[gentoo-dev] Ruby keywording

[gentoo-dev] Ruby keywording

[Thomas Kahle]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 757 bytes --]

Hi,

the x86 team has many ruby keywording bugs in the queue and it is hard
to keep up because testing them can be a pain.  There are tons of
circular deps with USE="test" or USE="doc", there are the different ruby
interpreters.  Also the inter-bug dependencies are often not resolved
correctly, that is the to be keyworded package depends on non-keyworded
stuff not listed in the bug.  All of these packages are already
keyworded ~amd64.  Ruby is an interpreted language, I don't see any
point in having every arch team do the testing for every small package.
Could the ruby team add ~x86 themselves after testing on ~amd64, or are
there compelling reasons to not do this?

Cheers,
Thomas

-- 
Thomas Kahle
http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ruby keywording

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:17:34 +0100
Thomas Kahle <tomka@gentoo.org> wrote:

> There are tons of circular deps with USE="test" [...]

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=398853


     jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ruby keywording

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1199 bytes --]

On 3/6/12 11:17 PM, Thomas Kahle wrote:
> the x86 team has many ruby keywording bugs in the queue and it is
> hard to keep up because testing them can be a pain.  There are tons
> of circular deps with USE="test" or USE="doc", there are the
> different ruby interpreters.

Yeah. Maintainers, if you get delays on arch-related bugs it's often
because of pain like this.

> Also the inter-bug dependencies are often not resolved correctly,
> that is the to be keyworded package depends on non-keyworded stuff
> not listed in the bug.

And this is even worse. Please check things with repoman before filing
bugs. You can even write automated scripts at least for the "check
whether we got all deps right" part.

> All of these packages are already keyworded ~amd64.  Ruby is an
> interpreted language, I don't see any point in having every arch team
> do the testing for every small package. Could the ruby team add ~x86
> themselves after testing on ~amd64, or are there compelling reasons
> to not do this?

It's trivial to set up x86 chroot on amd64 box, so I can't imagine
what's preventing people from creating such chroot, doing the testing
and keywording themselves.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ruby keywording

[Alexis Ballier]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:00:16 +0100
""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Also the inter-bug dependencies are often not resolved correctly,
> > that is the to be keyworded package depends on non-keyworded stuff
> > not listed in the bug.
> 
> And this is even worse. Please check things with repoman before filing
> bugs. You can even write automated scripts at least for the "check
> whether we got all deps right" part.

As a maintainer I can tell you that when you drop keywords on B because
it needs non keyworded A, then drop keywords on C because it needs
latest B then drop keywords on D because it needs latest C, you have
completely forgotten that some arches need A, which ones, etc. There are
scripts for this, and I hope arch teams that like to have a list use
them.

As occasionally doing fbsd keywording, I almost never read nor use a
list that is provided since the above scenario often occurs (or at
least used to). Instead of this, I do a depth-first keywording of
packages repoman tells are missing. The deepest package is in the
latest tab of my terminal emulator :) I'll run repoman anyway,
and this approach allows a double checking. Also, since this means I'll
start committing from the leaves of the depgraph, this ensures no
package has broken deps between commits (with the exception of circular
deps of course).

A.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ruby keywording

[Thomas Kahle]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1733 bytes --]

On 09:25 Wed 07 Mar 2012, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:00:16 +0100
> ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > Also the inter-bug dependencies are often not resolved correctly,
> > > that is the to be keyworded package depends on non-keyworded stuff
> > > not listed in the bug.
> > 
> > And this is even worse. Please check things with repoman before filing
> > bugs. You can even write automated scripts at least for the "check
> > whether we got all deps right" part.
> 
> As a maintainer I can tell you that when you drop keywords on B because
> it needs non keyworded A, then drop keywords on C because it needs
> latest B then drop keywords on D because it needs latest C, you have
> completely forgotten that some arches need A, which ones, etc. There are
> scripts for this, and I hope arch teams that like to have a list use
> them.

What scripts are out there?  I just do iterated repoman calls without
much automation (pretty much as described below).  Got anything better?
-> please post it!

Cheers,
Thomas

> As occasionally doing fbsd keywording, I almost never read nor use a
> list that is provided since the above scenario often occurs (or at
> least used to). Instead of this, I do a depth-first keywording of
> packages repoman tells are missing. The deepest package is in the
> latest tab of my terminal emulator :) I'll run repoman anyway,
> and this approach allows a double checking. Also, since this means I'll
> start committing from the leaves of the depgraph, this ensures no
> package has broken deps between commits (with the exception of circular
> deps of course).
> 
> A.
> 

-- 
Thomas Kahle
http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ruby keywording

[Alexis Ballier]

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 15:54:49 +0100
Thomas Kahle <tomka@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 09:25 Wed 07 Mar 2012, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:00:16 +0100
> > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > Also the inter-bug dependencies are often not resolved
> > > > correctly, that is the to be keyworded package depends on
> > > > non-keyworded stuff not listed in the bug.
> > > 
> > > And this is even worse. Please check things with repoman before
> > > filing bugs. You can even write automated scripts at least for
> > > the "check whether we got all deps right" part.
> > 
> > As a maintainer I can tell you that when you drop keywords on B
> > because it needs non keyworded A, then drop keywords on C because
> > it needs latest B then drop keywords on D because it needs latest
> > C, you have completely forgotten that some arches need A, which
> > ones, etc. There are scripts for this, and I hope arch teams that
> > like to have a list use them.
> 
> What scripts are out there?  I just do iterated repoman calls without
> much automation (pretty much as described below).  Got anything
> better? -> please post it!
> 

gnome team posts nice lists afaik:
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/gnome.git;a=blob;f=scripts/gen_archlist.py

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ruby keywording

[Hans de Graaff]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 534 bytes --]

On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 08:00 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:

> It's trivial to set up x86 chroot on amd64 box, so I can't imagine
> what's preventing people from creating such chroot, doing the testing
> and keywording themselves.

In my personal case what is preventing me is sheer and utter
disinterest. For me x86 and, say, sh, are similar arches. I'm happy to
support both via keywording and stabilization bugs, but I'd rather spent
what little time I have these days on actual ruby stuff.

Kind regards,

Hans


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 230 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ruby keywording

[Hans de Graaff]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 826 bytes --]

On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 23:17 +0100, Thomas Kahle wrote:

> Ruby is an interpreted language, I don't see any
> point in having every arch team do the testing for every small package.
> Could the ruby team add ~x86 themselves after testing on ~amd64, or are
> there compelling reasons to not do this?

This discussion has come up in the past, not just for Ruby. The
consensus seems to be that it's better to keep handling everything by
the arch teams, since there may be other issues besides compilation that
may cause differences on arches. I know of several arch-specific bugs in
interpreted Ruby code myself.

It's also a matter of where to stop. Each new keyword added in the end
is an additional maintenenance burden for that arch. I don't want to
make that decision since I won't be doing the work.

Hans

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 230 bytes --]