[gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 413 bytes --]

with glibc-2.15 gone stable, it's time to get 2.16 in the pipe.  the big 
issues have been sorted out already.  there's a few packages still known to 
build fail, but they've had quite some time to sort their stuff out, so i don't 
see delaying further making a difference there.  if anything, they'll be more 
inclined to get their stuff fixed ;).

i'll probably land it later this weekend/monday.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> there's a few packages still known to
> build fail, but they've had quite some time to sort their stuff out, so i don't
> see delaying further making a difference there.

So you're saying you're fine to break:

 - everything depending on boost (current 1.49 won't work, you need
1.50, and quite a few things break with 1.50);
 - everything depending on gnutls (current 2.x version does not build
with glibc 2.16, and quite a few things don't build with gnutls 3);

Congrats, this is just the kind of behaviour that makes Gentoo look
professional... no wait I meant the other way around I guess. Because
the automake 1.12 breakage is not enough to have in tree, hm?

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flameeyes@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 849 bytes --]

On Saturday 18 August 2012 01:16:29 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>  - everything depending on boost (current 1.49 won't work, you need
> 1.50, and quite a few things break with 1.50);

there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49 work.  forcing people to use 1.50 
is purely the boost's maintainers choice.

>  - everything depending on gnutls (current 2.x version does not build
> with glibc 2.16, and quite a few things don't build with gnutls 3);

there's a trivial patch long been available that you've refused to merge.  so 
any errors here are of your choosing.

> Congrats, this is just the kind of behaviour that makes Gentoo look
> professional... no wait I meant the other way around I guess. Because
> the automake 1.12 breakage is not enough to have in tree, hm?

*yawn*.  don't use unstable if you want stability.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Tiziano Müller]

Am Samstag, den 18.08.2012, 01:44 -0400 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> On Saturday 18 August 2012 01:16:29 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> >  - everything depending on boost (current 1.49 won't work, you need
> > 1.50, and quite a few things break with 1.50);
> 
> there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49 work.  forcing people to use 1.50 
> is purely the boost's maintainers choice.

I'm already working on some of the boost-1.49/50 breakages and 1.51 is
already in the pipeline, so 1.50 has to leave p.mask in a month or so
anyway.

> 
> >  - everything depending on gnutls (current 2.x version does not build
> > with glibc 2.16, and quite a few things don't build with gnutls 3);
> 
> there's a trivial patch long been available that you've refused to merge.  so 
> any errors here are of your choosing.
> 
> > Congrats, this is just the kind of behaviour that makes Gentoo look
> > professional... no wait I meant the other way around I guess. Because
> > the automake 1.12 breakage is not enough to have in tree, hm?
> 
> *yawn*.  don't use unstable if you want stability.
> -mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49 work.  forcing people to use 1.50
> is purely the boost's maintainers choice.

[...]

> there's a trivial patch long been available that you've refused to merge.  so
> any errors here are of your choosing.

So you pretend that people apply "trivial patches" because you're in a
hurry to unmask something, but when it's time to actually do some
fixing yourself you procrastinate because you don't like the way the
bug is open?

What a team player uh?

Just for the sake of argument, why don't you instead look at
https://bugs.gentoo.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=421391&hide_resolved=1
and see that two bugs blocking the tracker are actually from herds
you're part of?

And on https://bugs.gentoo.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=boost-1.50&hide_resolved=1
I count four just for games.

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I'm already working on some of the boost-1.49/50 breakages and 1.51 is
> already in the pipeline, so 1.50 has to leave p.mask in a month or so
> anyway.

Thanks, at least somebody's doing something to help.

By the way I forgot to say in my previous mail that the famous
"trivial patch" for boost causes at least some of the same failures
that 1.50 would cause.

Why? Because the problem is an _API collision_ which requires _an API change_.

So, thanks Tiziano for doing the right thing.

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 801 bytes --]

On Saturday 18 August 2012 02:01:12 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49 work.  forcing people to use
> > 1.50 is purely the boost's maintainers choice.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > there's a trivial patch long been available that you've refused to merge.
> >  so any errors here are of your choosing.
> 
> So you pretend that people apply "trivial patches" because you're in a
> hurry to unmask something

yes, the patch here is trivial.  it removes 1 line of unused code and has fixed 
a lot of other packages.  deflecting the argument to a flawed system of your own 
creation doesn't change it.  if you're worried about gnutls breakage, you've 
only yourself to blame.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> yes, the patch here is trivial.  it removes 1 line of unused code and has fixed
> a lot of other packages.  deflecting the argument to a flawed system of your own
> creation doesn't change it.  if you're worried about gnutls breakage, you've
> only yourself to blame.

