[gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Mike Frysinger]

This is your one-day friendly reminder !  The monthly Gentoo Council
meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net.  See the
channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).

If you're supposed to show up, please show up.  If you're not supposed
to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance
for you.

For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Mike Frysinger]

This is your one-day friendly reminder !  The monthly Gentoo Council
meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net.  See the
channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).

If you're supposed to show up, please show up.  If you're not supposed
to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance
for you.

For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1254 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> This is your one-day friendly reminder !  The monthly Gentoo Council
> meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net.  See the
> channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
> 
> If you're supposed to show up, please show up.  If you're not supposed
> to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance
> for you.
> 
> For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/

Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss 
the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils 
requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually 
meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be 
approved sometimes this side of '09.

Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard 
that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, 
ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore 
standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of 
the general view.

Yes, ciaran shall comment.  My request still stands.
Thanks,
~harring

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Fernando J. Pereda]

On 11 Jun 2008, at 13:11, Brian Harring wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> This is your one-day friendly reminder !  The monthly Gentoo Council
>> meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net.  See the
>> channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
>>
>> If you're supposed to show up, please show up.  If you're not  
>> supposed
>> to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance
>> for you.
>>
>> For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our  
>> homepage:
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
>
> Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss
> the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils
> requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually
> meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be
> approved sometimes this side of '09.
>
> Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard
> that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt,
> ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore
> standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of
> the general view.

Did you send patches for those parts you don't agree with?

- ferdy
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[David Leverton]

On Wednesday 11 June 2008 12:11:33 Brian Harring wrote:
> Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard
> that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt,
> ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore
> standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of
> the general view.

Paludis isn't completely compliant either.  Not sure what you're referring to 
about portage and pkgcore... if you mean kdebuild, then a) the Council has 
decided that that won't be part of the official approved version, and b) PMS 
only describes what kdebuild is, it doesn't say that any package manager has 
to implement it.  As long as it's not being used in the main tree, that's up 
to the package manager maintainers, and what they think is most beneficial to 
their users.

If you mean something else, feel free to file bugs, it could well be just an 
oversight.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun     , Brian Harring wrote:
> Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss 
> the current status of PMS,

People actually working on the PMS would be better-placed to discuss its 
current status, if by that you mean progress toward an approved spec. 
The last I heard was a couple months ago when Ciaran asked us whether 
there were any further major issues and removed kdebuild-1 from the PDF 
to be approved.

> if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* 
> standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards,

Anyone working on a package manager (and anyone else suitably 
knowledgeable) should be able to get commit access to it. The only 
person "running" it is doing so by virtue of making the most commits.

> and if said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes this side 
> of '09.

This is basically the same as the first question from my ability to 
answer it.

> Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard 
> that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, 
> ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore 
> standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of 
> the general view.

I'd like to know what's holding you back from contributing to it, 
instead of telling us that someone else is doing things you don't like. 
Is there some kind of technical barrier (like the TeX)? Or what? Are you 
filing bugs against the parts you don't like? What's happening to them?

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Doug Goldstein]

Brian Harring wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>   
>> This is your one-day friendly reminder !  The monthly Gentoo Council
>> meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net.  See the
>> channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
>>
>> If you're supposed to show up, please show up.  If you're not supposed
>> to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance
>> for you.
>>
>> For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
>>     
>
> Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss 
> the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils 
> requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually 
> meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be 
> approved sometimes this side of '09.
>
> Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard 
> that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, 
> ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore 
> standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of 
> the general view.
>
> Yes, ciaran shall comment.  My request still stands.
> Thanks,
> ~harring
>   
I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. 
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/

On this page it'd be nice if there was an official link to the current 
PMS instead of having to rely on grabbing it from random locations i.e. 
d.g.o/~coldwind/ or d.g.o/~spb/
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 392 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. 
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/

There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane
decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on
PMS appears to have commit access to it...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Doug Goldstein]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400
> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
>   
>> I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. 
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/
>>     
>
> There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane
> decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on
> PMS appears to have commit access to it...
>
>   
I saw that page but I think you'd agree it'd a bit lacking in information.

