[gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Danny van Dyk]

Hi all,

[CC'ing council@g.o as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th, 2007]

A subset of council members decided today that multiple version suffixes 
are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This decission can be 
appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is sufficient public 
demand, an earlier meeting can be held.

This decission has been made to prevent sufficient precedence for 
unilateral changes to the tree structure. So far the following package 
versions are considered illegal:

  media-viode/mplayer-1.0_rc2_pre20070321-r4
  media-video/transcode-1.0.3_rc2_p20070310-r1

An illegal version specification of media-sound/alsa-driver has already 
been removed from the tree.

I would like to ask the affected package maintainers to move these 
versions to sane version specifications as soon as possible. Thanks in 
advance for this.

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Steve Dibb]

> Hi all,
>
> [CC'ing council@g.o as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th, 2007]
>
> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version suffixes
> are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This decission can be
> appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is sufficient public
> demand, an earlier meeting can be held.
>
> This decission has been made to prevent sufficient precedence for
> unilateral changes to the tree structure. So far the following package
> versions are considered illegal:
>
>   media-viode/mplayer-1.0_rc2_pre20070321-r4
>   media-video/transcode-1.0.3_rc2_p20070310-r1

MPlayer needs to be fixed, though it's in the same boat as transcode ...
it's a release candidate plus a patch level.

Multimedia apps are infamous for rarely having releases, so we are stuck
with SVN snapshots.

What we really need is a suffix for RCS systems, since that's what they
really are.

However, if anyone has any suggestions for naming schemes in the meantime,
I'm all ears.

Steve
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1159 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 01:15:55PM -0600, Steve Dibb wrote:
> >   media-viode/mplayer-1.0_rc2_pre20070321-r4
> >   media-video/transcode-1.0.3_rc2_p20070310-r1
> MPlayer needs to be fixed, though it's in the same boat as transcode ...
> it's a release candidate plus a patch level.
> 
> Multimedia apps are infamous for rarely having releases, so we are stuck
> with SVN snapshots.
> 
> What we really need is a suffix for RCS systems, since that's what they
> really are.
> 
> However, if anyone has any suggestions for naming schemes in the meantime,
> I'm all ears.
I was one of the council members to weigh in on this, and the quick
improvement that I came up with, was going for a naming scheme like so:

printf "_rc%d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,$MONTH,$DAY

Set the date portions to zero in other builds.

Alternatively, follow the example of any ebuild that uses a dated
patchset, and just have the date of the patchset in the ebuild, and only
increment $PR singly.

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 321 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 431 bytes --]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:31:48 -0700
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> printf "_rc%d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,$MONTH,$DAY

Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal whereas
multiple suffixes are legal. PMS permits multiple suffixes, but limits
any individual version component to eight digits to avoid problems with
integer overflows, floating point precision etc.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Danny van Dyk]

Am Mittwoch, 25. April 2007 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:31:48 -0700
>
> "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > printf "_rc%d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,$MONTH,$DAY
>
> Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal
> whereas multiple suffixes are legal. PMS permits multiple suffixes,
> but limits any individual version component to eight digits to avoid
> problems with integer overflows, floating point precision etc.

And when PMS specifies that together with a proper way to compare 
multiple suffixes there will be no problem.

This Council decission was to avoid 'existing practice' that might be 
necessary to include in PMS.

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 775 bytes --]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:57:39 +0200
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal
> > whereas multiple suffixes are legal. PMS permits multiple suffixes,
> > but limits any individual version component to eight digits to avoid
> > problems with integer overflows, floating point precision etc.
> 
> And when PMS specifies that together with a proper way to compare 
> multiple suffixes there will be no problem.

PMS *does* specify a proper way of comparing multiple version suffixes
(and version specs with a leading zero for that matter). I'm not
particularly happy with the wording, but as far as I can see the
description is at least correct, even if it isn't clear.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Joshua Jackson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1670 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:57:39 +0200
> Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>   
>>> Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal
>>> whereas multiple suffixes are legal. PMS permits multiple suffixes,
>>> but limits any individual version component to eight digits to avoid
>>> problems with integer overflows, floating point precision etc.
>>>       
>> And when PMS specifies that together with a proper way to compare 
>> multiple suffixes there will be no problem.
>>     
>
> PMS *does* specify a proper way of comparing multiple version suffixes
> (and version specs with a leading zero for that matter). I'm not
> particularly happy with the wording, but as far as I can see the
> description is at least correct, even if it isn't clear.
>
>   
Alright guys,

This is enough. PMS is a work in progress its not going to cover
everything that users and developers are going to be in some  cases
boneheaded enough to actually pull off (always have edge conditions).
We're continuing to downgrade here and quite frankly the discussions
seem be getting into tangents more then the actual topic at hand (you
know...the fact about what the proper suffix format is), and that is up
to the council to decide. If you have issues with the council, bring it
up in the proper channel, as others have mentioned where its at.


Now either get it back on topic, take it to private emails to discuss
between yourselves, or take up the issues that relate to the council, to
the councils mailing-list/members. They are actually you know...alive
and willing to talk to you.

Annoyed proctor out


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 489 bytes --]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:06:55 -0700
Joshua Jackson <tsunam@gentoo.org> wrote:
> This is enough. PMS is a work in progress its not going to cover
> everything that users and developers are going to be in some  cases
> boneheaded enough to actually pull off (always have edge conditions).

No no, you miss the point. If developers are doing something, either
PMS needs to allow it or they have to stop doing it. It's entirely
relevant to the topic at hand.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

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

Hi.

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:06:55 -0700
> Joshua Jackson <tsunam@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> This is enough. PMS is a work in progress its not going to cover
>> everything that users and developers are going to be in some  cases
>> boneheaded enough to actually pull off (always have edge conditions).
> 
> No no, you miss the point. If developers are doing something, either
> PMS needs to allow it or they have to stop doing it. It's entirely
> relevant to the topic at hand.
> 

I agree.
Also, this issue has arisen from a change in current policy. Even if
Portage and repoman now allow the use of multiple suffixes, the
devmanual still states that's illegal - so it's illegal in current policy.
Instead of people arguing about a decision to uphold the current policy,
I think they should be asking that we have a discussion about the
current policy and propose alternatives, like is being done on the bug,
and in the end submit it to the council for a voting.

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo-forums / Userrel / Proctors
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGL5HTcAWygvVEyAIRAvNsAJ9FFkIWUbLjmsBHskfaxZbN0Fo7LgCgk5o9
UBuUR5erFfG3rFEktEhNiJ8=
=r7Pd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Danny van Dyk]

Am Mittwoch, 25. April 2007 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:31:48 -0700
>
> "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > printf "_rc%d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,$MONTH,$DAY
>
> Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal
> whereas multiple suffixes are legal. PMS permits multiple suffixes,
> but limits any individual version component to eight digits to avoid
> problems with integer overflows, floating point precision etc.

My point was to avoid providigin "existing practice" which might need to 
be respected by either PMS or tree policy.

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Luca Barbato]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:31:48 -0700
> "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> printf "_rc%d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,$MONTH,$DAY
> 
> Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal whereas
> multiple suffixes are legal. PMS permits multiple suffixes, but limits
> any individual version component to eight digits to avoid problems with
> integer overflows, floating point precision etc.
> 

Give that all we need for mplayer is a date (as in yyyymmdd) I think we
could come up with a good interim workaround.

I'd like to have multiple suffixes restored anyway...

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Danny van Dyk]

Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Steve Dibb:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > [CC'ing council@g.o as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
> > 2007]
> >
> > A subset of council members decided today that multiple version
> > suffixes are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This
> > decission can be appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is
> > sufficient public demand, an earlier meeting can be held.
> >
> > This decission has been made to prevent sufficient precedence for
> > unilateral changes to the tree structure. So far the following
> > package versions are considered illegal:
> >
> >   media-viode/mplayer-1.0_rc2_pre20070321-r4
> >   media-video/transcode-1.0.3_rc2_p20070310-r1
>
> MPlayer needs to be fixed, though it's in the same boat as transcode
> ... it's a release candidate plus a patch level.
>
> Multimedia apps are infamous for rarely having releases, so we are
> stuck with SVN snapshots.
>
> What we really need is a suffix for RCS systems, since that's what
> they really are.
>
> However, if anyone has any suggestions for naming schemes in the
> meantime, I'm all ears.