I'm worried that one developer thinks that he can make a change to
_the_ base library for the tree over a weekend, without informing
anybody else of his plan if not one day before.

I'm worried that Gentoo's health depends on the whim of a person who
can't see the needs of others and only care about his own.

So unless you're so full of yourself that you still think it's okay
for you to do this by announcing it the day before, start actually
working _with_ others instead than _against_ other: fix your crap that
is blocking glibc 2.16, and see how soon the others can fix theirs.

If you can't do that, then I'd suggest you step down and take a
vacation, because you're totally out of your mind.

[gentoo-dev] Re: glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 18/08/12 18:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 18 August 2012 02:01:12 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49 work.  forcing people to use
>>> 1.50 is purely the boost's maintainers choice.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> there's a trivial patch long been available that you've refused to merge.
>>>   so any errors here are of your choosing.
>>
>> So you pretend that people apply "trivial patches" because you're in a
>> hurry to unmask something
>
> yes, the patch here is trivial.  it removes 1 line of unused code and has fixed
> a lot of other packages.  deflecting the argument to a flawed system of your own
> creation doesn't change it.  if you're worried about gnutls breakage, you've
> only yourself to blame.
> -mike

Maybe Diego loaded the gun, but you're the one pulling the trigger.

In any event, the user is the one getting shot, not you nor Diego.

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 712 bytes --]

*yawn* such a drama queen.

i never said "i am going to do this everyone else be damned".  i did say "i 
will probably do this soon".  but that is why i posted to gentoo-dev in the 
first place -- to get feedback from others.

gnutls breakage: not relevant.  you're causing that breakage by not adding a 
simple patch that most every other package has merged.  conflating the issue to 
a major ABI bump is also irrelevant.

boost breakage: if 1.50 is going to be unmasked soon, i can wait for that.

general breakage: we can't sit around waiting for all packages to get fixed.  
if people aren't going to fix packages after being given notice, then they get 
tree cleaned.  not a big deal.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Nathan Zachary]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 12:00:17 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> *yawn* such a drama queen.
> 
> i never said "i am going to do this everyone else be damned".  i did
> say "i will probably do this soon".  but that is why i posted to
> gentoo-dev in the first place -- to get feedback from others.
> 
> gnutls breakage: not relevant.  you're causing that breakage by not
> adding a simple patch that most every other package has merged.
> conflating the issue to a major ABI bump is also irrelevant.
> 
> boost breakage: if 1.50 is going to be unmasked soon, i can wait for
> that.
> 
> general breakage: we can't sit around waiting for all packages to get
> fixed. if people aren't going to fix packages after being given
> notice, then they get tree cleaned.  not a big deal.
> -mike

You both (Mike and Diego) make good and valid points regarding the
unmasking of glibc-2.16 and its impact on other packages (and,
subsequently, users).  However, the personal attacks against one another
add nothing to the discussion. Resorting to ad hominem relegates the
discourse to a less-than-helpful state for everyone involved.  Please
try to focus on the points raised by other developers and users, so
that the end result is something that benefits the community and
distribution as a whole.

Cheers,
Nathan Zachary

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Luca Barbato]

On 8/18/12 5:31 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i'll probably land it later this weekend/monday.

Would be nice having a list of bugs open so people might have a look and 
see if there is something big left.

boost and gnutls seem big enough already to spend some time to get those 
fixed before unleashing the beast.

lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 763 bytes --]

On Sunday 19 August 2012 04:41:17 Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 8/18/12 5:31 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i'll probably land it later this weekend/monday.
> 
> Would be nice having a list of bugs open so people might have a look and
> see if there is something big left.

we've been making trackers for the glibc upgrades:
	https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=glibc-2.16

> boost and gnutls seem big enough already to spend some time to get those
> fixed before unleashing the beast.

gnutls is not valid and i will not wait for it.  boost i'll give the 
maintainer time to resolve as the patch to boost-1.49 can be made to work, but 
it's not that great, and there are already plans on moving boost-1.50 to 
unstable which is all i need.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 878 bytes --]

On 19/08/2012 20:07, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> gnutls is not valid and i will not wait for it.  boost i'll give the 
> maintainer time to resolve as the patch to boost-1.49 can be made to work, but 
> it's not that great, and there are already plans on moving boost-1.50 to 
> unstable which is all i need.