Additionally, the fact that rane removed spb from the page due to his 
retirement does not mean that you need to fling your BS on the ML and 
accuse people of vandalizing anything. Comments like that are 
unnecessary to the discussion and poisonous.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1038 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400
> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. 
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/
> 
> There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane
> decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on
> PMS appears to have commit access to it...

The only commit from rane that I see is [1], which removes "spb" as a 
maintainer. As far as I can tell, this is not a vandalizing, but a 
completely legitimate status update which was triggered by spb's retirement.

All Gentoo developers have access to the file in question, so I'm 
looking forward to a bugreport from you assigned to myself that has a 
patch attached which clearly states what should be updated.

Cheers,
-jkt

[1] 
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa/pms.xml?r1=text&tr1=1.1&r2=text&tr2=1.2&makepatch=1&diff_format=h

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Doug Goldstein]

Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>  
>>> This is your one-day friendly reminder !  The monthly Gentoo Council
>>> meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net.  See the
>>> channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
>>>
>>> If you're supposed to show up, please show up.  If you're not supposed
>>> to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance
>>> for you.
>>>
>>> For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
>>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
>>>     
>>
>> Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss 
>> the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils 
>> requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually 
>> meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be 
>> approved sometimes this side of '09.
>>
>> Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard 
>> that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, 
>> ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore 
>> standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of 
>> the general view.
>>
>> Yes, ciaran shall comment.  My request still stands.
>> Thanks,
>> ~harring
>>   
> I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. 
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/
>
> On this page it'd be nice if there was an official link to the current 
> PMS instead of having to rely on grabbing it from random locations 
> i.e. d.g.o/~coldwind/ or d.g.o/~spb/

Allow me to clarify a bit more. I'd like to see a collaborative website 
that developers for all actively maintained package managers can 
contribute to and update providing details about compatibility and 
implementation of the PMS and future additions or revisions of the PMS 
that will be put forth before the Gentoo Council.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Luca Barbato]

Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> Brian Harring wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>  
>>>> This is your one-day friendly reminder !  The monthly Gentoo Council
>>>> meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net.  See the
>>>> channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
>>>>
>>>> If you're supposed to show up, please show up.  If you're not supposed
>>>> to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance
>>>> for you.
>>>>
>>>> For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
>>>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss 
>>> the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils 
>>> requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually 
>>> meets said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be 
>>> approved sometimes this side of '09.
>>>
>>> Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard 
>>> that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, 
>>> ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore 
>>> standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of 
>>> the general view.
>>>
>>> Yes, ciaran shall comment.  My request still stands.
>>> Thanks,
>>> ~harring
>>>   
>> I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. 
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/
>>
>> On this page it'd be nice if there was an official link to the current 
>> PMS instead of having to rely on grabbing it from random locations 
>> i.e. d.g.o/~coldwind/ or d.g.o/~spb/
> 
> Allow me to clarify a bit more. I'd like to see a collaborative website 
> that developers for all actively maintained package managers can 
> contribute to and update providing details about compatibility and 
> implementation of the PMS and future additions or revisions of the PMS 
> that will be put forth before the Gentoo Council.

