[gentoo-dev] Messing with other people's packages

[gentoo-dev] Messing with other people's packages

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 621 bytes --]

Hi people,

Just a reminder that it's considered bad manners to mess with other
people's packages (such as, say, doing a revbump and adding a patch)
without asking first, especially when:

* the package is actively maintained and herded in metadata.xml
* the package maintainer is easily contactable by irc or email
* you don't have a bug explaining why a given change is necessary
* the change you're making is broken

So, uh, ask first, mkay?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Messing with other people's packages

[Simon Stelling]

Hi,

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Just a reminder that it's considered bad manners to mess with other
> people's packages (such as, say, doing a revbump and adding a patch)
> without asking first, especially when:

Sure, but what when...

> * the package is actively maintained and herded in metadata.xml

the bug is lying around for several months,

> * the package maintainer is easily contactable by irc or email

the package maintainer isn't on irc and did never comment the bug
and your patch is only applyied on a specific arch which is CC'ed or 
even in the AssignedTo field of the bug?

Of course it's always better to ask first, but would it still be rude in 
such a case? What if a revbump isn't needed?

Greetings,

blubb
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Messing with other people's packages

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 961 bytes --]

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 19:50:11 +0100 Simon Stelling <blubb@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| > * the package is actively maintained and herded in metadata.xml
| 
| the bug is lying around for several months,
| 
| > * the package maintainer is easily contactable by irc or email
| 
| the package maintainer isn't on irc and did never comment the bug
| and your patch is only applyied on a specific arch which is CC'ed or 
| even in the AssignedTo field of the bug?

Didn't we decide that arch specific patches were a bad idea?

| Of course it's always better to ask first, but would it still be rude
| in  such a case? What if a revbump isn't needed?

Naah, if the maintainer has vanished and there's no herd backing them up
(or the entire herd has vanished) then it's a whole different story.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Messing with other people's packages

[Nick Winlund]

Doesn't project forking begin to solve this challenge in collaboration? 
Add another root CVS directory, assign new or existing host/maintainer( 
s ) to that node and move on!

A project fork doesn't have to be an exact dircopy of an old branch of 
code, but can contain extracts.

Nick

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 19:50:11 +0100 Simon Stelling <blubb@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | > * the package is actively maintained and herded in metadata.xml
> | 
> | the bug is lying around for several months,
> | 
> | > * the package maintainer is easily contactable by irc or email
> | 
> | the package maintainer isn't on irc and did never comment the bug
> | and your patch is only applyied on a specific arch which is CC'ed or 
> | even in the AssignedTo field of the bug?
> 
> Didn't we decide that arch specific patches were a bad idea?
> 
> | Of course it's always better to ask first, but would it still be rude
> | in  such a case? What if a revbump isn't needed?
> 
> Naah, if the maintainer has vanished and there's no herd backing them up
> (or the entire herd has vanished) then it's a whole different story.
> 

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Messing with other people's packages

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 500 bytes --]

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:47:43 -0800 Nick Winlund <nwinlu@comcast.net>
wrote:
| Doesn't project forking begin to solve this challenge in
| collaboration?  Add another root CVS directory, assign new or existing
| host/maintainer(  s ) to that node and move on!

What, you want six zillion versions of the portage tree to play with?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Messing with other people's packages

[Lina Pezzella]

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


On Feb 26, 2005, at 1:58 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>
> Didn't we decide that arch specific patches were a bad idea?

I hope not; there are plenty of archs that need arch-specific patches.

Of course in the case that the patch is not truly arch-specific, but is 
being applied to a single arch only out of "courtesy" to the 
maintainter, I would say that it is a bad idea.

My general approach to this second case is to make the change 
arch-specific and then file a bug and/or email to the maintainer to 
make it arch-independent. I also throw a todo in my calendar reminding 
me to bug the said maintainer if there is no reply in 1 month.

Lina Pezzella
Ebuild/Porting Co-Lead
Gentoo for Mac OS X
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFCINlZNJ9STR9DbYERAhxCAJ9fDLcZ641QTMOnXnmqfcUro62HSACbBkjA
RwBWcIto3RjYVPm8V8rWoSE=
=5lJ+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Messing with other people's packages

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 489 bytes --]

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:17:29 -0500 Lina Pezzella <j4rg0n@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Feb 26, 2005, at 1:58 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Didn't we decide that arch specific patches were a bad idea?
| 
| I hope not; there are plenty of archs that need arch-specific patches.

Isn't this why we have #ifdef and autotools?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Messing with other people's packages

[Lina Pezzella]

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

On Feb 26, 2005, at 3:27 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:17:29 -0500 Lina Pezzella <j4rg0n@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | On Feb 26, 2005, at 1:58 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > Didn't we decide that arch specific patches were a bad idea?
> |
> | I hope not; there are plenty of archs that need arch-specific 
> patches.
>
> Isn't this why we have #ifdef and autotools?

Okay. So next time I have to patch 10 files for ppc-macos only, I 
should make #ifdefs, patch those 10 files in global scope and force 
everyone else to patch unnecessarily. I think not.

>
> -- 
> Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
> Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
> Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
>
>
Lina Pezzella
Ebuild/Porting Co-Lead
Gentoo for Mac OS X
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFCIN5rNJ9STR9DbYERAtdAAJwK4pd7/YkuzpIEWRe6akqcyeKeAgCgnj4p
90aYLsydN+sN0ItETM3ZC4c=
=cYFq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Messing with other people's packages

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1234 bytes --]

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:39:07 -0500 Lina Pezzella <j4rg0n@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Feb 26, 2005, at 3:27 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:17:29 -0500 Lina Pezzella <j4rg0n@gentoo.org>
| > wrote:
| > | On Feb 26, 2005, at 1:58 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > | > Didn't we decide that arch specific patches were a bad idea?
| > |
| > | I hope not; there are plenty of archs that need arch-specific 
| > patches.
| >
| > Isn't this why we have #ifdef and autotools?
| 
| Okay. So next time I have to patch 10 files for ppc-macos only, I 
| should make #ifdefs, patch those 10 files in global scope and force 
| everyone else to patch unnecessarily. I think not.

Well, you're sending all your patches upstream, right? There's no way
upstream can conditionally apply patches to their source, so they'll
*have* to use autotools (or the equivalent for whatever language that
is, but I'd imagine most of these are C things...). Sending them
complete patches, rather than ones that will break non-macos, is just a
matter of politeness.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Messing with other people's packages

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 26 February 2005 03:39 pm, Lina Pezzella wrote:
> Okay. So next time I have to patch 10 files for ppc-macos only, I
> should make #ifdefs, patch those 10 files in global scope and force
> everyone else to patch unnecessarily. I think not.

if the patches dont suck this isnt an issue
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Messing with other people's packages

[Luca Barbato]

Lina Pezzella wrote:
> Okay. So next time I have to patch 10 files for ppc-macos only, I should 
> make #ifdefs, patch those 10 files in global scope and force everyone 
> else to patch unnecessarily. I think not.

Our target is improve overall upstream. Every patch that worth something 
should be send back to upstream and made sure the next release is there.
That way we won't have too many patches around and the upstream 
application will be fixed faster.
So, to improve darwin/osx support in other application, please provide a 
  non conditional patch and send it upstream, I know that sometimes is a 
pain but that is what is necessary to improve.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Developer		Gentoo/PPC Operational Manager
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list