The same applies to GnuTLS 3, you know ­— would be nice if you fixed the
games, and the other packages you maintain, that break with it.

For reference these are the other two trackers:

http://bugs.gentoo.org/alias/gnutls-3
http://bugs.gentoo.org/alias/boost-1.50

FWIW GnuTLS 3.1 is perfectly fine to go into ~arch IMHO as I've been
using it for a while and most of the bugs are only present on gnutls USE
flag turned on (and not for all SSL support).

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flameeyes@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 554 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sunday 19 August 2012 04:41:17 Luca Barbato wrote:
>> On 8/18/12 5:31 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > i'll probably land it later this weekend/monday.
>>
>> Would be nice having a list of bugs open so people might have a look and
>> see if there is something big left.
>
> we've been making trackers for the glibc upgrades:
>         https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=glibc-2.16

While trackers are of course the right way to handle this, it is
generally best to announce timelines more than two days in advance.

You're certainly not the only case of this problem - I've noticed a
tendency to post a tracker for some issue, watch nothing happen for
six months, and then see an announcement that the change is being
pushed through in a few days.

Changes with a big impact should be announced on the lists well before
they are made.

Also, while users running unstable systems are naturally going to be
at risk for unforeseen issues, this isn't an unforeseen issue.  When
we know a problem exists, we generally should fix it before we commit
it.  If some uncommon package breaks I think we can live with that,
but gnutls doesn't fall into that category.

I'm not really interested in the blame game either.  This isn't your
problem, or the gnutls maintainer's problem - this is Gentoo's
problem, and I hope we don't make it our user's problem for failure to
work together.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Alec Warner]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Sunday 19 August 2012 04:41:17 Luca Barbato wrote:
>>> On 8/18/12 5:31 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> > i'll probably land it later this weekend/monday.
>>>
>>> Would be nice having a list of bugs open so people might have a look and
>>> see if there is something big left.
>>
>> we've been making trackers for the glibc upgrades:
>>         https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=glibc-2.16
>
> While trackers are of course the right way to handle this, it is
> generally best to announce timelines more than two days in advance.
>
> You're certainly not the only case of this problem - I've noticed a
> tendency to post a tracker for some issue, watch nothing happen for
> six months, and then see an announcement that the change is being
> pushed through in a few days.
>
> Changes with a big impact should be announced on the lists well before
> they are made.
>
> Also, while users running unstable systems are naturally going to be
> at risk for unforeseen issues, this isn't an unforeseen issue.  When
> we know a problem exists, we generally should fix it before we commit
> it.  If some uncommon package breaks I think we can live with that,
> but gnutls doesn't fall into that category.
>
> I'm not really interested in the blame game either.  This isn't your
> problem, or the gnutls maintainer's problem - this is Gentoo's
> problem, and I hope we don't make it our user's problem for failure to
> work together.

I think part of Mike's point is that time and time again has proven
that the way to a mans heart^H^H^H^H to get things fixed is to break
them. The aforementioned example of a tracker open for months with no
progress is an example of halted progress. If we waited to fix all
known issues prior to launch, then we would never launch. This is very
common in software development. Some features are v2 features, some
bugs are not worth fixing. Some bugs we will fix with a patch
post-launch; I don't see how this is any different.

-A

>
> Rich
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> I think part of Mike's point is that time and time again has proven
> that the way to a mans heart^H^H^H^H to get things fixed is to break
> them. The aforementioned example of a tracker open for months with no
> progress is an example of halted progress. If we waited to fix all
> known issues prior to launch, then we would never launch. This is very
> common in software development. Some features are v2 features, some
> bugs are not worth fixing. Some bugs we will fix with a patch
> post-launch; I don't see how this is any different.
>

I agree with your point.  I'm fine with setting deadlines and such,
but my main concern is that the first deadline shouldn't be two days
after it is announced.

If the announcement were that we have a tracker and some languishing
bugs, and we'd like to push to get them closed in two weeks I'd feel
differently.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Alec Warner]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> I think part of Mike's point is that time and time again has proven
>> that the way to a mans heart^H^H^H^H to get things fixed is to break
>> them. The aforementioned example of a tracker open for months with no
>> progress is an example of halted progress. If we waited to fix all
>> known issues prior to launch, then we would never launch. This is very
>> common in software development. Some features are v2 features, some
>> bugs are not worth fixing. Some bugs we will fix with a patch
>> post-launch; I don't see how this is any different.
>>
>
> I agree with your point.  I'm fine with setting deadlines and such,
> but my main concern is that the first deadline shouldn't be two days
> after it is announced.

