[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libgcrypt/files/, dev-libs/libgcrypt/

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libgcrypt/files/, dev-libs/libgcrypt/

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2075 bytes --]

On Tue,  1 Dec 2015 06:16:40 +0000 (UTC)
"Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl@gentoo.org> wrote:

> commit:     1519f072b810c69428badbe5fc54960f1a2a12b3
> Author:     Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl <AT> gentoo <DOT> org>
> AuthorDate: Tue Dec  1 06:16:26 2015 +0000
> Commit:     Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl <AT> gentoo <DOT> org>
> CommitDate: Tue Dec  1 06:16:26 2015 +0000
> URL:        https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=1519f072
> 
> dev-libs/libgcrypt: cleanup
> 
> Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1
> 
>  dev-libs/libgcrypt/Manifest                        |  1 -
>  .../libgcrypt/files/libgcrypt-1.5.0-uscore.patch   | 33 ---------
>  .../files/libgcrypt-1.5.4-clang-arm.patch          | 84 ----------------------
>  dev-libs/libgcrypt/libgcrypt-1.5.4-r1.ebuild       | 57 ---------------
>  dev-libs/libgcrypt/libgcrypt-1.5.4-r100.ebuild     | 58 ---------------

Isn't the point of compatibility slots like :11 there that they should
be kept for binary packages to work? Because you just removed that,
plus all 1.5* versions, effectively causing huge breakage:

https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/2.html#l1193
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/2.html#l1219
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/3.html#l1082
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/3.html#l1108
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/3.html#l1134
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/3.html#l1997
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/11.html#l208
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/11.html#l234
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/11.html#l249
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/11.html#l460
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/12.html#l898
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/12.html#l2088

Please fix this ASAP and next time check reverse dependencies before
removing packages.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libgcrypt/files/, dev-libs/libgcrypt/

[Alon Bar-Lev]

Yes, sorry my bad, repoman did not complain.

On 1 December 2015 at 08:44, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue,  1 Dec 2015 06:16:40 +0000 (UTC)
> "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> commit:     1519f072b810c69428badbe5fc54960f1a2a12b3
>> Author:     Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl <AT> gentoo <DOT> org>
>> AuthorDate: Tue Dec  1 06:16:26 2015 +0000
>> Commit:     Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl <AT> gentoo <DOT> org>
>> CommitDate: Tue Dec  1 06:16:26 2015 +0000
>> URL:        https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=1519f072
>>
>> dev-libs/libgcrypt: cleanup
>>
>> Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1
>>
>>  dev-libs/libgcrypt/Manifest                        |  1 -
>>  .../libgcrypt/files/libgcrypt-1.5.0-uscore.patch   | 33 ---------
>>  .../files/libgcrypt-1.5.4-clang-arm.patch          | 84 ----------------------
>>  dev-libs/libgcrypt/libgcrypt-1.5.4-r1.ebuild       | 57 ---------------
>>  dev-libs/libgcrypt/libgcrypt-1.5.4-r100.ebuild     | 58 ---------------
>
> Isn't the point of compatibility slots like :11 there that they should
> be kept for binary packages to work? Because you just removed that,
> plus all 1.5* versions, effectively causing huge breakage:
>
> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/2.html#l1193
> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/2.html#l1219
> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/3.html#l1082
> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/3.html#l1108
> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/3.html#l1134
> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/3.html#l1997
> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/11.html#l208
> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/11.html#l234
> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/11.html#l249
> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/11.html#l460
> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/12.html#l898
> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/12.html#l2088
>
> Please fix this ASAP and next time check reverse dependencies before
> removing packages.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libgcrypt/files/, dev-libs/libgcrypt/

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 727 bytes --]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 08:45:53 +0200
Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Yes, sorry my bad, repoman did not complain.

Repoman only checks dependencies of the package you're running it on.
If you want to check reverse dependencies, you'd have to run it on all
of them (or on the whole repo, if you have a few hours).

Alternatively, you can use pkgcheck which is much faster and checks for
dependency breakages as well. If you parallel it to 16 processes, you
can get runtime around 7 minutes.

If you don't want to play setting that up, you can just submit a pull
request and GitHub and it will be automatically checked in 20 minutes.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libgcrypt/files/, dev-libs/libgcrypt/

[Brian Evans]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12/1/2015 1:45 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> Yes, sorry my bad, repoman did not complain.