Only a short response, as I'm a bit in a hurry right now. From 
#gentoo-council earlier:

18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,
$MONTH,$DAY

I hope that helps,
Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Jurek Bartuszek]

> Only a short response, as I'm a bit in a hurry right now. From 
> #gentoo-council earlier:
> 
> 18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,
> $MONTH,$DAY

Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package foo-0.1_rc2
released (very outdated) and we're waiting for foo-0.1_rc3. Then example
of something between those two would be foo-0.1_rc000220070313? Would
that force portage to update to this version? Wouldn't that prevent
portage from enforcing update to _rc3 when it's delivered? Of course I
might be wrong and if this is the case then excuse me for the whole fuss ;)

Best regards,
Jurek
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Doug Goldstein]

Jurek Bartuszek wrote:
>> Only a short response, as I'm a bit in a hurry right now. From 
>> #gentoo-council earlier:
>>
>> 18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,
>> $MONTH,$DAY
>>     
>
> Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package foo-0.1_rc2
> released (very outdated) and we're waiting for foo-0.1_rc3. Then example
> of something between those two would be foo-0.1_rc000220070313? Would
> that force portage to update to this version? Wouldn't that prevent
> portage from enforcing update to _rc3 when it's delivered? Of course I
> might be wrong and if this is the case then excuse me for the whole fuss ;)
>
> Best regards,
> Jurek
>   
This was one of the very valid use cases proposed and is definitely a
situation where robbat2's suggestion will not work.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Alexis Ballier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1165 bytes --]


> > Only a short response, as I'm a bit in a hurry right now. From
> > #gentoo-council earlier:
> >
> > 18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,
> > $MONTH,$DAY
>
> Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package foo-0.1_rc2
> released (very outdated) and we're waiting for foo-0.1_rc3. Then example
> of something between those two would be foo-0.1_rc000220070313? Would
> that force portage to update to this version? Wouldn't that prevent
> portage from enforcing update to _rc3 when it's delivered? Of course I
> might be wrong and if this is the case then excuse me for the whole fuss ;)


I was planning to post the same question and then I reread danny's and
robin's mails :
what rc3 will actually be named is something like :
_rc000300000000
not a very funky name but like that portage will see it as >
rc000220070313, otherwise rc3 is < rc000220070313

that also means doing some funky $P renamings in the ebuild to catch
upstream _rc3 tarball, but that's probably better than allowing such
multiple suffixes.
[And that'll make us differ from upstream naming scheme for the whole
_rc series]


Regards,

Alexis.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Jurek Bartuszek]

> that also means doing some funky $P renamings in the ebuild to catch
> upstream _rc3 tarball, but that's probably better than allowing such
> multiple suffixes.

I disagree, multiple suffixes would be much clearer to read. IMHO
renaming _rc3 to _rc000300000000 is an overkill. Why not simply allow
some exceptions from the general rule, such as foo_rcX_preY? It's
obvious that mixing most of the suffixes (e.g. _alphaX_betaY) will
surely result in bogus versioning system and should be prohibited,
although certain combinations would introduce a slight (vast?)
simplification.

Best regards,
Jurek
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Danny van Dyk]

Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Jurek Bartuszek:
> > Only a short response, as I'm a bit in a hurry right now. From
> > #gentoo-council earlier:
> >
> > 18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to
> > "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR, $MONTH,$DAY
>
> Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package
> foo-0.1_rc2 released (very outdated) and we're waiting for
> foo-0.1_rc3. Then example of something between those two would be
> foo-0.1_rc000220070313? Would that force portage to update to this
> version? Wouldn't that prevent portage from enforcing update to _rc3
> when it's delivered? Of course I might be wrong and if this is the
> case then excuse me for the whole fuss ;)

Existing _rcX cases can be handled like this:

  _rc2-rYYYYMMDD

Portage will update from _rc2 to a version with revision part > 0.

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Jurek Bartuszek]

> Existing _rcX cases can be handled like this:
> 
>   _rc2-rYYYYMMDD
> 
> Portage will update from _rc2 to a version with revision part > 0.

However, _rc2-rYYYYMMDD-r1 would *not* be valid anymore, and I think
it's quite easy to imagine when this additional -r1 would be neccessary.

Regards,
Jurek
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Danny van Dyk]

Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Jurek Bartuszek:
> > Existing _rcX cases can be handled like this:
> >
> >   _rc2-rYYYYMMDD
> >
> > Portage will update from _rc2 to a version with revision part > 0.
>
> However, _rc2-rYYYYMMDD-r1 would *not* be valid anymore, and I think
> it's quite easy to imagine when this additional -r1 would be
> neccessary.

I'd like to refer you that this is kind of 'best-practice' for the tree.

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Duncan]

Jurek Bartuszek <jurek@gentoo.org> posted 462E71E1.7000704@gentoo.org,
excerpted below, on  Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:08:49 +0200:

>> Existing _rcX cases can be handled like this:
>> 
>>   _rc2-rYYYYMMDD
>> 
>> Portage will update from _rc2 to a version with revision part > 0.
> 
> However, _rc2-rYYYYMMDD-r1 would *not* be valid anymore, and I think
> it's quite easy to imagine when this additional -r1 would be neccessary.

Well, since -rX is revision number, what was proposed is in effect using 
a dated revision number, so instead of _rc2-rYYYYMMDD-r1, it would be a 
new -rYYYYMMDD.  The additional data that the second one is simply a 
revision of the first would of course be lost.

OTOH, what happens then when another snapshot is taken but not yet 
stabilized, and say a security revision of the first snapshot is 
required.  Then we have two different -r<date> snapshot sequences 
interleaving.

So then to cure that we end up with this:

_rc2-rYYYYMMDDrr, where rr being two digits taking the place of the 
second revision sequence ( the -rX in _rc2-rYYYYMMDD-rX) in the example 
above.  Human parsing of that long a string of digits becomes 
increasingly difficult, unfortunately, but it should work.

-- 
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@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Jakub Moc]

On 4/25/07, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> Jurek Bartuszek <jurek@gentoo.org> posted 462E71E1.7000704@gentoo.org,
> excerpted below, on  Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:08:49 +0200:
>
> >> Existing _rcX cases can be handled like this:
> >>
> >>   _rc2-rYYYYMMDD
> So then to cure that we end up with this:
>
> _rc2-rYYYYMMDDrr, where rr being two digits taking the place of the
> second revision sequence ( the -rX in _rc2-rYYYYMMDD-rX) in the example
> above.  Human parsing of that long a string of digits becomes
> increasingly difficult, unfortunately, but it should work.

Bleh; fugly abuse of revisions; they are not meant to be used for
upstream code changes. Sorry but mplayer-1.0_rc2_pre20070321-r4 or
alsa-driver-1.0.14_rc2_p3234 is a whole lot more sane and readable
than the above -rYYYYMMDD kludge.

On a general note - if you are unable to agree upon an acceptable
solution, then better refrain from taking 'emergency' measures on
issues where there's no emergency whatsoever. There's been a bug open
for over two months and noone ever suggested that I'd be a case for
urgent council decision.

--
Jakub Moc
Email: jakub.moc@gmail.com
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Wulf C. Krueger]

Quoting Jakub Moc <jakub.moc@gmail.com>:

> noone ever suggested that I'd be a case for
> urgent council decision.

That's because your "revisions" only change once a year. ;-)

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Best regards, Wulf


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 869 bytes --]

On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 08:55 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> On a general note - if you are unable to agree upon an acceptable
> solution, then better refrain from taking 'emergency' measures on
> issues where there's no emergency whatsoever. There's been a bug open
> for over two months and noone ever suggested that I'd be a case for
> urgent council decision.

I don't understand how nobody can see that the *TEMPORARY* injunction
against packages using this versioning scheme was put into place
*BECAUSE* nobody could agree on the solution.

Actually, nevermind.  I digress.  You're right.  The Council screwed up.
Feel free to give us all our 50 lashings and we'll be done with this
crap.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 389 bytes --]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:12:49 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I don't understand how nobody can see that the *TEMPORARY* injunction
> against packages using this versioning scheme was put into place
> *BECAUSE* nobody could agree on the solution.

Mmm, no, what's weird is that you did it about two days after a
solution was found...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


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

RE: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Chrissy Fullam]

 
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:12:49 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I don't understand how nobody can see that the *TEMPORARY* injunction 
> against packages using this versioning scheme was put into place
> *BECAUSE* nobody could agree on the solution.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:22
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org> wrote:
>Mmm, no, what's weird is that you did it about two days after a solution
was found...

How is this conversation even relevant to development anymore? It sounds
more policy, well questioning authority, and that is clearly meant for
another ML. 
Can we please move on past the "how did the council decide to make this
decision" and the "why did the council make this decision?"  Try
gentoo-council@gentoo.org for answers to those questions, after all, anyone
can be on that ML so it's not like its going to be 'closed door'
information.
A more appropriate discussion for here would be "what do we do to start
working with this decision?"

Regards,
Chrissy Fullam


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Jakub Moc]

On 4/25/07, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I don't understand how nobody can see that the *TEMPORARY* injunction
> against packages using this versioning scheme was put into place
> *BECAUSE* nobody could agree on the solution.
>
> Actually, nevermind.  I digress.  You're right.  The Council screwed up.
> Feel free to give us all our 50 lashings and we'll be done with this
> crap.

