From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OkKPt-0001Hx-7k for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:21:09 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8AFEEE075F; Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:21:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com (mail-ww0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E456E09AB for ; Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:20:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwb17 with SMTP id 17so2750133wwb.10 for ; Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:20:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=NxVQNFwq7K5eDoz0VtYAMeYKLWk9XwLdV/yfyWVrifE=; b=MSw4kt+QHC6jAEmbLivAEacHKUz5aKGF+elbvoPC9x9aR/YctJctzk+I19tuYuftnK CdG0uoRAmAuMpflEa/o60GjNKb9vIscJR/xOZqN8eCtXBc2YV6oCCWzbaWYADQtBXSkI agvgqFeQHl4DewLGLGKU+E+joAxm9BJN4i3Wc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=imKUUEVIuBizSKgbbQq7uIrCHD/6R6ap4jqPTIE7ZastX9SG7agqzddJ8U/TqoQhSt jd6+Bp3qvs+eb8UEIAUKZw6jfYrkvxOhaGnPz2ldSHiXIOOEAbnI0FOFQvyEAu+ayzyM SUuxWwBiTw35MOcvLyaoebKYaVaKCBJuoyqZc= Received: by 10.216.165.16 with SMTP id d16mr2661496wel.0.1281806452634; Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:20:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linuxized.com (linuxized.net [109.74.194.171]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p52sm2267976weq.44.2010.08.14.10.20.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:20:51 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Alex Alexander Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:21:15 +0300 From: Alex Alexander To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/mlt: ChangeLog mlt-0.5.4-r1.ebuild Message-ID: <20100814172115.GC1363@linuxized.com> References: <20100806212139.9E8422CE15@corvid.gentoo.org> <201008141535.35239.aballier@gentoo.org> <20100814125053.GA3085@Eternity> <20100814131013.GA1363@linuxized.com> <20100814134739.GA4529@Mystical> <20100814161626.GB1363@linuxized.com> <20100814170040.GA17432@Mystical> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="f+W+jCU1fRNres8c" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100814170040.GA17432@Mystical> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Archives-Salt: 7cae1477-1235-40ac-9f17-c14843b5f1b2 X-Archives-Hash: 7df18a12dc9bf53ca6d4e7ca0afb22c9 --f+W+jCU1fRNres8c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:00:40PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 07:16:26PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote: > > Does respecting LDFLAGS change the installed files in any way? yes. > > Will users benefit from your change if you don't revbump? No. > >=20 > > I think that chain of logic is enough to warrant a revbump and it is > > covered by the devmanual since the change affects the installed package. > No it doesn't. If it was that clear we wouldn't debated over this over and > over. The cvs logs and you will see that other devs are fixing the package > without revbump. The fact that others do what you do doesn't automatically make it right. > >=20 > > It's merely a cp, why are you making such a fuss about it? You're doing > > a good job already, we're just pointing out ways to make it even better > >=20 > Cause I don't like users to compile the same damn package over and over. = -r1 > for docs on ${PF}, -r2 for CFLGAS, -r3 for LDFLAGS, -r4 for ... Is that a= good > reason or not? It is not like I introduce huge patches with bugfixes etc.= My > fixes are QA fixes not *serious* bugfixes anyway. > Furthermore the QA fixes I do ( CC,CFLAGS,LDFLAGS ) are easily spotted and > there isn't much for users to test anyway. Either you respect the bloody = flags > or not. I don't do blindly commits. I try to test the packages in multiple > chroots anyway.