The tracker has been open since July 4th.

>
> If the announcement were that we have a tracker and some languishing
> bugs, and we'd like to push to get them closed in two weeks I'd feel
> differently.

I can't really say Mike is the shining example of how we should
communicate; but then again, neither am I :)

-A

>
> Rich
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> I agree with your point.  I'm fine with setting deadlines and such,
>> but my main concern is that the first deadline shouldn't be two days
>> after it is announced.
>
> The tracker has been open since July 4th.
>

Yes, and it does not contain any deadlines at all (not even the one
announced on the mailing list).

There are bugs that have been open for years.  If suddenly making some
change breaks end-user systems the fact that a bug has been open for
years isn't really justification.

The first mention of "you must do this by this date" was on Friday,
with the deadline being today.

I'm fine with trying to push things through within reason (otherwise
nothing gets done).  However, the key part is "within reason."  If
that bug had a deadline announced two weeks ago I'd be less concerned.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1153 bytes --]

On Monday 20 August 2012 10:54:03 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> I agree with your point.  I'm fine with setting deadlines and such,
> >> but my main concern is that the first deadline shouldn't be two days
> >> after it is announced.
> > 
> > The tracker has been open since July 4th.
> 
> Yes, and it does not contain any deadlines at all (not even the one
> announced on the mailing list).

glibc is on a known release period (~every 6 months).  i posted some time ago 
that Gentoo will be rolling along as well:
 - have a version in the stable pipeline
 - have a version in the unstable pipeline
 - have a version in the masked pipeline
as versions in the lower pipeline clear out, the next one will be moving into 
place.  so while exact times haven't been posted (because i don't have them), 
glibc versions will continue to be released, so maintainers can't sit on their 
bugs.  2.15 has gone stable which means there's now room for 2.16 which has 
largely settled down.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 532 bytes --]

On Friday 17 August 2012 23:31:36 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> with glibc-2.15 gone stable, it's time to get 2.16 in the pipe.  the big
> issues have been sorted out already.  there's a few packages still known to
> build fail, but they've had quite some time to sort their stuff out, so i
> don't see delaying further making a difference there.  if anything,
> they'll be more inclined to get their stuff fixed ;).

this will be happening by the end of October or when boost-1.50 is sorted out.  
whichever comes first.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 704 bytes --]

On Tuesday 02 October 2012 15:53:41 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 17 August 2012 23:31:36 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > with glibc-2.15 gone stable, it's time to get 2.16 in the pipe.  the big
> > issues have been sorted out already.  there's a few packages still known
> > to build fail, but they've had quite some time to sort their stuff out,
> > so i don't see delaying further making a difference there.  if anything,
> > they'll be more inclined to get their stuff fixed ;).
> 
> this will be happening by the end of October or when boost-1.50 is sorted
> out. whichever comes first.

reminder: plan on landing this week.  glibc-2.17 is in the process of shaking 
out upstream.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 858 bytes --]

On 30/10/2012 00:22, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> reminder: plan on landing this week.  glibc-2.17 is in the process of shaking 
> out upstream.

*shrug* we've got the warning so it's fair for it to land. I recommend
people who're using ~arch to mask it on their systems for a short while
though, as we still have quite a few failures that haven't been solved —
but if they haven't been solved this month they'll require the
maintainer to stumble across them *hard*.

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=glibc-2.16

Speaking of which, I confirm my plan to unmask GnuTLS 3.1 for basically
the same reason. Upstream is moving on to new versions, we're behind one
major and one minor right now.

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=gnutls-3

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flameeyes@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 551 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
<flameeyes@flameeyes.eu> wrote:
> On 30/10/2012 00:22, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> reminder: plan on landing this week.  glibc-2.17 is in the process of shaking
>> out upstream.
>
> *shrug* we've got the warning so it's fair for it to land. I recommend
> people who're using ~arch to mask it on their systems for a short while
> though, as we still have quite a few failures that haven't been solved —

That might warrant a news item.  Sure, they're ~arch, but they're not
going to know about this unless somebody tells them.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

On 30/10/2012 08:21, Rich Freeman wrote:
> That might warrant a news item.  Sure, they're ~arch, but they're not
> going to know about this unless somebody tells them.

