[gentoo-dev] Keyword policy for non standard things

[gentoo-dev] Keyword policy for non standard things

[Dawid Węgliński]

Hello fellow developers and users.

I'd like to know your opinion of bug #243050 [1]

01:18:02      Chainsaw @| cla: I think I don't have the hardware to test it.
01:18:32           cla @| I have it, my question is if we should keyword 
packages, that are supposed to run on patched kernels.
01:18:59           cla @| If user bothers to patch his kernel, he can bother 
to add proper package.keyword line, imo.
01:21:52       hparker @| Or maybe get the patches added to gentoo-sources
01:22:26           cla @| This is an option too.


[1] - https://bugs.gentoo.org/243050

Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword policy for non standard things

[Alistair Bush]

Dawid Węgliński wrote:
> Hello fellow developers and users.
> 
> I'd like to know your opinion of bug #243050 [1]
> 
> 01:18:59           cla @| If user bothers to patch his kernel, he can bother 
> to add proper package.keyword line, imo.

++

> 01:21:52       hparker @| Or maybe get the patches added to gentoo-sources

or ++

maybe we can get the pm's to implement this as EAPI="999,999,999.99"
I suggest a syntax of "virtual/kernel:::::::user_patched"

On a more serious note, How can we confirm a package is stable when we
can't confirm the kernel it depends on is?

I would have no problem with gentoo-sources also including a use flag(s)
( or not ) and having it add patches to support software we have within
the tree.   I have no say in that tho.

Alistair

Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword policy for non standard things

[Dawid Węgliński]

On Wednesday 22 of October 2008 11:54:39 Alistair Bush wrote:
> Dawid Węgliński wrote:
> > Hello fellow developers and users.
> >
> > I'd like to know your opinion of bug #243050 [1]
> >
> > 01:18:59           cla @| If user bothers to patch his kernel, he can
> > bother to add proper package.keyword line, imo.
>
> ++
>
> > 01:21:52       hparker @| Or maybe get the patches added to
> > gentoo-sources
>
> or ++
>
> maybe we can get the pm's to implement this as EAPI="999,999,999.99"
> I suggest a syntax of "virtual/kernel:::::::user_patched"
>

As far as i understand what Donnie said yesterday on irc, these patches are 
going to be merged in 2.6.28, so problem in this case should be fixed in near 
future. But this doesn't resolv global issue that happens for packages 
requiring users input (such as patching kernel themself).

Most devs i was talking with would mark the bug as INVALID until kernel (here 
{gentoo,vamilla}-sources support package in question.

> On a more serious note, How can we confirm a package is stable when we
> can't confirm the kernel it depends on is?

We can't, also security team wouldn't support it:

"Adding a new kernel source into the tree is not recommended by the Gentoo 
Security Team. Unless it is a kernel source you think could be used by a wide 
number of users, please end your consideration here and simply use an 
overlay. If you do believe that it is, you must be willing to become the 
security maintainer."

>
> I would have no problem with gentoo-sources also including a use flag(s)
> ( or not ) and having it add patches to support software we have within
> the tree.   I have no say in that tho.
>
> Alistair

[gentoo-dev] Re: Keyword policy for non standard things

[Christian Faulhammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 273 bytes --]

Hi,

no support in stable profile out-of-the-box -> no stable keyword ->
INVALID request.  No compromise.

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Keyword policy for non standard things

[Duncan]

Christian Faulhammer <opfer@gentoo.org> posted
20081022172853.41878802@terra.solaris, excerpted below, on  Wed, 22 Oct
2008 17:28:53 +0200:

> no support in stable profile out-of-the-box -> no stable keyword ->
> INVALID request.  No compromise.

Well, at least the one referenced bug (243050) is for an ~arch keyword, 
not a stable keyword.  That's different, as the ~arch keyword is useful 
for saying yes, it has been tested and is known to be workable on that 
particular arch in /some/ form, even if it's not (and may never be) 
stable.  x86 many not have to worry about that, but the other archs do.

But mentioning that it can never be stabilized (and referring to a policy 
URL for why) in the package description would still be good, as would 
mention of the fact that yes, it does require user application of patches 
elsewhere.

-- 
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