[gentoo-dev] Problems with virtual/x11

[gentoo-dev] Problems with virtual/x11

[@4u]

Hi there

I haven't search the mailing list. Please forgive me if the discussion was 
already started earlier by someone else. 

After posting and closing the bug report:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135870
Jakub Moc noticed that the current >=virtual/x11-7.0 ebuild misses its task 
and creates trouble.

For example: This ebuild behaves partly like a ordinary meta build and 
installs imake. You need imake (more correctly xmfmk) to install tightvnc.

Unfortunately you are not forced to install at least virtual/x11-7.0-r1. 
virtual/x11-7.0 causes trouble with tightvnc because of the missing 
xmfmk tool.

For that reason I want to request the deletion of virtual/x11-7.0 and 
that at least some dependencies of virtual/x11 are moved to 
=>x11-base/xorg-x11-7.0 where these dependencies belong to IMHO. xorg-x11 is 
a meta ebuild. virtual/x11 shouldn't be a second meta ebuild for the 
Modular X.org because otherwise you would have two meta ebuilds that will 
maybe cause more trouble in the future.

Thanks and best regards
@4u
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3207 bytes --]

@4u wrote:
> After posting and closing the bug report:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135870
> Jakub Moc noticed that the current >=virtual/x11-7.0 ebuild misses its
> task and creates trouble.

Indeed. To re-iterate here, I'll basically re-paste what I've said on
the bug, so that people don't have to jump to bugs.g.o.:

>=virtual/x11-7 is hiding breakage in ebuilds that are not ported for
modular X. The side effect is that dependencies like X? ( || ( foo bar
baz ) virtual/x11 ) fail once virtual/x11 gets emerged by one of those
broken ebuilds, because the dependency is already satisfied by
virtual/x11. If that virtual doesn't depend on either of foo bar baz,
then the dependency doesn't get emerged and a perfectly valid ebuild
without any missing dependencies fails.


> For example: This ebuild behaves partly like a ordinary meta build and
> installs imake. You need imake (more correctly xmfmk) to install tightvnc.

Yeah, as it is now, it's essentially a dumpspace for redundant
dependencies that are already stated in ebuilds fixed for modular X, but
that frequently don't get installed b/c of the problem described above.
We are mis-using a 'new style' virtual to produce yet another metabuild
that serves the only purpose - to hide borkage.

> For that reason I want to request the deletion of virtual/x11-7.0 and
> that at least some dependencies of virtual/x11 are moved to
> =>x11-base/xorg-x11-7.0 where these dependencies belong to IMHO.
> xorg-x11 is a meta ebuild.

Each ebuild should state its own dependencies. x11-base/xorg-x11 is a
metabuild for users' convenience, which should produce a pretty
full-featured X server install, but nothing more. It's not a dumpspace
for whatever redundant dependencies either.

So - IMHO we should stop shoving the real breakage under the carpet, if
ebuilds are not ported for modular X, they are broken and should be
fixed. If noone cares to fix them enough for some time, they'll probably
need to be package.masked and subsequently removed from the tree. Until
then, they'll bomb out, because they are broken, that's a perfectly
expected behaviour...

What we are instead doing now, is hiding the breakage by misusing
virtual/x11-7 to emerge most frequently missing deps, which is bloating
more and more, as more and more not broken ebuilds are hit by the
redundant virtual. Not good, really. Some examples of needless borkage
include:

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123071
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=127617
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=128163
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=128353
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=128354

(plus numerous duplicates).

While the above bugs are marked fixed, they won't be really fixed until
>=virtual/x11-7 goes to /dev/null and stops causing more harm than good.

Sorry for a long post, but this problem really needs to be addressed.

-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 227 bytes --]

Jakub Moc wrote:
>> =virtual/x11-7 is hiding breakage in ebuilds that are not ported for
> modular X.