I agree with Cardoe, the specification should be made as useful as 
possible to the package maintainers, as accessible as possible by every 
interested party and possibly have a regression/conformance test built 
in (such a small tree with dummy ebuilds and eclasses) to allow 
automated validation. Stronger and well defined versioning should help 
as well.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Alec Warner]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>
>> Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>>
>>> Brian Harring wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:17AM +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is your one-day friendly reminder !  The monthly Gentoo Council
>>>>> meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net.  See the
>>>>> channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're supposed to show up, please show up.  If you're not supposed
>>>>> to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance
>>>>> for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
>>>>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Reiterating the early request, I'd like the council to please discuss
>>>> the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils
>>>> requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually meets
>>>> said standards, and if said spec is actually going to be approved sometimes
>>>> this side of '09.
>>>>
>>>> Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard that
>>>> effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, ask portage
>>>> folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore standpoint)- it's
>>>> about time the council comment upon it in light of the general view.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, ciaran shall comment.  My request still stands.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> ~harring
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e.
>>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/
>>>
>>> On this page it'd be nice if there was an official link to the current
>>> PMS instead of having to rely on grabbing it from random locations i.e.
>>> d.g.o/~coldwind/ or d.g.o/~spb/
>>
>> Allow me to clarify a bit more. I'd like to see a collaborative website
>> that developers for all actively maintained package managers can contribute
>> to and update providing details about compatibility and implementation of
>> the PMS and future additions or revisions of the PMS that will be put forth
>> before the Gentoo Council.
>
> I agree with Cardoe, the specification should be made as useful as possible
> to the package maintainers, as accessible as possible by every interested
> party and possibly have a regression/conformance test built in (such a small
> tree with dummy ebuilds and eclasses) to allow automated validation.
> Stronger and well defined versioning should help as well.

I believe the biggest problem with this list is you have a long list
of wants but seem to not want to do
any of the work yourself.  For the folks making the requests; are you
working on doing any of them yourself?

Otherwise your suggestions are mere recommendations at best.

-Alec

>
> lu
>
> --
>
> Luca Barbato
> Gentoo Council Member
> Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[George Prowse]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400
> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. 
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/
> 
> There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane
> decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on
> PMS appears to have commit access to it...
> 
I would like to comment that the wording on that page is unacceptable.

"With the advent of alternative package managers, this ill-defined 
standard is no longer sufficient..." makes it sound like the previous 
work that was done was by idiots.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Luca Barbato]

Alec Warner wrote:
> I believe the biggest problem with this list is you have a long list
> of wants but seem to not want to do any of the work yourself.
> For the folks making the requests; are you working on doing any of them yourself?

I will =)

> Otherwise your suggestions are mere recommendations at best.

You are right.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Thomas Anderson]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:11:51PM +0100, George Prowse wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400
>> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. 
>>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/
>> There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane
>> decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on
>> PMS appears to have commit access to it...
> I would like to comment that the wording on that page is unacceptable.
>
> "With the advent of alternative package managers, this ill-defined standard 
> is no longer sufficient..." makes it sound like the previous work that was 
> done was by idiots.
> -- 
> gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

That says nothing about the previous state of the portage. It only says
the standard wasn't well-defined before PMS.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[George Prowse]

Thomas Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:11:51PM +0100, George Prowse wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:34:56 -0400
>>> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> I'd honestly like to see an official PMS project page i.e. 
>>>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pms/
>>> There's http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/pms.xml . Unfortunately, rane
>>> decided to go and vandalise it for some reason and no-one working on
>>> PMS appears to have commit access to it...
>> I would like to comment that the wording on that page is unacceptable.
>>
>> "With the advent of alternative package managers, this ill-defined standard 
>> is no longer sufficient..." makes it sound like the previous work that was 
>> done was by idiots.
>> -- 
>> gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> That says nothing about the previous state of the portage. It only says
> the standard wasn't well-defined before PMS.
> 
It sounds and looks bad. It is so poorly written it looks as if the 
author is saying "the last one was crap so we have to do a better one". 
In fact, "ill-defined" needn't be in there at all. "this is no longer 
sufficient" is sufficient. A better thing to write would be:

"With the advent of alternative package managers a further defining of 
standard is necessary..."
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6945 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:09:43AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 04:11 Wed 11 Jun     , Brian Harring wrote:
> > if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* 
> > standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards,
> 
> Anyone working on a package manager (and anyone else suitably 
> knowledgeable) should be able to get commit access to it. The only 
> person "running" it is doing so by virtue of making the most commits.

Person 'running' it is the one w/ commit control; as far as I know, 
that's ciaran and halcy0n (latter being inactive from what I've seen).