This is still not working because some packages, i.e sys-fs/ntfs3g,
have a dependency like <dev-libs/libgcrypt-1.6.0:0


Brian
> 
> On 1 December 2015 at 08:44, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> On Tue,  1 Dec 2015 06:16:40 +0000 (UTC) "Alon Bar-Lev"
>> <alonbl@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> commit:     1519f072b810c69428badbe5fc54960f1a2a12b3 Author:
>>> Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl <AT> gentoo <DOT> org> AuthorDate: Tue Dec
>>> 1 06:16:26 2015 +0000 Commit:     Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl <AT>
>>> gentoo <DOT> org> CommitDate: Tue Dec  1 06:16:26 2015 +0000 
>>> URL:
>>> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=1519f072
>>> 
>>> dev-libs/libgcrypt: cleanup
>>> 
>>> Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1
>>> 
>>> dev-libs/libgcrypt/Manifest                        |  1 - 
>>> .../libgcrypt/files/libgcrypt-1.5.0-uscore.patch   | 33
>>> --------- .../files/libgcrypt-1.5.4-clang-arm.patch          |
>>> 84 ---------------------- 
>>> dev-libs/libgcrypt/libgcrypt-1.5.4-r1.ebuild       | 57
>>> --------------- dev-libs/libgcrypt/libgcrypt-1.5.4-r100.ebuild
>>> | 58 ---------------
>> 
>> Isn't the point of compatibility slots like :11 there that they
>> should be kept for binary packages to work? Because you just
>> removed that, plus all 1.5* versions, effectively causing huge
>> breakage:
>> 
>> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/2.html#l1193
>>
>> 
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/2.html#l1219
>> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/3.html#l1082
>>
>> 
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/3.html#l1108
>> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/3.html#l1134
>>
>> 
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/3.html#l1997
>> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/11.html#l208
>>
>> 
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/11.html#l234
>> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/11.html#l249
>>
>> 
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/11.html#l460
>> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/12.html#l898
>>
>> 
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/c08cdfb/12.html#l2088
>> 
>> Please fix this ASAP and next time check reverse dependencies
>> before removing packages.
>> 
>> -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
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=zvh3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libgcrypt/files/, dev-libs/libgcrypt/

[Alon Bar-Lev]

On 2 December 2015 at 21:45, Brian Evans <grknight@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/1/2015 1:45 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > Yes, sorry my bad, repoman did not complain.
>
> This is still not working because some packages, i.e sys-fs/ntfs3g,
> have a dependency like <dev-libs/libgcrypt-1.6.0:0

in this specific case ntfs3g-2014.2.15-r1 is stable the previous
versions should be cleaned up.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libgcrypt/files/, dev-libs/libgcrypt/

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 932 bytes --]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 21:48:24 +0200
Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 2 December 2015 at 21:45, Brian Evans <grknight@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 12/1/2015 1:45 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:  
> > > Yes, sorry my bad, repoman did not complain.  
> >
> > This is still not working because some packages, i.e sys-fs/ntfs3g,
> > have a dependency like <dev-libs/libgcrypt-1.6.0:0  
> 
> in this specific case ntfs3g-2014.2.15-r1 is stable the previous
> versions should be cleaned up.

It is *your* responsibility to ensure that previous versions are
cleaned up *before* you remove libgcrypt. Also, I'm more worried about
sys-power/suspend where the stable version still requires it. And yes,
you've broken the stable tree and I'd really appreciate having it fixed
right away.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: dev-libs/libgcrypt/files/, dev-libs/libgcrypt/

[Alon Bar-Lev]

On 2 December 2015 at 21:52, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 21:48:24 +0200
> Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2 December 2015 at 21:45, Brian Evans <grknight@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> > Hash: SHA1
>> >
>> > On 12/1/2015 1:45 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>> > > Yes, sorry my bad, repoman did not complain.
>> >
>> > This is still not working because some packages, i.e sys-fs/ntfs3g,
>> > have a dependency like <dev-libs/libgcrypt-1.6.0:0
>>
>> in this specific case ntfs3g-2014.2.15-r1 is stable the previous
>> versions should be cleaned up.
>
> It is *your* responsibility to ensure that previous versions are
> cleaned up *before* you remove libgcrypt. Also, I'm more worried about
> sys-power/suspend where the stable version still requires it. And yes,
> you've broken the stable tree and I'd really appreciate having it fixed
> right away.

OK, done.

>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>