Sigh... It for sure did sound like 'oh noes, the end of the world is
near if we don't stop this immediately!!!111!'. Sorry, but I really
fail to see the need to use such procedures when the only 2 remaining
packages (eh, actually just one, the obsolete transcode ebuild is
gone) clearly use multiple version suffixes because it makes a lot of
sense to use them and they use them in a pretty sane way  (unlike all
the crazy _alpha_beta_rc_pre examples given on the relevant bug and
elsewhere in this debate).

It's not like that the maintainers would use such stuff because 'oh
it's so cooool to have multiple version suffixes, I must commit at
least one such ebuild'. What's exactly your 'sane version
specification'  that you ask the maintainers of such ebuilds to move
them to 'as soon as possible'? And why's moving them ASAP exactly
needed?

--
Jakub Moc
Email: jakub.moc@gmail.com
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 942 bytes --]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:40:17 +0200
"Jakub Moc" <jakub.moc@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sigh... It for sure did sound like 'oh noes, the end of the world is
> near if we don't stop this immediately!!!111!'. Sorry, but I really
> fail to see the need to use such procedures when the only 2 remaining
> packages (eh, actually just one, the obsolete transcode ebuild is
> gone) clearly use multiple version suffixes because it makes a lot of
> sense to use them and they use them in a pretty sane way  (unlike all
> the crazy _alpha_beta_rc_pre examples given on the relevant bug and
> elsewhere in this debate).

The issue is that it's a not particularly nice package manager feature
that's only needed for two packages. In general in those situations the
solution is to use some kind of workaround for the small number of
affected packages rather than making things even more complicated than
they already are.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Piotr Jaroszyński]

On Tuesday 24 of April 2007 22:47:00 Jurek Bartuszek wrote:
> Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package foo-0.1_rc2
> released (very outdated) and we're waiting for foo-0.1_rc3. Then example
> of something between those two would be foo-0.1_rc000220070313? Would
> that force portage to update to this version? Wouldn't that prevent
> portage from enforcing update to _rc3 when it's delivered? Of course I
> might be wrong and if this is the case then excuse me for the whole fuss ;)

foo-0.1_rc2 < foo-0.1_rc000220070313 < foo-0.1_rc3

-- 
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Piotr Jaroszyński]

On Tuesday 24 of April 2007 23:20:05 Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> foo-0.1_rc2 < foo-0.1_rc000220070313 < foo-0.1_rc3
err. foo-0.1_rc2 < foo-0.1_rc000220070313 < foo-0.1_rc000320070512

What I was trying to say is that once you change to the long versions you must 
stay with them.

-- 
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Jurek Bartuszek]

> err. foo-0.1_rc2 < foo-0.1_rc000220070313 < foo-0.1_rc000320070512
> 
> What I was trying to say is that once you change to the long versions you must 
> stay with them.

And there you have another flaw of this system - how am I supposed to
predict if I'll ever need the "extended" _rc versioning in case of that
one particular package? I think that massive ebuild renaming is
definietly not an option.

Best regards,
Jurek

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Stephen Bennett]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:42:43 +0200
Jurek Bartuszek <jurek@gentoo.org> wrote:

> And there you have another flaw of this system - how am I supposed to
> predict if I'll ever need the "extended" _rc versioning in case of
> that one particular package? I think that massive ebuild renaming is
> definietly not an option.

Try reading what he wrote. You can trivially switch to the longer _rc
system; you'll just have to keep using it until the next release if you
do.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Jurek Bartuszek]

Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:42:43 +0200
> Jurek Bartuszek <jurek@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> And there you have another flaw of this system - how am I supposed to
>> predict if I'll ever need the "extended" _rc versioning in case of
>> that one particular package? I think that massive ebuild renaming is
>> definietly not an option.
> 
> Try reading what he wrote. You can trivially switch to the longer _rc
> system; you'll just have to keep using it until the next release if you
> do.

Hmm, is swiching from _rc2 to _rc000200000000 trouble-free from user's
POV too? Wouldn't he be forced to "update" from former to latter then?
It's the same version. Or am I missing something?

Best regards,
Jurek
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Piotr Jaroszyński]

On Wednesday 25 of April 2007 00:04:35 Jurek Bartuszek wrote:
> Hmm, is swiching from _rc2 to _rc000200000000 trouble-free from user's
> POV too? Wouldn't he be forced to "update" from former to latter then?
> It's the same version. Or am I missing something?

There is no need for such a switch, just add new snapshot using the long _rc. 
Once you do it you will have to keep using it until version bump,
e.g. (low to high):
1.0_rc1
1.0_rc000120070101 (newer snapshot of rc1)
1.0_rc0120070102 (leading zeroes are omitted)
1.0_rc000320070201 (here the date doesn't matter as long it's 8 digits long)
1.1_rc1 (yuupi version bump and we can use short _rc again)

-- 
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Jurek Bartuszek]

Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 of April 2007 00:04:35 Jurek Bartuszek wrote:
>> Hmm, is swiching from _rc2 to _rc000200000000 trouble-free from user's
>> POV too? Wouldn't he be forced to "update" from former to latter then?
>> It's the same version. Or am I missing something?
> 
> There is no need for such a switch, just add new snapshot using the long _rc. 
> Once you do it you will have to keep using it until version bump,
> e.g. (low to high):
> 1.0_rc1
> 1.0_rc000120070101 (newer snapshot of rc1)
> 1.0_rc0120070102 (leading zeroes are omitted)
> 1.0_rc000320070201 (here the date doesn't matter as long it's 8 digits long)
> 1.1_rc1 (yuupi version bump and we can use short _rc again)

Fine, that answers my question. Anyway, I personally still prefer double
suffixes over fiddling with _rc.

Best regards,
Jurek
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Doug Goldstein]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 839 bytes --]

Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 of April 2007 00:04:35 Jurek Bartuszek wrote:
>> Hmm, is swiching from _rc2 to _rc000200000000 trouble-free from user's
>> POV too? Wouldn't he be forced to "update" from former to latter then?
>> It's the same version. Or am I missing something?
> 
> There is no need for such a switch, just add new snapshot using the long _rc. 
> Once you do it you will have to keep using it until version bump,
> e.g. (low to high):
> 1.0_rc1
> 1.0_rc000120070101 (newer snapshot of rc1)
> 1.0_rc0120070102 (leading zeroes are omitted)
> 1.0_rc000320070201 (here the date doesn't matter as long it's 8 digits long)
> 1.1_rc1 (yuupi version bump and we can use short _rc again)
> 

Where does 1.0_rc2 fall in here?

-- 
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org>
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Jurek Bartuszek]

Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
>> There is no need for such a switch, just add new snapshot using the long _rc. 
>> Once you do it you will have to keep using it until version bump,
>> e.g. (low to high):
>> 1.0_rc1
>> 1.0_rc000120070101 (newer snapshot of rc1)
>> 1.0_rc0120070102 (leading zeroes are omitted)
>> 1.0_rc000320070201 (here the date doesn't matter as long it's 8 digits long)
>> 1.1_rc1 (yuupi version bump and we can use short _rc again)
>>
> 
> Where does 1.0_rc2 fall in here?
> 

That would be 1.0_rc000200000000 I suppose.

Best regards,
Jurek
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Danny van Dyk]

Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Piotr Jaroszyński:
> foo-0.1_rc2 < foo-0.1_rc000220070313 < foo-0.1_rc3

Leading zeros are ignored (unless in very special cases in the version 
spec and since a recent portage version also in the revision part), so 
the above is incorrect - generally spoken.

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Marius Mauch]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:20:05 +0200
Piotr Jaroszyński <peper@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday 24 of April 2007 22:47:00 Jurek Bartuszek wrote:
> > Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package foo-0.1_rc2
> > released (very outdated) and we're waiting for foo-0.1_rc3. Then example
> > of something between those two would be foo-0.1_rc000220070313? Would
> > that force portage to update to this version? Wouldn't that prevent
> > portage from enforcing update to _rc3 when it's delivered? Of course I
> > might be wrong and if this is the case then excuse me for the whole fuss ;)
> 
> foo-0.1_rc2 < foo-0.1_rc000220070313 < foo-0.1_rc3

Nope. The number part of suffixes is compared as integer.

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 711 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:54:20PM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> 18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,
> $MONTH,$DAY

In my original email, I also suggested this solution, but it seems that nobody
read it:
] Alternatively, follow the example of any ebuild that uses a dated
] patchset, and just have the date of the patchset in the ebuild, and only
] increment $PR singly.

This solution already exists in MANY places in the tree, and should probably be
preferred over the long $PR or $RC values.


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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 321 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Donnie Berkholz]

Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> In my original email, I also suggested this solution, but it seems that nobody
> read it:
> ] Alternatively, follow the example of any ebuild that uses a dated
> ] patchset, and just have the date of the patchset in the ebuild, and only
> ] increment $PR singly.
> 
> This solution already exists in MANY places in the tree, and should probably be
> preferred over the long $PR or $RC values.

Yeah, except revisions are supposed to be for changes to ebuild code, 
not upstream code.