I couldn't agree more, but I was forced to add this rather than allow
unported ebuilds to break.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

[Arek (James Potts)]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Jakub Moc wrote:
>   
>>> =virtual/x11-7 is hiding breakage in ebuilds that are not ported for
>>>       
>> modular X.
>>     
>
> I couldn't agree more, but I was forced to add this rather than allow
> unported ebuilds to break.
>
> Thanks,
> Donnie
>
>   
Hmmm...Looks to me like it would be a great idea to fix the unported 
ebuilds.  Would it be possible to mark virtual/x11-7 as deprecated 
(using enotice/ewarn or similar), in order to get people to port any 
build relying on it to modular X?

The way I see it, once virtual/x11-7 has been deprecated for a while (6 
months to a year) and most popular packages have been ported to modular 
X, virtual/x11-7 and any packages still relying on it could be given 
Last Rites.

--Arek

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1907 bytes --]

Arek (James Potts) wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>> >=virtual/x11-7 is hiding breakage in ebuilds that are not ported for
>>> modular X.

>> I couldn't agree more, but I was forced to add this rather than allow
>> unported ebuilds to break.

> Hmmm...Looks to me like it would be a great idea to fix the unported
> ebuilds.  Would it be possible to mark virtual/x11-7 as deprecated
> (using enotice/ewarn or similar), in order to get people to port any
> build relying on it to modular X?
> 
> The way I see it, once virtual/x11-7 has been deprecated for a while (6
> months to a year) and most popular packages have been ported to modular
> X, virtual/x11-7 and any packages still relying on it could be given
> Last Rites.

Hmm, I don't think so... There's been a plenty of time to do this when
modular X has been package.masked, the remaining unported stuff didn't
get much further even after it's been unmasked. There's been a
(debatable) repoman check, which has been too annoying so devs nuked it
for themselves, now it's non-fatal warning again (which is mostly being
ignored).

Soooo - I'd pretty much say until the real breakage is *visible* and
users start to scream - not much will change. Making it visible could
also help us differentiate between used and used stuff. If there's
something unported and you get no bug, then probably noone uses the
thing, nothing depends on it and it can be punted from the tree.

On a side note, this virtual also hides potential bugs in ebuilds that
already have been ported, you can miss dependencies there if you have
already them emerged b/c of the virtual.



-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

[Olivier Crete]

On Wed, 2006-07-06 at 18:41 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Arek (James Potts) wrote:
> > Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> >>> >=virtual/x11-7 is hiding breakage in ebuilds that are not ported for
> >>> modular X.
> 
> >> I couldn't agree more, but I was forced to add this rather than allow
> >> unported ebuilds to break.
> 
> > Hmmm...Looks to me like it would be a great idea to fix the unported
> > ebuilds.  Would it be possible to mark virtual/x11-7 as deprecated
> > (using enotice/ewarn or similar), in order to get people to port any
> > build relying on it to modular X?
> > 
> > The way I see it, once virtual/x11-7 has been deprecated for a while (6
> > months to a year) and most popular packages have been ported to modular
> > X, virtual/x11-7 and any packages still relying on it could be given
> > Last Rites.
> 
> Hmm, I don't think so... There's been a plenty of time to do this when
> modular X has been package.masked, the remaining unported stuff didn't
> get much further even after it's been unmasked. There's been a
> (debatable) repoman check, which has been too annoying so devs nuked it
> for themselves, now it's non-fatal warning again (which is mostly being
> ignored).
> 
> Soooo - I'd pretty much say until the real breakage is *visible* and
> users start to scream - not much will change. Making it visible could
> also help us differentiate between used and used stuff. If there's
> something unported and you get no bug, then probably noone uses the
> thing, nothing depends on it and it can be punted from the tree.

Is there a recent list of non-ported packages ? Maybe we should do a
last effort to port everything for a week or two and then package.mask
the packages that no one cares enough about to port them.

