[gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Dead X11 packages

[gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Dead X11 packages

[Matt Turner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 250 bytes --]

# Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org> (06 Feb 2018)
# Dead and unused
# Masked for removal in 30 days. Bug #646838
x11-libs/libXCalibrate
x11-libs/libXfontcache
x11-misc/xtscal
x11-proto/fontcacheproto
x11-proto/xcalibrateproto
x11-proto/xf86rushproto

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Dead X11 packages

[Brian Evans]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1321 bytes --]

On 2/7/2018 9:54 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> # Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org> (06 Feb 2018)
> # Dead and unused
> # Masked for removal in 30 days. Bug #646838
> x11-libs/libXCalibrate
> x11-libs/libXfontcache
> x11-misc/xtscal
> x11-proto/fontcacheproto
> x11-proto/xcalibrateproto
> x11-proto/xf86rushproto


> From e590965cdeb0c921194740da0481c85afaa1ebae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>
> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 14:02:59 -0800
> Subject: x11-base/xorg-server: Remove dead x11-proto/xf86rushproto dependency
> 
> rushproto hasn't been required since upstream commit 8ec79e05feac (in
> 2005!), and even then it wasn't actually needed!
> 
> Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
> ---
>  x11-base/xorg-server/xorg-server-1.19.5.ebuild | 3 +--
>  x11-base/xorg-server/xorg-server-1.19.6.ebuild | 3 +--
>  x11-base/xorg-server/xorg-server-9999.ebuild   | 3 +--
>  3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 

Please don't edit dependencies in-line like this.

This warranted a revbump as users will be asking how to remove
x11-proto/xf86rushproto. It won't come up for depclean because of
xorg-server not being scheduled for rebuild automatically until the next
time it is upgraded or --changed-deps option is used (uncommon).

Brian


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 834 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Dead X11 packages

[Michael Lienhardt]

>>  From e590965cdeb0c921194740da0481c85afaa1ebae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>
>> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 14:02:59 -0800
>> Subject: x11-base/xorg-server: Remove dead x11-proto/xf86rushproto dependency
>>
>> rushproto hasn't been required since upstream commit 8ec79e05feac (in
>> 2005!), and even then it wasn't actually needed!
>>
>> Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
>> ---
>>   x11-base/xorg-server/xorg-server-1.19.5.ebuild | 3 +--
>>   x11-base/xorg-server/xorg-server-1.19.6.ebuild | 3 +--
>>   x11-base/xorg-server/xorg-server-9999.ebuild   | 3 +--
>>   3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> Please don't edit dependencies in-line like this.
> 
> This warranted a revbump as users will be asking how to remove
> x11-proto/xf86rushproto. It won't come up for depclean because of
> xorg-server not being scheduled for rebuild automatically until the next
> time it is upgraded or --changed-deps option is used (uncommon).
> 
> Brian

Citing Kenneth Hoste at FOSDEM this year: modifying a package without changing its version is a bad idea.
His presentation was very good (video included): https://fosdem.org/2018/schedule/event/how_to_make_package_managers_cry/

Michael

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Dead X11 packages

[Mart Raudsepp]

On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 14:57 +0100, Michael Lienhardt wrote:
> > >  From e590965cdeb0c921194740da0481c85afaa1ebae Mon Sep 17
> > > 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>
> > > Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 14:02:59 -0800
> > > Subject: x11-base/xorg-server: Remove dead x11-
> > > proto/xf86rushproto dependency
> > > 
> > > rushproto hasn't been required since upstream commit 8ec79e05feac
> > > (in
> > > 2005!), and even then it wasn't actually needed!
> > > 
> > > Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
> > > ---
> > >   x11-base/xorg-server/xorg-server-1.19.5.ebuild | 3 +--
> > >   x11-base/xorg-server/xorg-server-1.19.6.ebuild | 3 +--
> > >   x11-base/xorg-server/xorg-server-9999.ebuild   | 3 +--
> > >   3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > 
> > Please don't edit dependencies in-line like this.
> > 
> > This warranted a revbump as users will be asking how to remove
> > x11-proto/xf86rushproto. It won't come up for depclean because of
> > xorg-server not being scheduled for rebuild automatically until the
> > next
> > time it is upgraded or --changed-deps option is used (uncommon).
> > 
> > Brian
> 
> Citing Kenneth Hoste at FOSDEM this year: modifying a package without
> changing its version is a bad idea.
> His presentation was very good (video included): https://fosdem.org/2
> 018/schedule/event/how_to_make_package_managers_cry/
> 