This gets problematic for people trying to report bugs to upstream, 
because they and upstream have no idea what code they're actually running.

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Doug Goldstein]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1111 bytes --]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> In my original email, I also suggested this solution, but it seems
>> that nobody
>> read it:
>> ] Alternatively, follow the example of any ebuild that uses a dated
>> ] patchset, and just have the date of the patchset in the ebuild, and
>> only
>> ] increment $PR singly.
>>
>> This solution already exists in MANY places in the tree, and should
>> probably be
>> preferred over the long $PR or $RC values.
> 
> Yeah, except revisions are supposed to be for changes to ebuild code,
> not upstream code.
> 
> This gets problematic for people trying to report bugs to upstream,
> because they and upstream have no idea what code they're actually running.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donnie

+1

I agree -r# is for ebuild changes not code changes. I remember a while
back Portage would constantly use -r# instead of a 4th number and we
worked at that to change that behavior since it was firmly established
that -r# was for ebuild changes only. Not bumps in the code.

-- 
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org>
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Alec Warner]

Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>>> In my original email, I also suggested this solution, but it seems
>>> that nobody
>>> read it:
>>> ] Alternatively, follow the example of any ebuild that uses a dated
>>> ] patchset, and just have the date of the patchset in the ebuild, and
>>> only
>>> ] increment $PR singly.
>>>
>>> This solution already exists in MANY places in the tree, and should
>>> probably be
>>> preferred over the long $PR or $RC values.
>> Yeah, except revisions are supposed to be for changes to ebuild code,
>> not upstream code.
>>
>> This gets problematic for people trying to report bugs to upstream,
>> because they and upstream have no idea what code they're actually running.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Donnie
> 
> +1
> 
> I agree -r# is for ebuild changes not code changes. I remember a while
> back Portage would constantly use -r# instead of a 4th number and we
> worked at that to change that behavior since it was firmly established
> that -r# was for ebuild changes only. Not bumps in the code.
> 

Yeah stubbs loved that -rX :)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Marius Mauch]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:30:06 -0700
Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > I agree -r# is for ebuild changes not code changes. I remember a while
> > back Portage would constantly use -r# instead of a 4th number and we
> > worked at that to change that behavior since it was firmly established
> > that -r# was for ebuild changes only. Not bumps in the code.
> > 
> 
> Yeah stubbs loved that -rX :)

Actually it was Nick, unfortunately the "tradition" was continued even
after he left.

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Doug Goldstein]

Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> [CC'ing council@g.o as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th, 2007]
>
> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version suffixes 
> are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This decission can be 
> appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is sufficient public 
> demand, an earlier meeting can be held.
>
> This decission has been made to prevent sufficient precedence for 
> unilateral changes to the tree structure. So far the following package 
> versions are considered illegal:
>
>   media-viode/mplayer-1.0_rc2_pre20070321-r4
>   media-video/transcode-1.0.3_rc2_p20070310-r1
>
> An illegal version specification of media-sound/alsa-driver has already 
> been removed from the tree.
>
> I would like to ask the affected package maintainers to move these 
> versions to sane version specifications as soon as possible. Thanks in 
> advance for this.
>
> Danny
>   

So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it
be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next meeting.

Danny,

This wouldn't have to be because you have a vested interest in paludis
and paludis does not support this syntax and there happens to be no
reasonable way to support that?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Fernando J. Pereda]

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

On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:16:38PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > [CC'ing council@g.o as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th, 2007]
> >
> > A subset of council members decided today that multiple version suffixes 
> > are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This decission can be 
> > appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is sufficient public 
> > demand, an earlier meeting can be held.
> >
> > This decission has been made to prevent sufficient precedence for 
> > unilateral changes to the tree structure. So far the following package 
> > versions are considered illegal:
> >
> >   media-viode/mplayer-1.0_rc2_pre20070321-r4
> >   media-video/transcode-1.0.3_rc2_p20070310-r1
> >
> > An illegal version specification of media-sound/alsa-driver has already 
> > been removed from the tree.
> >
> > I would like to ask the affected package maintainers to move these 
> > versions to sane version specifications as soon as possible. Thanks in 
> > advance for this.
> >
> > Danny
> >   
> 
> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it
> be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next meeting.
> 
> Danny,
> 
> This wouldn't have to be because you have a vested interest in paludis
> and paludis does not support this syntax and there happens to be no
> reasonable way to support that?

Incidentally.... paludis *does* support it.

-- 
Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín
20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED  ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Danny van Dyk]

Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Fernando J. Pereda:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:16:38PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > Danny,
> >
> > This wouldn't have to be because you have a vested interest in
> > paludis and paludis does not support this syntax and there happens
> > to be no reasonable way to support that?
>
> Incidentally.... paludis *does* support it.
Only unreleased svn snapshots though.

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Stephen Bennett]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:

> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it
> be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next meeting.

There were three council members who happened to be around at the time,
and those three agreed unanimously. That seems reasonable to me for an
interim decision.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Doug Goldstein]

Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it
>> be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next meeting.
>>     
>
> There were three council members who happened to be around at the time,
> and those three agreed unanimously. That seems reasonable to me for an
> interim decision.
>   
Is it that serious of an issue that it needed to be done as such and
could not wait for a regular council meeting?

Granted I understand it's important for you paludis users since paludis
doesn't support that.
 But I'm talking about real Gentoo users that use Portage.

I think we are setting a VERY dangerous precedent by allowing a subset
of council members to make decisions as a whole if they decide to make a
decision outside of a normal session.

Who were the 3?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Bryan Østergaard]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
> > Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> >   
> >> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it
> >> be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next meeting.
> >>     
> >
> > There were three council members who happened to be around at the time,
> > and those three agreed unanimously. That seems reasonable to me for an
> > interim decision.
> >   
> Is it that serious of an issue that it needed to be done as such and
> could not wait for a regular council meeting?
> 
> Granted I understand it's important for you paludis users since paludis
> doesn't support that.
>  But I'm talking about real Gentoo users that use Portage.
> 
> I think we are setting a VERY dangerous precedent by allowing a subset
> of council members to make decisions as a whole if they decide to make a
> decision outside of a normal session.
> 
> Who were the 3?
Already stated in another reply on this thread but the three council
members were robbat2, kugelfang and myself.

Regards,
Bryan Østergaard
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Doug Goldstein]

Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>   
>> Stephen Bennett wrote:
>>     
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
>>> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it
>>>> be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next meeting.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> There were three council members who happened to be around at the time,
>>> and those three agreed unanimously. That seems reasonable to me for an
>>> interim decision.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Is it that serious of an issue that it needed to be done as such and
>> could not wait for a regular council meeting?
>>
>> Granted I understand it's important for you paludis users since paludis
>> doesn't support that.
>>  But I'm talking about real Gentoo users that use Portage.
>>
>> I think we are setting a VERY dangerous precedent by allowing a subset
>> of council members to make decisions as a whole if they decide to make a
>> decision outside of a normal session.
>>
>> Who were the 3?
>>     
> Already stated in another reply on this thread but the three council
> members were robbat2, kugelfang and myself.
>
> Regards,
> Bryan Østergaard
>   
Bryan,

You and Danny have clearly shown your bias towards paludis take over and
support of Gentoo. It's fairly poor taste to FORCE this through during a
non-regular meeting for something that paludis is lacking.

It's AMAZING how fast you guys are to clamor and fix what you call a QA
issue and other problems when we've had issues highlighted for years
that the council can't move on. But once it's a possible issue with
paludis you guys are quick to respond.

Very poor taste....
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Bryan Østergaard]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:00:42PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> >   
> Bryan,
> 
> You and Danny have clearly shown your bias towards paludis take over and
> support of Gentoo. It's fairly poor taste to FORCE this through during a
> non-regular meeting for something that paludis is lacking.
> 
> It's AMAZING how fast you guys are to clamor and fix what you call a QA
> issue and other problems when we've had issues highlighted for years
> that the council can't move on. But once it's a possible issue with
> paludis you guys are quick to respond.
> 
Please stop the conspiracy theories. This has nothing to do with paludis
and everything to do with what we consider sane in the tree - no matter
which package manager you use. And as stated otherwise paludis already
supports multiple suffixes even if it's not in a released version yet so
it's not an issue for paludis either.

Regards,
Bryan Østergaard
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Doug Goldstein]

Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:00:42PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>   
>> Bryan Østergaard wrote:
>>     
>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>> Bryan,
>>
>> You and Danny have clearly shown your bias towards paludis take over and
>> support of Gentoo. It's fairly poor taste to FORCE this through during a
>> non-regular meeting for something that paludis is lacking.
>>
>> It's AMAZING how fast you guys are to clamor and fix what you call a QA
>> issue and other problems when we've had issues highlighted for years
>> that the council can't move on. But once it's a possible issue with
>> paludis you guys are quick to respond.
>>
>>     
> Please stop the conspiracy theories. This has nothing to do with paludis
> and everything to do with what we consider sane in the tree - no matter
> which package manager you use. And as stated otherwise paludis already
> supports multiple suffixes even if it's not in a released version yet so
> it's not an issue for paludis either.
>
> Regards,
> Bryan Østergaard
>   
It's not a sane tree. There have been very specific uses cases that have
been discussed on ML and in #-dev that have highlighted the possible
need for this.