Is it just my impression or did you just volunteer? ;)

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flameeyes@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

[gentoo-dev] Re: glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Duncan]

Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 07:44:20 -0700 as excerpted:

> On 30/10/2012 00:22, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> reminder: plan on landing this week.  glibc-2.17 is in the process of
>> shaking out upstream.
> 
> *shrug* we've got the warning so it's fair for it to land. I recommend
> people who're using ~arch to mask it on their systems for a short while
> though, as we still have quite a few failures that haven't been solved —
> but if they haven't been solved this month they'll require the
> maintainer to stumble across them *hard*.
> 
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=glibc-2.16

FWIW, I unmasked and have been running glibc-2.16 since a couple days 
after the earlier announcement.  I had boost-1.50 unmasked and merged 
before trying glibc-2.16, so that wasn't a problem, and...

> Speaking of which, I confirm my plan to unmask GnuTLS 3.1 for basically
> the same reason. Upstream is moving on to new versions, we're behind one
> major and one minor right now.
> 
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=gnutls-3

... I've been running gnutls-3.x for some time (at one point it was 
needed for the live-git pan I run), tho I had to remask gnutls-3.1.3 as I 
experienced some problem (IDR what) with it.  But I'm running 3.1.2 
without issue.

What gnutls-3.1.x are you planning to unmask?  Do I need to try 3.1.3 
again and file a bug (if there's not one filed already) if the problem 
still exists, or is 3.1.2 good enough?

FWIW, I also recently did a full emerge --empty-tree @world too, so there 
shouldn't be any hidden problems lurking around to bite on either 
package, at least with my @world and USE flag combo, either.

-- 
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

On 30/10/2012 10:46, Duncan wrote:
> ... I've been running gnutls-3.x for some time (at one point it was 
> needed for the live-git pan I run), tho I had to remask gnutls-3.1.3 as I 
> experienced some problem (IDR what) with it.  But I'm running 3.1.2 
> without issue.

I've been using gnutls-3 on one of my devsystems as well, it's just as
you can see from a tracker that some software is still working properly.
But today's screwup with libtasn1 3.0 shows that we really can't keep it
masked much more.

> What gnutls-3.1.x are you planning to unmask?  Do I need to try 3.1.3 
> again and file a bug (if there's not one filed already) if the problem 
> still exists, or is 3.1.2 good enough?

Given that 3.1.2 is not in tree anymore there's no choice uh? Beside, I
don't go masking micro versions around. If you think there's a problem
with 3.1.3, please test and let us know as I haven't hit any (that's
what I've been using myself, and testing the tinderbox against).

> FWIW, I also recently did a full emerge --empty-tree @world too, so there 
> shouldn't be any hidden problems lurking around to bite on either 
> package, at least with my @world and USE flag combo, either.

The only big problem we're going to hit as I said is that Boost 1.50-r1
and 1.51 don't use eselect boost any longer, which means that the
reverse dependencies need to be updated. Scarabeus was looking into it
earlier today, I was waiting to hear from him as I don't want to go near
Boost in the near future if I can avoid it.

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flameeyes@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

[gentoo-dev] Re: glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

[Duncan]

Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:56:11 -0700 as excerpted:

> On 30/10/2012 10:46, Duncan wrote:
>> ... tho I had to remask gnutls-3.1.3 as I experienced some problem
>> (IDR what) with it.  But I'm running 3.1.2 without issue.

>> What gnutls-3.1.x are you planning to unmask?  Do I need to try 3.1.3
>> again and file a bug (if there's not one filed already) if the problem
>> still exists, or is 3.1.2 good enough?
> 
> Given that 3.1.2 is not in tree anymore there's no choice uh? Beside, I
> don't go masking micro versions around. If you think there's a problem
> with 3.1.3, please test and let us know as I haven't hit any (that's
> what I've been using myself, and testing the tinderbox against).

Followup, FWIW...

I forgot I had copied the gnutls 3.1.2 ebuild from /var/db/pkg to keep 
portage from trying to unmerge it, when 3.1.3 wouldn't build.

But it seems the problem I had must have been the parallel-build issue 
fixed on Oct. 19, according to the changelog.  The date on my 3.1.2 binpkg 
rebuild is Oct. 17, while 3.1.2 was removed with the 3.1.3 introduction 
on the 13th.  So I obviously tried to build it and failed, then with it 
masked again, found the old version unavailable in-tree, so copied it to 
my overlay from portage's pkg database, in ordered to keep portage from 
trying to downgrade to 2.x.

But it built and installed just fine when I tried it just now. Thanks to 
you and Dane S. both!  =:^)

-- 
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