This isn't so clear cut simple. We build from source at user systems.
Think of the effect for something like webkit-gtk, chromium,
libreoffice, etc.

The problem here is the planned changing of --dynamic-deps to no as
default.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Dead X11 packages

[James Le Cuirot]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:51:52 +0200
Mart Raudsepp <leio@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 14:57 +0100, Michael Lienhardt wrote:
> > > >  From e590965cdeb0c921194740da0481c85afaa1ebae Mon Sep 17
> > > > 00:00:00 2001
> > > > From: Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>
> > > > Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 14:02:59 -0800
> > > > Subject: x11-base/xorg-server: Remove dead x11-
> > > > proto/xf86rushproto dependency
> > > > 
> > > > rushproto hasn't been required since upstream commit
> > > > 8ec79e05feac (in
> > > > 2005!), and even then it wasn't actually needed!
> > > > 
> > > > Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
> > > > ---
> > > >   x11-base/xorg-server/xorg-server-1.19.5.ebuild | 3 +--
> > > >   x11-base/xorg-server/xorg-server-1.19.6.ebuild | 3 +--
> > > >   x11-base/xorg-server/xorg-server-9999.ebuild   | 3 +--
> > > >   3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > >   
> > > 
> > > Please don't edit dependencies in-line like this.
> > > 
> > > This warranted a revbump as users will be asking how to remove
> > > x11-proto/xf86rushproto. It won't come up for depclean because of
> > > xorg-server not being scheduled for rebuild automatically until
> > > the next
> > > time it is upgraded or --changed-deps option is used (uncommon).
> > > 
> > > Brian  
> > 
> > Citing Kenneth Hoste at FOSDEM this year: modifying a package
> > without changing its version is a bad idea.
> > His presentation was very good (video included):
> > https://fosdem.org/2
> > 018/schedule/event/how_to_make_package_managers_cry/ 
> 
> This isn't so clear cut simple. We build from source at user systems.
> Think of the effect for something like webkit-gtk, chromium,
> libreoffice, etc.

Exactly and while this package isn't as big as those, it could be
argued that xorg-server is bumped frequently enough that the lingering
dependency would have been flushed out soon enough anyway. It's not
like it's doing any harm.

I also think that FOSDEM talk was making a different point, aimed at
upstreams in order to help packagers rather than packagers themselves.

-- 
James Le Cuirot (chewi)
Gentoo Linux Developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Dead X11 packages

[Michael Lienhardt]

Il 08/02/2018 16:04, James Le Cuirot ha scritto:
>>> Citing Kenneth Hoste at FOSDEM this year: modifying a package
>>> without changing its version is a bad idea.
>>> His presentation was very good (video included):
>>> https://fosdem.org/2
>>> 018/schedule/event/how_to_make_package_managers_cry/
>>
>> This isn't so clear cut simple. We build from source at user systems.
>> Think of the effect for something like webkit-gtk, chromium,
>> libreoffice, etc.
> 
> Exactly and while this package isn't as big as those, it could be
> argued that xorg-server is bumped frequently enough that the lingering
> dependency would have been flushed out soon enough anyway. It's not
> like it's doing any harm.
> 
> I also think that FOSDEM talk was making a different point, aimed at
> upstreams in order to help packagers rather than packagers themselves.