Like I said before, if you're concerned about tree QA.. There's bigger
and worse things out there that have been in the wild for much longer. I
expect the council to now start taking FAST action on those issues.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Ned Ludd]

On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 16:00 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> >   
> >> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> >>     
> >>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
> >>> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >>>> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it
> >>>> be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next meeting.
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>> There were three council members who happened to be around at the time,
> >>> and those three agreed unanimously. That seems reasonable to me for an
> >>> interim decision.
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >> Is it that serious of an issue that it needed to be done as such and
> >> could not wait for a regular council meeting?
> >>
> >> Granted I understand it's important for you paludis users since paludis
> >> doesn't support that.
> >>  But I'm talking about real Gentoo users that use Portage.
> >>
> >> I think we are setting a VERY dangerous precedent by allowing a subset
> >> of council members to make decisions as a whole if they decide to make a
> >> decision outside of a normal session.
> >>
> >> Who were the 3?
> >>     
> > Already stated in another reply on this thread but the three council
> > members were robbat2, kugelfang and myself.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bryan Østergaard
> >   
> Bryan,
> 
> You and Danny have clearly shown your bias towards paludis take over and
> support of Gentoo. It's fairly poor taste to FORCE this through during a
> non-regular meeting for something that paludis is lacking.
> 
> It's AMAZING how fast you guys are to clamor and fix what you call a QA
> issue and other problems when we've had issues highlighted for years
> that the council can't move on. But once it's a possible issue with
> paludis you guys are quick to respond.

You might be overreacting a little here. To bring you up to speed
vapier actually filed the original bug for this after I first noticed
one of these atoms creeping into the tree while doing pre release atom
compare testing for portage-utils around early February. Till this
moment there was no definitive decision of any sort.

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

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Seemant Kulleen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1438 bytes --]

On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 13:39 -0700, Ned Ludd wrote:

> You might be overreacting a little here. To bring you up to speed
> vapier actually filed the original bug for this after I first noticed
> one of these atoms creeping into the tree while doing pre release atom
> compare testing for portage-utils around early February. Till this
> moment there was no definitive decision of any sort.

I think the overreaction here is due to the fact that a seemingly
"emergency" Council meeting was convened to make this decision.  And
that is a bit confusing (to me, at least).  Why the sudden urge to "fix"
this right *now*? I understand that there's a recent addition with
ffmpeg and mplayer etc, but this isn't exactly an epidemic in package
versioning sweeping through the tree, by any stretch of the imagination.
I think a council decision is probably the correct thing (with heavy
input from portage and the development community), but an emergency
council decision?  I'm with Doug on this: it's a little out of place at
the moment.  Especially when there isn't really an alternative scheme
that's been set in stone (the zeroed-out date field idea is one idea --
no offense, Robin, but it does seem a little on the klunky side).   I
think it'd be nice to first open such alternatives up to discussion
before making emergency council decisions and announcements like this.

Thanks,

Seemant


Thanks,

Seemant


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Seemant Kulleen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1147 bytes --]

Hi Danny,

> Look at it from my POV. I only knew about the alsa version at first.
> I knew it was removed already. Then i learned about mplayer. Ok... i can 
> live with that as long as nothing else in there. Then I learned about 
> transcode and I asked my fellow Council members to cut it.

I'm not sure I see that as a council issue, to be honest, but that's ok.

> Besides, the affected maintainers have since then silently and gladly 
> agreed to remove said versions and agree that we should stick to known 
> methods until proper combinations of version suffixes have been agreed 
> on.

You see, that would have been my first approach, instead of a rushed
council weighing in.


> Seemant: I'd like to continue to discuss the ways of council decission 
> on gentoo-council rather than on gentoo-dev ML. :-)

Happy to do that, in the general case.  In this specific case, however,
it's valid here, because the entire thread revolves around a rather rash
council decision (who knew such a thing was even possible?) that affects
pretty much all Gentoo developers (and prospective developers).

Thanks,

Seemant


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Danny van Dyk]

Am Mittwoch, 25. April 2007 schrieb Seemant Kulleen:
> Hi Danny,
>
> > Look at it from my POV. I only knew about the alsa version at
> > first. I knew it was removed already. Then i learned about mplayer.
> > Ok... i can live with that as long as nothing else in there. Then I
> > learned about transcode and I asked my fellow Council members to
> > cut it.

> I'm not sure I see that as a council issue, to be honest, but that's
> ok.
In my eyes it was a policy issue. Tree-wide policies have to pass the 
council in one form or the other. So why shouldn't Council care here?

> > Besides, the affected maintainers have since then silently and
> > gladly agreed to remove said versions and agree that we should
> > stick to known methods until proper combinations of version
> > suffixes have been agreed on.

> You see, that would have been my first approach, instead of a rushed
> council weighing in.
I just wonder why several people feel attacked by this decission while 
the affected parties have no problem with it.

>
> > Seemant: I'd like to continue to discuss the ways of council
> > decission on gentoo-council rather than on gentoo-dev ML. :-)
>
> Happy to do that, in the general case.  In this specific case,
> however, it's valid here, because the entire thread revolves around a
> rather rash council decision (who knew such a thing was even
> possible?) that affects pretty much all Gentoo developers (and
> prospective developers).
Anybody who attends the regular Council meetings and/or reads their 
logs/summaries knew that this kind of decission is possible.

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2043 bytes --]

On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 00:30 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> I just wonder why several people feel attacked by this decission while 
> the affected parties have no problem with it.

There is a growing anti-authority sentiment within the Gentoo developer
community.  People want to complain about any decision made, even if it
doesn't affect them.  This is the "power" of a free and open community.
It allows people, even those that have no vested interest in the
decision, to voice their opinions and have them heard.

The problem here is that people think that their opinion or personal
beliefs trump Council decisions, when they do not.  As simplistic as it
sounds, when the Council makes a decision you have only a very few
choices:

- Agree, accept it and move on
- Disagree, accept it and move on
- Disagree and appeal the decision at the next meeting
- Disagree and vote out the current Council next election

Yes, there are some more variations on the above, but I leave those as
an exercise to the reader.  The point here is that these constant
"discussions" on how the Council is killing Gentoo simply because they
might have made a decision that you personally might not make or they
made it in a manner that you personally might not have used are doing
nothing more than undermining the authority given to the Council by the
developer community at large when they approved GLEP 39.  If you
disagree with a Council decision, there are procedures in place for you
to be heard and for the decision to be appealed.  Use those procedures.
Trying to make every decision out to be some sort of abuse of power is
getting quite old and tired and is going to lend people to not pay
attention anymore, which would be sad if there ever *was* a case of the
Council abusing its power.

Welcome to the story of the developers that cried "abuse"...

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Seemant Kulleen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1526 bytes --]

On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 00:30 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:

> In my eyes it was a policy issue. Tree-wide policies have to pass the 
> council in one form or the other. So why shouldn't Council care here?

My argument is not that Council should not care.  My question is: what's
the big urgency to rush a half-baked policy through?

> I just wonder why several people feel attacked by this decission while 
> the affected parties have no problem with it.

I hope you don't mean me here, because I haven't felt attacked at all.
My concern isn't a personal one. Rather, it's a question that nobody
from the council has actually answered: what was the big hurry to make a
decision _NOW_ without even thinking through the migration path, or for
that matter without even knowing what is the actual correct way.  It's
fine to say that _rc_alpha_beta_p is wrong (and I happen to agree).
It's another to not say what is actually right.  Furthermore, if only 3
packages did the wrong thing where was the emergency?

> Anybody who attends the regular Council meetings and/or reads their 
> logs/summaries knew that this kind of decission is possible.

To paraphrase something I've said to people on this list: just because
you can does not necessarily mean that you _should_.  

I probably have more council related commentary, but I'll save that for
the appropriate mailing list :)

I'm not trying to make you defensive, I just really would like an answer
to my question, that is all.

Thanks,

Seemant

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2872 bytes --]

On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 21:25 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 00:30 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> 
> > In my eyes it was a policy issue. Tree-wide policies have to pass the 
> > council in one form or the other. So why shouldn't Council care here?
> 
> My argument is not that Council should not care.  My question is: what's
> the big urgency to rush a half-baked policy through?

Except that nobody did that.  Read what was done.  What was done was a
*temporary* block on something that needed further discussion was put in
place.  Nobody held any emergency meeting.  A subset of the Council just
used some common sense and said something like "hey, maybe we should
block this until there is proper discussion and a proper solution is
found" which makes complete sense to me.  I wasn't even involved in the
situation and I can see how this happened.  As I said, anyone who cannot
see just how simple of a thing this was is either blind or specifically
looking for something to complain about.