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

[Raymond Lewis Rebbeck]

On Thursday, 8 June 2006 5:15, Olivier Crete wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-07-06 at 18:41 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > Arek (James Potts) wrote:
> > > Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > >>> >=virtual/x11-7 is hiding breakage in ebuilds that are not ported for
> > >>>
> > >>> modular X.
> > >>
> > >> I couldn't agree more, but I was forced to add this rather than allow
> > >> unported ebuilds to break.
> > >
> > > Hmmm...Looks to me like it would be a great idea to fix the unported
> > > ebuilds.  Would it be possible to mark virtual/x11-7 as deprecated
> > > (using enotice/ewarn or similar), in order to get people to port any
> > > build relying on it to modular X?
> > >
> > > The way I see it, once virtual/x11-7 has been deprecated for a while (6
> > > months to a year) and most popular packages have been ported to modular
> > > X, virtual/x11-7 and any packages still relying on it could be given
> > > Last Rites.
> >
> > Hmm, I don't think so... There's been a plenty of time to do this when
> > modular X has been package.masked, the remaining unported stuff didn't
> > get much further even after it's been unmasked. There's been a
> > (debatable) repoman check, which has been too annoying so devs nuked it
> > for themselves, now it's non-fatal warning again (which is mostly being
> > ignored).
> >
> > Soooo - I'd pretty much say until the real breakage is *visible* and
> > users start to scream - not much will change. Making it visible could
> > also help us differentiate between used and used stuff. If there's
> > something unported and you get no bug, then probably noone uses the
> > thing, nothing depends on it and it can be punted from the tree.
>
> Is there a recent list of non-ported packages ? Maybe we should do a
> last effort to port everything for a week or two and then package.mask
> the packages that no one cares enough about to port them.

games-roguelike/slashem is one package that I know of. It should have very 
similar dependencies to nethack.

-- 
Raymond Lewis Rebbeck
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 643 bytes --]

On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 05:26 +0930, Raymond Lewis Rebbeck wrote:
> > Is there a recent list of non-ported packages ? Maybe we should do a
> > last effort to port everything for a week or two and then package.mask
> > the packages that no one cares enough about to port them.
> 
> games-roguelike/slashem is one package that I know of. It should have very 
> similar dependencies to nethack.

It is also already masked.  We'll update it once we get a proper
solution to the security bug that caused it to be masked.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 549 bytes --]

Olivier Crete wrote:
> Is there a recent list of non-ported packages ? Maybe we should do a
> last effort to port everything for a week or two and then package.mask
> the packages that no one cares enough about to port them.

Hmmm, not a up2date one, AFAIK... There's a tracker bug

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112675

and below is the most recent list from spyderous I was able to find (no
idea how much relevant it still is).

http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/broken_modular/broken_modular.txt.20060315


-- 

jakub


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 719 bytes --]

Jakub Moc wrote:
> Olivier Crete wrote:
>> Is there a recent list of non-ported packages ? Maybe we should do a
>> last effort to port everything for a week or two and then package.mask
>> the packages that no one cares enough about to port them.
> 
> Hmmm, not a up2date one, AFAIK... There's a tracker bug
> 
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112675
> 
> and below is the most recent list from spyderous I was able to find (no
> idea how much relevant it still is).
> 
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/broken_modular/broken_modular.txt.20060315

I can probably generate one tonight. Need to dig up the scripts, and
I've got an emerge -e world running in the background.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1214 bytes --]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Olivier Crete wrote:
>>> Is there a recent list of non-ported packages ? Maybe we should do a
>>> last effort to port everything for a week or two and then package.mask
>>> the packages that no one cares enough about to port them.
>> Hmmm, not a up2date one, AFAIK... There's a tracker bug
>>
>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112675
>>
>> and below is the most recent list from spyderous I was able to find (no
>> idea how much relevant it still is).
>>
>> http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/broken_modular/broken_modular.txt.20060315
> 
> I can probably generate one tonight. Need to dig up the scripts, and
> I've got an emerge -e world running in the background.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donnie

Donnie, pingy! ;) Just a friendly reminder to run the script again, so
that we can do a last attempt on fixing the remaining stuff before
resorting to more drastic solutions...

Thanks. ;)

-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 318 bytes --]

Jakub Moc wrote:
> Donnie, pingy! ;) Just a friendly reminder to run the script again, so
> that we can do a last attempt on fixing the remaining stuff before
> resorting to more drastic solutions...

Yeah, it's on my list, but I've got family here all weekend so no time
to work on stuff.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]