> > Effectively, we've watched it essentially progress into a standard 
> > that effectively only the paludis folk are adherent to (if in doubt, 
> > ask portage folk, my sending this mail is indicative of the pkgcore 
> > standpoint)- it's about time the council comment upon it in light of 
> > the general view.
> 
> I'd like to know what's holding you back from contributing to it, 
> instead of telling us that someone else is doing things you don't like. 
> Is there some kind of technical barrier (like the TeX)? Or what? Are you 
> filing bugs against the parts you don't like? What's happening to them?

Duncan's recent post,
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_3baa8ff0b7d3a65206ddaefa7cc4a346.xml
actually lays out some of the issues fairly succinctly.  What he 
doesn't state outright (and I shall) is that when bound by a standards 
group actively hostile to your manager/involvement, the 'dog and pony 
show' duncan refers to becomes far worse, and typically nastier.

It becomes far less worth being involved additionally, if it's known 
up front it's going to be flaming.

Meanwhile, couple of technical faults ignored either for paludis 
benefit, or (best I can figure) because I brought it up.

1) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171291
metadata/cache (hence labeled flat_list cache format) mtime 
requirements.

This actually is a fairly old issue- I raised it when pms was first 
finally shown to people.  Basically issue is that for flat_list cache 
format, the cache entries mtime is the ebuilds mtime.  This was used 
to try and detect stale cache entries via comparing ebuild mtime- 
doesn't handle eclass related invalidation, but that is a seperate 
issue.

Current spec intentionally leaves out mtime, no mention of it.  Why 
this matters- paludis's implementation of flat_list (hence labeled 
paludis_flat_list) differs- instead of the historical cache mtime == 
ebuild mtime, it's cache mtime == max(ebuild mtime, eclasses mtimes).

Personally, I don't care about their cache implementation on disk, as 
long as it doesn't affect me - it's their way of addressing what 
flat_hash for portage/pkgcore addresses, full eclass staleness 
detection.  Fair enough.

What *does* matter is that via this omission in PMS, paludis_flat_list 
is considered a valid cache for $PORTDIR/metadata/cache.  Using 
paludis_flat_list as $PORTDIR/metadata/cache means that 
pkgcore/paludis identify the cache as stale, and regenerate it.  In 
other words, flat_list works with portage/pkgcore/paludis, 
paludis_flat_list works with paludis only (triggering invalid 
regeneration for the rest).

It may seem minor, but think through the response when a 
portage/pkgcore user hits a repository generated by paludis- 
"pkgcore/portage are broke, not our fault" due to PMS omission of 
historical behaviour.

Issue is known, and ignored at this point.


2) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196561; changing (within 
eapi0) the behaviour of ~ operator.  Currently, portage ignores any 
revision for ~, pkgcore gives the finger if you try combining ~ with a 
revision (it's not a valid atom), paludis follows the PMS rules;

long term behaviour of ~; any revision of this version suffices.
PMS/paludis behaviour: revisions greater then, or equal to this 
  revision, equal to this version.

Why this matters; portage long term behaviour has been to drop -r* 
when found.  Parsing is/was loose, basically.  Due to eapi0's nature, 
one can't just force in what they think is the one true way, have to 
force in what works for all and matches history.

Issue is known, and ignored at this point.


3) good 'ole mr -r0 and the issues it triggers,
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215403
initial dev thread,
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_de84ebd5116546518879e266bf60f32b.xml
relevant flaws ignoring this issue induces:
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f98bab69d67bd4132917be0eb04e8f3e.xml

Spawned by a rather odd commit from rbrown flushing out a user visible 
breakage for pkgcore users, it also flushed out PM incompatibilities 
in handling of PVR/PR; specifically since -r0 has *never* been used in 
ebuild names, all ebuilds have been written assuming PVR lacks -r0.  
What was the end result of this rather obnoxious (ebuild dev viewable) 
variance?

Accusations that pkgcore devs are trying to legislate away their 
'bugs' (ignoring that the issue was fixed/released about the same time 
as the accusation) while ignoring the issue in the spec.

This obviously benefits the spec, although I'm not smart enough to see 
how...


