From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HgkpO-0006rH-Ks for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:58:51 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3PGw1Pr013748; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:58:01 GMT Received: from alnrmhc15.comcast.net (alnrmhc15.comcast.net [206.18.177.55]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3PGu52a011412 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:56:06 GMT Received: from seldon (c-67-171-130-60.hsd1.or.comcast.net[67.171.130.60]) by comcast.net (alnrmhc15) with SMTP id <20070425165603b1500soqnhe>; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:56:03 +0000 Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:56:02 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-council@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86 Message-ID: <20070425165602.GA6808@seldon> References: <200704242111.44663.kugelfang@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="azLHFNyN32YCQGCU" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200704242111.44663.kugelfang@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Archives-Salt: c204e4c2-d4eb-4edd-a636-8bdf99a382a6 X-Archives-Hash: d5a6bb09b8fee9ff4f870e020e910185 --azLHFNyN32YCQGCU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable @council; cross posting to provide the reasoning, if discussion continues o= n=20 council ml, kindly cc me (unsubscribed long ago). Technical=20 discussion (which should be the basis of "why it was banned" should be=20 on dev ml imo). On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:11:44PM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: > Hi all, >=20 > [CC'ing council@g.o as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th, 2007] >=20 > A subset of council members decided today that multiple version suffixes= =20 > are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This decission can be=20 > appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is sufficient public=20 > demand, an earlier meeting can be held. Rules for 'appealing' are a wee bit sparse, but consider this email an=20 appeal to reopen the issue at the next council meeting (and a=20 suggestion to figure out what appealing requires/involves). Offhand,=20 while there has been sqawking, the functionality has been available=20 for over a year (first 2.1 release of portage), pkgcore has long term=20 supported it, paludis will support it in next released version (it's=20 in trunk at least), PMS has the basic comparison rules doc'd out in=20 addition. As others have said, but reiterating in this message- the only=20 'recent' change for multi-suffix is unlocking it in repoman so folks=20 could use it; nature of backwards compatibility, the support had to be=20 left locked for >6 months to preclude issues from stage releases, only=20 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=20 permutations of multi-suffix are worked out, please clarify- at least=20 what I've seen thread wise, haven't seen a real explanation for it=20 beyond "multi-suffix is icky and robbat2 has a hackish alternative" :) > This decission has been made to prevent sufficient precedence for=20 > unilateral changes to the tree structure. So far the following package=20 > versions are considered illegal: Please expand further on this one- no offense meant, but the=20 offered reason is slightly weasely in that it's not really saying=20 anything, what it is saying is pretty obfuscated. Best I can figure, the offered reason is "it needs to be blocked=20 before it becomes widespread thus cannot be blocked any further"-=20 which isn't much of a reason since the support is long term there=20 already, and doesn't state *why* it needs to be blocked (just states=20 "it needs to be blocked"). I'm not a mind reader, so lets just assume I'm misreading it. Either=20 way, feel free to expound on the 'why' (either ml or via council=20 appeal). > An illegal version specification of media-sound/alsa-driver has already= =20 > been removed from the tree. >=20 > I would like to ask the affected package maintainers to move these=20 > versions to sane version specifications as soon as possible. Thanks in=20 > advance for this. In the future when a subset (or full council, whatever) decides to ban=20 functionality such as this, strongly suggest they ban *further* usage=20 of it- implicit there is that the existing usage is left alone till a=20 full decision can be reached. Y'all banned all usage of it, meaning=20 people have to make changes now. Reasoning is pretty simple; at least for the two versions above, via=20 making it illegal it forces them to transition to a hasty versioning=20 scheme that may (frankly) suck- such as robbats proposal (his proposal=20 works, but it's not human friendly and frankly serves more as a=20 demonstration of why multi-suffix is useful). Joking aside, if the intention is to block further usage till the=20 permutations allowed are ironed out, fair enough- would strongly=20 suggest not decreeing "they've got to go now" when you're stating in=20 the same breath the decision will (effectively) be revisited a few=20 weeks later. Especially since changes to the versioning scheme can be a royal pain in the ass transitioning away from=20 afterwards. ~harring --azLHFNyN32YCQGCU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGL4gisiLx3HvNzgcRAlPbAJkB9Z/xJCM5qc/caH1bHy/UMzmJSwCfe+2N YLfFUCg0lc8xuxq2ieufcFg= =optR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --azLHFNyN32YCQGCU-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list