[gentoo-dev] is this newsitem worthy?

[gentoo-dev] is this newsitem worthy?

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 215 bytes --]

All,

take a look at the discussion on
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=591414, in particular the last
few comments.

My question is, is the emerge action newsitem worthy as Mark suggests?

Thanks,

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] is this newsitem worthy?

[Joshua Kinard]

On 08/21/2016 15:31, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
> 
> take a look at the discussion on
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=591414, in particular the last
> few comments.
> 
> My question is, is the emerge action newsitem worthy as Mark suggests?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> William

I think it is.  I was scratching my head over some of these warnings, wondering
why no one has fixed some of them yet.  For the less-used packages, such as
sys-apps/timer_entropyd, without a revbump, I'd not have thought that simply
re-merging the package on all of my systems would update the init script and
make the warning go away.

IMHO, such a change *should* have been a revbump, and, if that was the only
change to that package, that revbump should have gone straight to stable since
it doesn't really represent a significant change (and issues regarding such a
change should have already been worked out).  OTOH, if there were other things
that could be fixed in a package, then pack this change into the rest and
follow the normal stabilization process.

As for the "--quiet --quiet" bit...that's a bit obtuse.  The message being
output is only using an "ewarn", so it's not a critical error and should have
been squelched with the first --quiet.  I'd either update the message to an
"eerror" to get attention or add a note about the double-quiets somewhere (or
add a new switch, --stfu, to do the job </smirk>).

-- 
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
kumba@gentoo.org
6144R/F5C6C943 2015-04-27
177C 1972 1FB8 F254 BAD0 3E72 5C63 F4E3 F5C6 C943

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us.  And our
lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between."

--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic

Re: [gentoo-dev] is this newsitem worthy?

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2009 bytes --]

On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 11:36:07PM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 08/21/2016 15:31, William Hubbs wrote:
> > All,
> > 
> > take a look at the discussion on
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=591414, in particular the last
> > few comments.
> > 
> > My question is, is the emerge action newsitem worthy as Mark suggests?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > William
> 
> I think it is.  I was scratching my head over some of these warnings, wondering
> why no one has fixed some of them yet.  For the less-used packages, such as
> sys-apps/timer_entropyd, without a revbump, I'd not have thought that simply
> re-merging the package on all of my systems would update the init script and
> make the warning go away.
 
 The news item is being written and will be posted here soon.

> IMHO, such a change *should* have been a revbump, and, if that was the only
> change to that package, that revbump should have gone straight to stable since
> it doesn't really represent a significant change (and issues regarding such a
> change should have already been worked out).  OTOH, if there were other things
> that could be fixed in a package, then pack this change into the rest and
> follow the normal stabilization process.
 
Here is the thread where this was announced; The revbump and
stabilization was left to the individual package maintainers and no one
said otherwise should be done including myself.

 https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/b2b147b1860a9eb938ff5e4eec3dd014

> As for the "--quiet --quiet" bit...that's a bit obtuse.  The message being
> output is only using an "ewarn", so it's not a critical error and should have
> been squelched with the first --quiet.  I'd either update the message to an
> "eerror" to get attention or add a note about the double-quiets somewhere (or
> add a new switch, --stfu, to do the job </smirk>).

heh, the discussion on the bug has shown that there is an issue here
which I am going to look into.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]