> > I just wonder why several people feel attacked by this decission while 
> > the affected parties have no problem with it.
> 
> I hope you don't mean me here, because I haven't felt attacked at all.
> My concern isn't a personal one. Rather, it's a question that nobody
> from the council has actually answered: what was the big hurry to make a
> decision _NOW_ without even thinking through the migration path, or for
> that matter without even knowing what is the actual correct way.  It's
> fine to say that _rc_alpha_beta_p is wrong (and I happen to agree).
> It's another to not say what is actually right.  Furthermore, if only 3
> packages did the wrong thing where was the emergency?

There was no emergency.  Nobody from the Council has ever said it was an
emergency.  I think you were the one that stated that it was.  Also,
realize that the decision wasn't a solution to the problem.  Again,
nobody said that it was.  The only problem that I see is that we didn't
act soon enough.  As soon as there was some conflict on how to allow the
multiple version suffixes, somebody should have stopped any packages
form using them in the tree until a solution was decided.

> I'm not trying to make you defensive, I just really would like an answer
> to my question, that is all.

I've answered it to the best of my ability and it is hard to not get
defensive when every decision your group makes is attacked on multiple
fronts by people that put you in the position to make those exact same
decisions.  It really has made me wonder what the point in being on the
Council is if we can't do anything without being assaulted on all sides.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2104 bytes --]

On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 18:21 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> > Seemant: I'd like to continue to discuss the ways of council decission 
> > on gentoo-council rather than on gentoo-dev ML. :-)
> 
> Happy to do that, in the general case.  In this specific case, however,
> it's valid here, because the entire thread revolves around a rather rash
> council decision (who knew such a thing was even possible?) that affects
> pretty much all Gentoo developers (and prospective developers).

Seemant is half right here.  The discussion should stay here, but only
if the discussion is about the technical issues involved in multiple
suffixes.  Anybody who plans on simply making this a bitching session
should reconsider sending any replies, at all.  How someone can even
pretend that this is such an important issue is beyond me.  Nobody held
some secret emergency meeting.  Most likely, three Council members were
simply talking, and decided that the best course of action is to block
further changes to the tree involving multiple suffixes until a proper
decision can be discussed and decided upon.  This makes complete sense
to me as it seems like something that should be done to keep the changes
from spreading for the short term.  Seriously, what is up with all the
anti-Council conspiracy theories?  Are you guys really *that* against
the Council trying to do *anything* productive, at all?  Should we all
just give up and quit?

It seems that every time I open my email client, somebody out there is
trying to say that by the Council using the powers afforded to them that
somehow they're conspiring to take down Gentoo.  Yeah... because that's
just what the Council wants to do, make Gentoo a steaming pile of rubble
so we can be the supreme rulers of... nothing.  Now, if only we can get
all these pesky developers out of the way, we could rule the world!

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation
(Ashamed to call myself a developer these days)

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Seemant Kulleen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1644 bytes --]

On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 19:31 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:


> It seems that every time I open my email client, somebody out there is
> trying to say that by the Council using the powers afforded to them that
> somehow they're conspiring to take down Gentoo.  Yeah... because that's
> just what the Council wants to do, make Gentoo a steaming pile of rubble
> so we can be the supreme rulers of... nothing.  Now, if only we can get
> all these pesky developers out of the way, we could rule the world!


You're right, there is.  For the record, though, my feeling isn't
anything about being anti-authority, etc.  Quite the opposite, in fact,
because the current leadership is actually doing and accomplishing
things.  As I stated in my original email (agreeing with your own view
that this isn't that big an issue): what was the hurry to get an
announcement/decision made without even a valid alternative in place?
In other words, there was a policy "decision" without a clear
established way to not violate it (yes, the mplayer/ffmpeg maintainers
did whatever it is they did to comply, I know that, but it's not a
generalisable solution).

So, being that this situation is *not* that big, couldn't it just have
waited for all the council members to get together and have opportunity
to really propose and establish a viable alternative?

If I were to guess I'd say people are a little confused that this
required action/decision this quickly and outside of a regular council
meeting -- for a real emergency situation, you'd probably see a lot less
of a hub-bub about it.  But, come on, this is a 3-package issue.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Richard Freeman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3448 bytes --]

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

Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> 
> If I were to guess I'd say people are a little confused that this
> required action/decision this quickly and outside of a regular council
> meeting -- for a real emergency situation, you'd probably see a lot less
> of a hub-bub about it.  But, come on, this is a 3-package issue.

Perhaps they wanted to make sure it remained a 3-package issue, and
thought that it might grow before it could be addressed?

This all seems a bit like a tempest in a teapot to me, and I don't mean
to single out any individual's contribution to this discussion.

The council has stated that multiple version suffixes are to be avoided.
 I doubt they're going to suspend any developer who hasn't cleaned up
their packages by Friday.  I'm sure they're happy to see discussion on
- -dev regarding pros and cons of various ways of implementing this change
before it happens, and in the meantime new packages going into portage
will be mindful of the policy from the start.  If a particular package
needs a month to sort out some really messy issue I'm sure the
maintainer would be treated reasonably if they simply emailed a council
member about it.

Gentoo is a community, and sometimes people in a community don't always
agree.  Somebody has to make a decision, and we can't make every hill
the one we're willing to die on.  The council will generally represent
the majority opinion of developers, simply due to the fact that it is an
elected body.

Sometimes in a community cohesiveness is more important than
productivity, because it is the ability to mobilize hordes of developers
that matters more than the contributions of any individual.  Sometimes
that means an elegant solution to a problem gets put on the back burner
for a few months.  Sometimes that means that a developer who is
unusually productive is asked to cool down a little.  Personally, my
feeling has always been that if you want to avoid politics then avoid
doing things that create political messes (flamewars, heated discussion,
etc).  If you disagree passionately with somebody about something, try
having a private email conversation where both of you can let down your
guard and try to understand each other's concerns.  And then don't go
quoting each other all over public lists to bolster your arguments...

Remember, everybody is here to make Gentoo a better product, because
we're all users as well as contributors.  When users file poorly-worded
bugs they're just trying to help, and when some developer makes an
"idiotic" decision they probably think they're doing the right thing.
That means that they're going to be automatically predisposed to helping
you out if you just ask nicely.

When posting as a user in bugzilla I've been flamed more than a few
times (and not just on gentoo).  I just try to be as polite as I can -
after all I'm the one asking for a little help and somebody else is
taking the time to help me.  After all, it doesn't cost me anything, and
down the road it could pay dividends.  The same applies in reverse -
being nice to others doesn't really cost you anything, and you never
know when you will need their help down the road...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGLzbBG4/rWKZmVWkRAkjoAKCZnydd8Y6ZFVVIbz5sh/0sryuxoQCeMFh7
sQ+Icf4GdB1dlEezRxdgvpM=
=hpaU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3875 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Alec Warner]

As usual if you have issues with the council's decision, this is the
wrong list to complain on.  Try gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org, I here
they have popcorn.

This is the right list to discuss versioning schemes though.

-Alec
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1058 bytes --]

On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 07:08 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
> Perhaps they wanted to make sure it remained a 3-package issue, and
> thought that it might grow before it could be addressed?

Exactly.

I agree with the rest of what you've said, also.  Being on the Council
is a thankless job where we try our best to do what's best for Gentoo as
a whole.  This means that we *will* end up making some decision at some
time that you might not agree with.  This *is* going to happen.  Hell,
there have been Council decisions made that *I* don't agree with, but
you don't see me running around acting like the Council is doing
something wrong when they're doing their job.  Honestly, all this has
done is made me not want to make any decisions, which will turn us into
the previous leadership, which I don't blame for the inaction from their
group, as that was all they were given.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Fernando J. Pereda]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1133 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
> > Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> >   
> >> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it
> >> be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next meeting.
> >>     
> >
> > There were three council members who happened to be around at the time,
> > and those three agreed unanimously. That seems reasonable to me for an
> > interim decision.
> >   
> Is it that serious of an issue that it needed to be done as such and
> could not wait for a regular council meeting?
> 
> Granted I understand it's important for you paludis users since paludis
> doesn't support that.
>  But I'm talking about real Gentoo users that use Portage.

You mean real Gentoo users that use a Portage version that don't support
multiple suffixes, right ?

Oh... also... paludis supports it in trunk. Could you please stop the
conspiracy theories ?