Thanks for the information and sorry for the noise.
I wasn't fully aware of the meaning of the --dynamics-deps and --changed-deps option.
I am still not entirely convinced that changing a package after it is committed to the repository cannot do harm: even as a user, I would like to know when and why a package's dependencies changed.
But I don't maintain packages so my opinion is not very relevant, and the gentoo guidelines indeed allow to change the dependencies inline.

Michael

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Dead X11 packages

[James Le Cuirot]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 18:05:55 +0100
Michael Lienhardt <michael.lienhardt@laposte.net> wrote:

> Il 08/02/2018 16:04, James Le Cuirot ha scritto:
> >>> Citing Kenneth Hoste at FOSDEM this year: modifying a package
> >>> without changing its version is a bad idea.
> >>> His presentation was very good (video included):
> >>> https://fosdem.org/2
> >>> 018/schedule/event/how_to_make_package_managers_cry/  
> >>
> >> This isn't so clear cut simple. We build from source at user
> >> systems. Think of the effect for something like webkit-gtk,
> >> chromium, libreoffice, etc.  
> > 
> > Exactly and while this package isn't as big as those, it could be
> > argued that xorg-server is bumped frequently enough that the
> > lingering dependency would have been flushed out soon enough
> > anyway. It's not like it's doing any harm.
> > 
> > I also think that FOSDEM talk was making a different point, aimed at
> > upstreams in order to help packagers rather than packagers
> > themselves.  
> 
> Thanks for the information and sorry for the noise.
> I wasn't fully aware of the meaning of the --dynamics-deps and
> --changed-deps option. I am still not entirely convinced that
> changing a package after it is committed to the repository cannot do
> harm: even as a user, I would like to know when and why a package's
> dependencies changed. But I don't maintain packages so my opinion is
> not very relevant, and the gentoo guidelines indeed allow to change
> the dependencies inline.

It's not like this stuff is totally invisible as it is noted in the git
log. We just don't want to tie up several minutes of CPU time for the
majority of users for no tangible benefit.

-- 
James Le Cuirot (chewi)
Gentoo Linux Developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Dead X11 packages

[Matt Turner]

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 5:37 AM, Brian Evans <grknight@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 2/7/2018 9:54 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>> # Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org> (06 Feb 2018)
>> # Dead and unused
>> # Masked for removal in 30 days. Bug #646838
>> x11-libs/libXCalibrate
>> x11-libs/libXfontcache
>> x11-misc/xtscal
>> x11-proto/fontcacheproto
>> x11-proto/xcalibrateproto
>> x11-proto/xf86rushproto
>
>
>> From e590965cdeb0c921194740da0481c85afaa1ebae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>
>> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 14:02:59 -0800
>> Subject: x11-base/xorg-server: Remove dead x11-proto/xf86rushproto dependency
>>
>> rushproto hasn't been required since upstream commit 8ec79e05feac (in
>> 2005!), and even then it wasn't actually needed!
>>
>> Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
>> ---
>>  x11-base/xorg-server/xorg-server-1.19.5.ebuild | 3 +--
>>  x11-base/xorg-server/xorg-server-1.19.6.ebuild | 3 +--
>>  x11-base/xorg-server/xorg-server-9999.ebuild   | 3 +--
>>  3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>
> Please don't edit dependencies in-line like this.
>
> This warranted a revbump as users will be asking how to remove
> x11-proto/xf86rushproto. It won't come up for depclean because of
> xorg-server not being scheduled for rebuild automatically until the next
> time it is upgraded or --changed-deps option is used (uncommon).