=20 All your fixes are important else you wouldn't be doing them. I still don't understand why you don't want to revbump. Your changes may not affect program features but they do fix hidden issues. Issues that might help users later (for example, rebuilding a package with --as-needed may reduce revdep-rebuilds in the future). You can always try to reduce revbumps by doing all the things you mentioned together, if possible. In any case, unless we're talking about openoffice or kdelibs, revbumps don't really cost so much anymore. > > :) > >=20 > > BTW, archs do the final testing, but much testing is done by the users > > themselves, who report the bugs that get fixed before the packages get a > > STABLEREQ bug ;) > Most of these bugs don't come from users but from Diego. Why? Because use= rs > don't bother reading the build.log and see if all their flags are respect= ed or > not. I wouldn't do it either. This=20 I never said users report these specific bugs. But they will test *your* revbumps and may report other problems you didn't hit. > > > > Please, don't skip revbumps to avoid "tree spamming", thats why we = have > > > > revbumps in the first place ;) > I am not convinced yet that this kind of QA fixes require a revbump. As I > said, commit an actual patch, assigned to QA and if the rest of the membe= rs > agree on that I am willing to change my policy. Now you're just being stubborn. I'm pretty sure your mentor told you "any change to installed files warrants a revbump" ;) Do we really need bureaucracy to enforce a commonly followed but not documented policy? > > > > > unless something is on stable branch, I fix it as it is. I don't = want to > > > > > version bump anything because I don't want to mess with anyones > > > > > packages. I only do QA fixing. If you have problem touching your > > > > > packages just say it > > > > > > > > > > > > A. > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D332523 > > > > >=20 > > > > > --=20 > > > > > Markos Chandras (hwoarang) > > > > > Gentoo Linux Developer > > > > > Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org > > > >=20 > > > > --=20 > > > > Alex Alexander -=3D- wired > > > > Gentoo Linux Developer -=3D- Council / Qt / KDE / more > > > > www.linuxized.com > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > --=20 > > > Markos Chandras (hwoarang) > > > Gentoo Linux Developer > > > Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org > > > Key ID: 441AC410 > > > Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > --=20 > > Alex Alexander -=3D- wired > > Gentoo Linux Developer -=3D- Council / Qt / KDE / more > > www.linuxized.com >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Markos Chandras (hwoarang) > Gentoo Linux Developer > Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org > Key ID: 441AC410 > Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410 --=20 Alex Alexander -=3D- wired Gentoo Linux Developer -=3D- Council / Qt / KDE / more www.linuxized.com --f+W+jCU1fRNres8c Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJMZtCLAAoJEDZF8K7rm0r6dbkP/RmIEgQR2QrXeLWSwEYfrAH+ Uuzc66t2U8jsXqgqF/TqAMMDyhOmMRcRugM21XoW4tMXdDVhCaH8weDn7lGjmY1V x6AJl/DHV3OIEw2tL8FqvM1Yxg1Hogg2EJve8VHESH0XDJbR2YWhPZfYXj+wI+8A QQ/QvTMR9vqnnARExHjw13is3tBb1sVpkDZw7cG+jguGRr3Ypkdio8FYynhOa9Lr uAfWa437Ao+cUrJz8ZxHNcB8aNgZD8nqUQE3/Ls17c9e6Kg75orRhZr25p7dsOz1 B3gOVrsNkeFyZhJGU3oWdy5s7BE+ZR1P02L1pAicLKuJ0mBIxg0Z6JGe3Ijr7jnB ICSC9vyHCKneyvT8ww82QLEZgz6RfF+xHAdm/sB9Y+t5geEYebIkJNQsCGSOFZvo maOA7fET3x93dja/F7SasyAsG+5WIlU98fnt4UeSl/XwvA0IZg3u75nXs3HMkBHT IPghxExUrYouDczmBPPtHKm098r3BNdi+k7ilC2C1H9s39rTlVNzWC8kj0MP53li qwH2ct9lvX+L0GrP3TdUIMEPXNm9uT+L3tc+Da9FDeBsWXE+faXj3G02SAV+A8rg 07kgzVYtj7hedp/40zEO1JvkWLfn6a7ooha4dJorPV2ABkOugJoJvyB3DwqTNdhc Ps5psggi6d6N8hA3AAN1 =gGW4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --f+W+jCU1fRNres8c--