- ferdy

-- 
Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín
20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED  ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Doug Goldstein]

Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>   
>> Stephen Bennett wrote:
>>     
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
>>> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it
>>>> be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next meeting.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> There were three council members who happened to be around at the time,
>>> and those three agreed unanimously. That seems reasonable to me for an
>>> interim decision.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Is it that serious of an issue that it needed to be done as such and
>> could not wait for a regular council meeting?
>>
>> Granted I understand it's important for you paludis users since paludis
>> doesn't support that.
>>  But I'm talking about real Gentoo users that use Portage.
>>     
>
> You mean real Gentoo users that use a Portage version that don't support
> multiple suffixes, right ?
>   
Portage doesn't support it in very old versions. The ebuilds in question
are marked ~arch. Any one using ~arch with an old version of Portage
would have been forced to upgrade by the point of installing those
ebuilds. Also, Portage gracefully handles the situation by ignoring
those ebuilds.
> Oh... also... paludis supports it in trunk. Could you please stop the
> conspiracy theories ?
>
> - ferdy
>
>   
Like I previously stated, I apologize for not running the very latest
Paludis trunk. I only have actual releases available to me and those
releases, including the newest one do not support it.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Marius Mauch]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:54:21 +0200
"Fernando J. Pereda" <ferdy@gentoo.org> wrote:

> You mean real Gentoo users that use a Portage version that don't support
> multiple suffixes, right ?

People still using portage 2.0.x have much more serious problems.

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Doug Goldstein]

Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:49:44 -0400
> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> Granted I understand it's important for you paludis users since
>> paludis doesn't support that.
>>     
>
> It does support that. Check your facts next time before throwing around
> conspiracy theories please.
>   
I apologize for not having paludis SVN support committed to memory. I
was only able to reliably quote what released versions support.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Danny van Dyk]

Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Doug Goldstein:
> Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > [CC'ing council@g.o as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
> > 2007]
> >
> > A subset of council members decided today that multiple version
> > suffixes are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This
> > decission can be appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is
> > sufficient public demand, an earlier meeting can be held.
> >
> > This decission has been made to prevent sufficient precedence for
> > unilateral changes to the tree structure. So far the following
> > package versions are considered illegal:
> >
> >   media-viode/mplayer-1.0_rc2_pre20070321-r4
> >   media-video/transcode-1.0.3_rc2_p20070310-r1
> >
> > An illegal version specification of media-sound/alsa-driver has
> > already been removed from the tree.
> >
> > I would like to ask the affected package maintainers to move these
> > versions to sane version specifications as soon as possible. Thanks
> > in advance for this.
> >
> > Danny
>
> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and
> it be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next
> meeting.

No, that's not correct. 1 council member can't do that. During the 
council meeting of March 8th 2007 the Council decided that at least 2 
members are necessary to act for the whole Council.

FYI this decission has been made by 3 Council members, which have been 
Robin, Bryan and which has been initiated by myself. Further, QA  
indicated approval prior to this council decission.

> Danny,
>
> This wouldn't have to be because you have a vested interest in
> paludis and paludis does not support this syntax and there happens to
> be no reasonable way to support that?

Doug,

a) Paludis could support arbitrary combinations of multiple version 
suffixes the same way as Portage currently support this. The Paludis 
developers chose not to, because

b) A very large number of possible suffix combinations aren't sensible.
Instead of implicitly allowing every possible combination, one should 
explicitly allow the sensible subset and explicitly disallow the rest.

c) I try very hard to seperate my interest and work on Gentoo and the 
Council and my interest and work on Paludis.

Personally, I would appreciate if you got back to me before you make 
claims as the ones i just responded to. Both claims are wrong: One 
evidently so (you can ask kloeri and robbat2), for the other you have 
to trust either me or ask the other Paludis devs.

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Doug Goldstein]

Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Doug Goldstein:
>   
>> Danny van Dyk wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> [CC'ing council@g.o as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
>>> 2007]
>>>
>>> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version
>>> suffixes are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This
>>> decission can be appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is
>>> sufficient public demand, an earlier meeting can be held.
>>>
>>> This decission has been made to prevent sufficient precedence for
>>> unilateral changes to the tree structure. So far the following
>>> package versions are considered illegal:
>>>
>>>   media-viode/mplayer-1.0_rc2_pre20070321-r4
>>>   media-video/transcode-1.0.3_rc2_p20070310-r1
>>>
>>> An illegal version specification of media-sound/alsa-driver has
>>> already been removed from the tree.
>>>
>>> I would like to ask the affected package maintainers to move these
>>> versions to sane version specifications as soon as possible. Thanks
>>> in advance for this.
>>>
>>> Danny
>>>       
>> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and
>> it be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next
>> meeting.
>>     
>
> No, that's not correct. 1 council member can't do that. During the 
> council meeting of March 8th 2007 the Council decided that at least 2 
> members are necessary to act for the whole Council.
>
> FYI this decission has been made by 3 Council members, which have been 
> Robin, Bryan and which has been initiated by myself. Further, QA  
> indicated approval prior to this council decission.
>
>   
>> Danny,
>>
>> This wouldn't have to be because you have a vested interest in
>> paludis and paludis does not support this syntax and there happens to
>> be no reasonable way to support that?
>>     
>
> Doug,
>
> a) Paludis could support arbitrary combinations of multiple version 
> suffixes the same way as Portage currently support this. The Paludis 
> developers chose not to, because
>
> b) A very large number of possible suffix combinations aren't sensible.
> Instead of implicitly allowing every possible combination, one should 
> explicitly allow the sensible subset and explicitly disallow the rest.
>
> c) I try very hard to seperate my interest and work on Gentoo and the 
> Council and my interest and work on Paludis.
>
> Personally, I would appreciate if you got back to me before you make 
> claims as the ones i just responded to. Both claims are wrong: One 
> evidently so (you can ask kloeri and robbat2), for the other you have 
> to trust either me or ask the other Paludis devs.
>
> Danny
>   
QA being spb, who is a noted paludis developer....
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 636 bytes --]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> This wouldn't have to be because you have a vested interest in paludis
> and paludis does not support this syntax and there happens to be no
> reasonable way to support that?

Cut the conspiracy theories. Paludis will support whatever PMS says it
should support. Released versions supported what PMS said at that time
(which went in line with the Portage documentation), and the next
release will support whatever PMS says then (which currently goes
against the Portage documentation, but along with Portage behaviour).

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Doug Goldstein]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
>   
>> This wouldn't have to be because you have a vested interest in paludis
>> and paludis does not support this syntax and there happens to be no
>> reasonable way to support that?
>>     
>
> Cut the conspiracy theories. Paludis will support whatever PMS says it
> should support. Released versions supported what PMS said at that time
> (which went in line with the Portage documentation), and the next
> release will support whatever PMS says then (which currently goes
> against the Portage documentation, but along with Portage behaviour).
>
>   
Ciaran,

You missed the bandwagon on trying to use the "conspiracy theories"
phrase already. That happened a full 24 hrs ago. I'm sorry you were
off-line. Next time try to come to the party on time, otherwise keep quiet.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Joshua Jackson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 331 bytes --]


>>   
>>     
> Ciaran,
>
> You missed the bandwagon on trying to use the "conspiracy theories"
> phrase already. That happened a full 24 hrs ago. I'm sorry you were
> off-line. Next time try to come to the party on time, otherwise keep quiet.
>   
Already been handled as its offtopic, please just let this one drop.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Danny van Dyk]

Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Danny van Dyk:
> Hi all,
>
> [CC'ing council@g.o as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
> 2007]
>
> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version
> suffixes are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This
> decission can be appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is
> sufficient public demand, an earlier meeting can be held.
>
> This decission has been made to prevent sufficient precedence for
> unilateral changes to the tree structure. So far the following
> package versions are considered illegal:
>
>   media-viode/mplayer-1.0_rc2_pre20070321-r4
>   media-video/transcode-1.0.3_rc2_p20070310-r1

As requested by Daniel (dsd) on irc, let me state what is wrong with 
these versions:

All upstream version suffixes may only be used once. This doesn't affect
the -r1 (ebuild revision) suffix, as that is no upstream suffix but 
internal to Gentoo's versioning scheme only.

Examples:

 * _alphaX_betaY -> illegal
 * _rcX_preY -> illegal
 * _alphaX_preY -> illegal
 * ...
 * _{rc,alpha,beta,...}-rX -> legal

The rationale behind this is the following:

 * certain combinations of suffixes don't make sense.
 * only recent Portage versions support it.

If this feature should be allowed again then we need to document a  
sensible subset of suffix-combinations prior to adding them to the 
tree.

Hope that clarifies it a bit more :-)
Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Marius Mauch]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:29:37 +0200
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org> wrote:

> The rationale behind this is the following:
> 
>  * certain combinations of suffixes don't make sense.

That's highly subjective.

>  * only recent Portage versions support it.

I wouldn't call portage-2.1 "recent" as it's been stable for almost a
year. The only thing that changed recently (like three months ago or
so) was that repoman no longer blocks such versions (see bug #165349).

Marius

PS: Though I disagree with the reasoning I don't have a problem with
the decision as long as it's just temporary.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 965 bytes --]

Danny van Dyk kirjoitti:
> Hi all,
> 
> [CC'ing council@g.o as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th, 2007]
> 
> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version suffixes 
> are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This decission can be 
> appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is sufficient public 
> demand, an earlier meeting can be held.
> 
> This decission has been made to prevent sufficient precedence for 
> unilateral changes to the tree structure. So far the following package 
> versions are considered illegal:
> 

What is the reason this needed an urgent decision? This was first added
to the tree little under three months ago so why not just wait for the
next council meeting?