Ah, sorry. I did not consider that. Is there anything I should do to
clean it up now? git mv to -r1?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Dead X11 packages

[Brian Evans]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 987 bytes --]

On 2/8/2018 12:14 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 18:05:55 +0100
> Michael Lienhardt <michael.lienhardt@laposte.net> wrote:
>> Thanks for the information and sorry for the noise.
>> I wasn't fully aware of the meaning of the --dynamics-deps and
>> --changed-deps option. I am still not entirely convinced that
>> changing a package after it is committed to the repository cannot do
>> harm: even as a user, I would like to know when and why a package's
>> dependencies changed. But I don't maintain packages so my opinion is
>> not very relevant, and the gentoo guidelines indeed allow to change
>> the dependencies inline.
> 
> It's not like this stuff is totally invisible as it is noted in the git
> log. We just don't want to tie up several minutes of CPU time for the
> majority of users for no tangible benefit.
> 

The benefit is that portage won't yell at you for having a masked
package installed and no obvious way to clean it up.

Brian


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 834 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Dead X11 packages

[James Le Cuirot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1210 bytes --]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 13:02:28 -0500
Brian Evans <grknight@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 2/8/2018 12:14 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 18:05:55 +0100
> > Michael Lienhardt <michael.lienhardt@laposte.net> wrote:  
> >> Thanks for the information and sorry for the noise.
> >> I wasn't fully aware of the meaning of the --dynamics-deps and
> >> --changed-deps option. I am still not entirely convinced that
> >> changing a package after it is committed to the repository cannot do
> >> harm: even as a user, I would like to know when and why a package's
> >> dependencies changed. But I don't maintain packages so my opinion is
> >> not very relevant, and the gentoo guidelines indeed allow to change
> >> the dependencies inline.  
> > 
> > It's not like this stuff is totally invisible as it is noted in the git
> > log. We just don't want to tie up several minutes of CPU time for the
> > majority of users for no tangible benefit.
> >   
> 
> The benefit is that portage won't yell at you for having a masked
> package installed and no obvious way to clean it up.

True, I had forgotten to consider the mask message.

-- 
James Le Cuirot (chewi)
Gentoo Linux Developer

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Dead X11 packages

[Matt Turner]

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 5:37 AM, Brian Evans <grknight@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 2/7/2018 9:54 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>> # Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org> (06 Feb 2018)
>> # Dead and unused
>> # Masked for removal in 30 days. Bug #646838
>> x11-libs/libXCalibrate
>> x11-libs/libXfontcache
>> x11-misc/xtscal
>> x11-proto/fontcacheproto
>> x11-proto/xcalibrateproto
>> x11-proto/xf86rushproto
>
>
>> From e590965cdeb0c921194740da0481c85afaa1ebae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>
>> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 14:02:59 -0800
>> Subject: x11-base/xorg-server: Remove dead x11-proto/xf86rushproto dependency
>>
>> rushproto hasn't been required since upstream commit 8ec79e05feac (in
>> 2005!), and even then it wasn't actually needed!
>>
>> Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
>> ---
>>  x11-base/xorg-server/xorg-server-1.19.5.ebuild | 3 +--
>>  x11-base/xorg-server/xorg-server-1.19.6.ebuild | 3 +--
>>  x11-base/xorg-server/xorg-server-9999.ebuild   | 3 +--
>>  3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>
> Please don't edit dependencies in-line like this.
>
> This warranted a revbump as users will be asking how to remove
> x11-proto/xf86rushproto. It won't come up for depclean because of
> xorg-server not being scheduled for rebuild automatically until the next
> time it is upgraded or --changed-deps option is used (uncommon).

Wait, since it was just in DEPEND, I don't understand the problem.

If it were in RDEPEND, I could understand. But in DEPEND, it'll get
depcleaned without any problem as far as I can tell.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rites: Dead X11 packages

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 02/09/2018 05:47 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> 
> Wait, since it was just in DEPEND, I don't understand the problem.
> 
> If it were in RDEPEND, I could understand. But in DEPEND, it'll get
> depcleaned without any problem as far as I can tell.
> 

After being subjected to a totally incomprehensible series of flag
interactions, the default these days is to keep build dependencies
during a depclean.