything reasonable to maintain the integrity of the tree. Say 
in a case where everyone would just be able to add an ebuild to the tree 
given that it compiled, and the tree would get say a trojaned glibc 
turning all gentoo system into spam zombies. Then imagine I was the 
manager of a company that as a result had extra costs of say $100000. In 
that case I would certainly try to sue gentoo technologies inc. I feel 
that I actually should be awarded damages.

While the GPL does have a waranty disclaim, there is no way that this can 
actually be enforced in the case of gross negligence (with most laws, at 
least the European ones). Allowing the gentoo tree to be a free-for-all 
would equal gross negligence for me.

This is certainly not a matter of broken ebuilds or instability it is 
against protection of malice (i.e. criminal behaviour). Besides that 
there must be quality mechanisms in place, but we must protect agains 
criminal behaviour first.

Paul

- -- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/+q2wbKx5DBjWFdsRAhOjAKDlYVE2qrHSyTrhZ0KNPkOZlD9XfgCg4gCA
A3UYhU4RfyLy+CjVmHINhyE=
=yQlP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Robert Cole]

On Tue January 06 2004 4:44 am, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
<snip>
> turning all gentoo system into spam zombies. Then imagine I was the
> manager of a company that as a result had extra costs of say $100000. In
> that case I would certainly try to sue gentoo technologies inc. I feel
> that I actually should be awarded damages.

I'm just going to let this part go but I will say I'm not advocating 
irresponsibility.

> This is certainly not a matter of broken ebuilds or instability it is
> against protection of malice (i.e. criminal behaviour). Besides that
> there must be quality mechanisms in place, but we must protect agains
> criminal behaviour first.

I personally feel the fewer that have access to cvs the better. I and I 
believe Allen are advocating a better middle layer. One that eases the 
shoulders of the cvs devs and one that encourages more participation. 
Currently it doesn't appear that you can have that participation without cvs 
access. 

I don't think anyone that only submits ebuilds should have or even needs cvs 
access. I want to submit and maintain ebuilds but I don't want cvs access 
until I'm submitting patches for portage or some other app.

Robert

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] creating ebuilds

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1815 bytes --]

On Tuesday 06 January 2004 16:45, Robert Cole wrote:
> On Tue January 06 2004 4:44 am, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > turning all gentoo system into spam zombies. Then imagine I was the
> > manager of a company that as a result had extra costs of say $100000. In
> > that case I would certainly try to sue gentoo technologies inc. I feel
> > that I actually should be awarded damages.
>
> I'm just going to let this part go but I will say I'm not advocating
> irresponsibility.

I know you don't, I was just making sure that everyone understands that the 
distribution team can not just ignore that there are very many (hundreds of 
thousands?) systems depending on gentoo and they expect gentoo to have a tree 
that aims at being stable and certainly secure.

> I personally feel the fewer that have access to cvs the better. I and I
> believe Allen are advocating a better middle layer. One that eases the
> shoulders of the cvs devs and one that encourages more participation.
> Currently it doesn't appear that you can have that participation without
> cvs access.

I would be the first one to agree that bugzilla is not perfect, and that a 
better way of handling ebuild submissions would be welcome. However in any 
case there is some level of trust given to the non-dev maintainer. It is 
actually trusting both that this person will actually maintain the ebuild, 
and that the person is actually capable of doing so (and handling the bugs).

What I think would be very likely in such a case is a group of second-class 
citizens that have more recognition than just the next guy, but that are not 
full devs. I don't know whether this is desirable, you decide.

Paul

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

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: creating ebuilds

[Eamon Caddigan]

Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> What I think would be very likely in such a case is a group of
> second-class citizens that have more recognition than just the next
> guy, but that are not full devs. I don't know whether this is
> desirable, you decide.

I just wanted to pipe in as a "user" who's submitted a couple ebuilds,
and say that I think this system would be great. It's worth remembering
that Gentoo's user base tends to be *very* competent, and that there are
plenty of users who are capable of performing all the functions of the
Gentoo devs, but just don't have the time to make that sort of
committment.

Being "in charge of" just a couple ebuilds would be a perfect fit for
such people. There seems to be some concern that these ebuilds would
become unmaintained after a while, but I claim that most people who are
willing to take responsibility for a single ebuild are either advocates
of the software, or the original author (who happens to be a Gentooist).
These are people who would *want* to fix bugs and keep the ebuild
current.

Just my two cents.

-Eamon


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: creating ebuilds

[Caleb Tennis]

On Tuesday 06 January 2004 04:11 pm, Eamon Caddigan wrote:
> Being "in charge of" just a couple ebuilds would be a perfect fit for
> such people. There seems to be some concern that these ebuilds would

You are very correct.  I have a number of people who submit ebuilds and help 
maintain things with me (you know who you are).  Their help is invaluable.

And, it all started with their willingness to dive in and get their hands 
dirty.  And accept a little rejection from time to time.

Caleb


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list