*alsa-driver-1.0.14_rc2_p3234 (04 Feb 2007)

  04 Feb 2007; Diego Pettenò <flameeyes@gentoo.org>
  +alsa-driver-1.0.14_rc2_p3234.ebuild:
  Add a new snapshot required for kernel 2.6.20.

Regards,
Petteri



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Danny van Dyk]

Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Petteri Räty:
> Danny van Dyk kirjoitti:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > [CC'ing council@g.o as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
> > 2007]
> >
> > A subset of council members decided today that multiple version
> > suffixes are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This
> > decission can be appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is
> > sufficient public demand, an earlier meeting can be held.
> >
> > This decission has been made to prevent sufficient precedence for
> > unilateral changes to the tree structure. So far the following
> > package versions are considered illegal:

> What is the reason this needed an urgent decision? This was first
> added to the tree little under three months ago so why not just wait
> for the next council meeting?
>
> *alsa-driver-1.0.14_rc2_p3234 (04 Feb 2007)
>
>   04 Feb 2007; Diego Pettenò <flameeyes@gentoo.org>
>   +alsa-driver-1.0.14_rc2_p3234.ebuild:
>   Add a new snapshot required for kernel 2.6.20.

From my POV:

 * alsa version commited to the tree,
 * mplayer version has been commited,
 * alsa version has been removed,
 * general discussion started on what combinations are allowed
 * somewhere in between the transcode version was added

My rationale was and is to stop people continueing to add such versions 
w/o prior discussion.

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Doug Goldstein]

Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Petteri Räty:
>   
>> Danny van Dyk kirjoitti:
>>     
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> [CC'ing council@g.o as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
>>> 2007]
>>>
>>> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version
>>> suffixes are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This
>>> decission can be appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is
>>> sufficient public demand, an earlier meeting can be held.
>>>
>>> This decission has been made to prevent sufficient precedence for
>>> unilateral changes to the tree structure. So far the following
>>> package versions are considered illegal:
>>>       
>
>   
>> What is the reason this needed an urgent decision? This was first
>> added to the tree little under three months ago so why not just wait
>> for the next council meeting?
>>
>> *alsa-driver-1.0.14_rc2_p3234 (04 Feb 2007)
>>
>>   04 Feb 2007; Diego Pettenò <flameeyes@gentoo.org>
>>   +alsa-driver-1.0.14_rc2_p3234.ebuild:
>>   Add a new snapshot required for kernel 2.6.20.
>>     
>
> From my POV:
>
>  * alsa version commited to the tree,
>  * mplayer version has been commited,
>  * alsa version has been removed,
>  * general discussion started on what combinations are allowed
>  * somewhere in between the transcode version was added
>
> My rationale was and is to stop people continueing to add such versions 
> w/o prior discussion.
>
> Danny
>   
If the decision needed to be made quickly after knowing about it for 3
months, there was clearly the opporunity to use the half-impromptu
meetings as discussed last year (I believe October-ish) which requires a
few days of advance and presence of at least six devs. That should not
have been too difficult to use and allowed a little bit more time,
warnings and discussion rather then a rush decision.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Mike Auty]

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

It was my understanding,
	That minor QA violations like this, which affected the sanity of the
tree, were simply added as checks to repoman - which all committing devs
should use.  This would (over time) stop new ebuilds of the broken form
appearing, and would flag existing ones as a QA violation.  It would
also prevent the mistake from being made in future, and seems the best
and easiest place to stem the flow from.
	Whilst not a conspiracy theorist, and whilst also agreeing with the
decision to restrict multiple suffixes of certain types, I am a little
concerned over the haste, announcement to -dev and general backlash
that's been seen here.  I'm sure other violations never featured such
dramatic measures.  How were they dealt with previously?
	Mike  5:)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGLnsBu7rWomwgFXoRAt0qAJ0Y1c5pjV7QnCL4J3w02G7s81xVDQCfRcZh
XtbTQNgAo9HV+hxCi3hG0rY=
=BqdS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[PROCTORS] Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Wernfried Haas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 555 bytes --]

Just a general note to everyone in this thread:
I haven't had the time to read the posts in this thread, but proctors
have received complaints about behaviour within. For the time being, i
would ask all people participating to remember the CoC applies here
and act accordingly.
We will review the posts in this thread for CoC violations as soon as
possible.

cheers,
	Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org

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

Re: [PROCTORS] Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Steev Klimaszewski]

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

Wernfried Haas wrote:
> Just a general note to everyone in this thread:
> I haven't had the time to read the posts in this thread, but proctors
> have received complaints about behaviour within. For the time being, i
> would ask all people participating to remember the CoC applies here
> and act accordingly.
> We will review the posts in this thread for CoC violations as soon as
> possible.
> 
> cheers,
> 	Wernfried
> 
Go get em tiger!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGLnYh1c+EtXTHkJcRAspLAJ9HUhy/5oegWBYbfX7YEzeDU63bjQCdHn40
qNtMMhg8cm2jtotWYeUMaK8=
=azL1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4062 bytes --]

@council; cross posting to provide the reasoning, if discussion continues on 
council ml, kindly cc me (unsubscribed long ago).  Technical 
discussion (which should be the basis of "why it was banned" should be 
on dev ml imo).

On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:11:44PM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> [CC'ing council@g.o as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th, 2007]
> 
> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version suffixes 
> are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This decission can be 
> appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is sufficient public 
> demand, an earlier meeting can be held.

Rules for 'appealing' are a wee bit sparse, but consider this email an 
appeal to reopen the issue at the next council meeting (and a 
suggestion to figure out what appealing requires/involves).  Offhand, 
while there has been sqawking, the functionality has been available 
for over a year (first 2.1 release of portage), pkgcore has long term 
supported it, paludis will support it in next released version (it's 
in trunk at least), PMS has the basic comparison rules doc'd out in 
addition.

As others have said, but reiterating in this message- the only 
'recent' change for multi-suffix is unlocking it in repoman so folks 
could use it; nature of backwards compatibility, the support had to be 
left locked for >6 months to preclude issues from stage releases, only 
change this side of 2007 was unlocking it.

Meanwhile, bug involved which is basically resolved at this point-
http://bugs.gentoo.org/166522

If the intention of the subset was to limit things till the allowed 
permutations of multi-suffix are worked out, please clarify- at least 
what I've seen thread wise, haven't seen a real explanation for it 
beyond "multi-suffix is icky and robbat2 has a hackish alternative" :)


> This decission has been made to prevent sufficient precedence for 
> unilateral changes to the tree structure. So far the following package 
> versions are considered illegal:

Please expand further on this one- no offense meant, but the 
offered reason is slightly weasely in that it's not really saying 
anything, what it is saying is pretty obfuscated.

Best I can figure, the offered reason is "it needs to be blocked 
before it becomes widespread thus cannot be blocked any further"- 
which isn't much of a reason since the support is long term there 
already, and doesn't state *why* it needs to be blocked (just states 
"it needs to be blocked").

I'm not a mind reader, so lets just assume I'm misreading it.  Either 
way, feel free to expound on the 'why' (either ml or via council 
appeal).


> An illegal version specification of media-sound/alsa-driver has already 
> been removed from the tree.
> 
> I would like to ask the affected package maintainers to move these 
> versions to sane version specifications as soon as possible. Thanks in 
> advance for this.

In the future when a subset (or full council, whatever) decides to ban 
functionality such as this, strongly suggest they ban *further* usage 
of it- implicit there is that the existing usage is left alone till a 
full decision can be reached.  Y'all banned all usage of it, meaning 
people have to make changes now.

Reasoning is pretty simple; at least for the two versions above, via 
making it illegal it forces them to transition to a hasty versioning 
scheme that may (frankly) suck- such as robbats proposal (his proposal 
works, but it's not human friendly and frankly serves more as a 
demonstration of why multi-suffix is useful).

Joking aside, if the intention is to block further usage till the 
permutations allowed are ironed out, fair enough- would strongly 
suggest not decreeing "they've got to go now" when you're stating in 
the same breath the decision will (effectively) be revisited a few 
weeks later.  Especially since changes to the versioning
scheme can be a royal pain in the ass transitioning away from 
afterwards.

~harring

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

[Stephen Bennett]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:56:02 -0700
Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:

> Best I can figure, the offered reason is "it needs to be blocked 
> before it becomes widespread thus cannot be blocked any further"- 
> which isn't much of a reason since the support is long term there 
> already, and doesn't state *why* it needs to be blocked (just states 
> "it needs to be blocked").

It's better stated as "we need to put a hold on this so that a reasoned
discussion can be had, and a decision made, before use becomes so
widespread as to force the issue regardless of what is decided on
technical merits."
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list