Note these are just the issues from memory atm.  I say memory since as 
long as I've audited PMS, pointing out issues has basically been 
intentionally stepping in front of the firing line.

Hell, getting access to the damn thing required a fairly large amount 
of BS/insults-
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/46163

Which was ignored (despite council backing it at the time), resulting 
in
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/46417 .


Essentially, what the last year/half of dealing w/ pms is culminating 
in, is an ongoing buildup of reasons to *not* deal with the current 
folk in control, end result being not dealing with pms.  Shitty 
scenario actually; either willingly get kicked in the shins, or ignore 
it (thus ceding a voice in the format directly influencing your work).

If that actually were to change, meaning <all> folks could point out 
flaws, interact w/ the controllers w/out getting their nuts blown 
off, generally actually accomplish something other then being 
taunted, yes, I'd be more then willing to reaudit the bugger and take 
another stab at it.

As it is however, contributing to it is effectively blocked by the 
folks involved- and actual interaction w/ it serves only as a hammer 
to beat on pkgcore with.

To be clear; while I don't relish interacting w/ ciaran and co., I'm a 
damned adult and willing to deal w/ folk I don't like.  What I'm 
unwilling to do however is be in the situation where I'm forced to 
contribute to folk who are after baiting; it's just a waste of time, 
simple as that, and it in no way benefits gentoo.

~harring

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 406 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:39:13 +0200
Jan Kundrát <jkt@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The only commit from rane that I see is [1], which removes "spb" as a 
> maintainer. As far as I can tell, this is not a vandalizing, but a 
> completely legitimate status update which was triggered by spb's
> retirement.

What, going around removing authors' names is 'a legitimate status
update'?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 565 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> What, going around removing authors' names is 'a legitimate status
> update'?

Nobody removed any author names. rane just removed a former developer 
from the list of active members of one Gentoo project. This happens all 
the time when a developer is retired. Being listed as a "developer" on 
that page says exactly nothing about one's ability to contribute to the PMS.

If you are unhappy with present state of the page, then I hope you'll 
file a bugreport.

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[David Leverton]

On Friday 13 June 2008 03:20:23 Brian Harring wrote:
> 1) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171291
> metadata/cache (hence labeled flat_list cache format) mtime
> requirements.

The current spec attempts to handle things as well as possible on the package 
manager side.  If you'd like it to be restricted more, then please provide 
precise details along with reasoning.

> 2) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196561; changing (within
> eapi0) the behaviour of ~ operator.  Currently, portage ignores any
> revision for ~, pkgcore gives the finger if you try combining ~ with a
> revision (it's not a valid atom), paludis follows the PMS rules;

As the bug says, there has been at least one ebuild in the past that appeared 
to expect the PMS behaviour, but it's gone now.  We can change the spec to 
match portage, but we'd like a repoman check to make sure people don't start 
doing it again.

> 3) good 'ole mr -r0 and the issues it triggers,
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215403
> initial dev thread,
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_de84ebd5116546518879e266bf60f32b.
>xml relevant flaws ignoring this issue induces:
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f98bab69d67bd4132917be0eb04e8f3e.
>xml
>
> Spawned by a rather odd commit from rbrown flushing out a user visible
> breakage for pkgcore users, it also flushed out PM incompatibilities
> in handling of PVR/PR; specifically since -r0 has *never* been used in
> ebuild names, all ebuilds have been written assuming PVR lacks -r0.
> What was the end result of this rather obnoxious (ebuild dev viewable)
> variance?

I'm not quite sure exactly what you're requesting here... to ban -r0 entirely?  
I still don't see the point in doing that in the spec - tree policy, fine, 
but package managers have to deal with similar issues anyway in other parts 
of the version syntax.

If you want the description of PVR changed, then please file a new bug giving 
details, as Ciaran already asked.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Mike Frysinger]

This is your one-day friendly reminder !  The monthly Gentoo Council
meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net.  See the
channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).

If you're supposed to show up, please show up.  If you're not supposed
to show up, then show up anyways and watch your Council monkeys dance
for you.

For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/