[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-libs/libva: ChangeLog libva-1.0.10.ebuild

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-libs/libva: ChangeLog libva-1.0.10.ebuild

[Alexis Ballier]

On Tuesday, March 08, 2011 09:28:13 AM Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) wrote:
> scarabeus    11/03/08 12:28:13
> 
>   Modified:             ChangeLog
>   Added:                libva-1.0.10.ebuild
>   Log:
>   Update to libva shipped by freedesktop. So we do the same as debian or
> archlinux. Fixes bug #336854.
> 

Please read metadata.xml before committing...
How comes I'm supposed to be the maintainer and have not seen any single 
discussion about it ? Why is it better, etc ? Being a "mouton de Panurge" is 
not a reason [1] :)
The only "better" thing I see is a greater version number. May I suggest you 
to run a diff and explain me why such a change was needed ?

Without a convincing answer within a couple of days, I will delete this 
ebuild.


Alexis.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panurge

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-libs/libva: ChangeLog libva-1.0.10.ebuild

[Tomáš Chvátal]

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

Dne 8.3.2011 15:51, Alexis Ballier napsal(a):
> On Tuesday, March 08, 2011 09:28:13 AM Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) wrote:
>> scarabeus    11/03/08 12:28:13
>>
>>   Modified:             ChangeLog
>>   Added:                libva-1.0.10.ebuild
>>   Log:
>>   Update to libva shipped by freedesktop. So we do the same as debian or
>> archlinux. Fixes bug #336854.
>>
> 
> Please read metadata.xml before committing...
I did, x11 is the herd last time i looked.
> How comes I'm supposed to be the maintainer and have not seen any single 
> discussion about it ? Why is it better, etc ? Being a "mouton de Panurge" is 
> not a reason [1] :)
> The only "better" thing I see is a greater version number. May I suggest you 
> to run a diff and explain me why such a change was needed ?
> 

ok lovely list:
1) it has freedesktop web page, and we should preffer fdo alternatives
anyway
2) it has existing git repo (could not find repo for the va you use)
3) debian/archlinux/fedora use this one I commited, not former one.
4) the bug was reported to you with x11 CC and you had 6 months already
to at least reply to it why/if you don't agree with the switch.
Suprisingly we try to close long-open bugs with no-maintainer reply.

Cheers

Tomas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk12SdcACgkQHB6c3gNBRYfRZQCfUa0wcNLoWLvrVbjIuro3ApPA
h/IAn1FJAszTno8g+QVdpblydnpWOgpo
=MRvO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-libs/libva: ChangeLog libva-1.0.10.ebuild

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 816 bytes --]

On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 16:23:03 +0100
Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 1) it has freedesktop web page, and we should preffer fdo alternatives
> anyway
> 2) it has existing git repo (could not find repo for the va you use)
> 3) debian/archlinux/fedora use this one I commited, not former one.
> 4) the bug was reported to you with x11 CC and you had 6 months already
> to at least reply to it why/if you don't agree with the switch.
> Suprisingly we try to close long-open bugs with no-maintainer reply.

too bad it doesn't compile. :/

bug #357937

-- 
fonts, gcc-porting,                  it makes no sense how it makes no sense
toolchain, wxwidgets                           but i'll take it free anytime
@ gentoo.org                EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-libs/libva: ChangeLog libva-1.0.10.ebuild

[Alexis Ballier]

On Tuesday, March 08, 2011 12:23:03 PM Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Dne 8.3.2011 15:51, Alexis Ballier napsal(a):
> > On Tuesday, March 08, 2011 09:28:13 AM Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) wrote:
> >> scarabeus    11/03/08 12:28:13
> >> 
> >>   Modified:             ChangeLog
> >>   Added:                libva-1.0.10.ebuild
> >>   Log:
> >>   Update to libva shipped by freedesktop. So we do the same as debian or
> >> 
> >> archlinux. Fixes bug #336854.
> > 
> > Please read metadata.xml before committing...
> 
> I did, x11 is the herd last time i looked.

x11 is the herd because when I added it I thought that it was low level enough 
that x11 may help from time to time. This never gave the right to anyone to 
break and hijack it without discussion nor notice like you did.
Since it seems to be more a burden than a help, I'll remove x11 herd from 
metadata too when removing the fdo version.

Maybe something you didn't understand: herd/maintainership isn't about 
territoriality and giving the right to commit crap, it's about area of 
responsability.

> 
> > How comes I'm supposed to be the maintainer and have not seen any single
> > discussion about it ? Why is it better, etc ? Being a "mouton de Panurge"
> > is not a reason [1] :)
> > The only "better" thing I see is a greater version number. May I suggest
> > you to run a diff and explain me why such a change was needed ?
> 
> ok lovely list:
> 1) it has freedesktop web page, and we should preffer fdo alternatives
> anyway

yes, didnt you think that maybe there's a reason I've been using the sds 
version for almost one year ?

> 2) it has existing git repo (could not find repo for the va you use)

you clearly didnt run a diff... its the fdo version + a debian/patches dir 
with, heh, some fixes and improvements I'm using...

> 3) debian/archlinux/fedora use this one I commited, not former one.

so what?

> 4) the bug was reported to you with x11 CC and you had 6 months already
> to at least reply to it why/if you don't agree with the switch.
> Suprisingly we try to close long-open bugs with no-maintainer reply.

There was no reply because I didn't see the point, for now, to flame users by 
telling them that a version number doesnt necessarily bring them more code nor 
features. I thought gentoo developers were aware of that. I was wrong.
I left it open because I thought, at some point, that we will not need the sds 
version. I don't think it's the case now.

Seeing that I bumped it ~1 week ago, did you really expect that it was an 
abandonned package and that you were saving it ? Were you trying to hijack it? 
Or maybe just piss me off ?

A.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-libs/libva: ChangeLog libva-1.0.10.ebuild

[Tomáš Chvátal]

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

Dne 9.3.2011 13:08, Alexis Ballier napsal(a):
> On Tuesday, March 08, 2011 12:23:03 PM Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>> Dne 8.3.2011 15:51, Alexis Ballier napsal(a):
>>> On Tuesday, March 08, 2011 09:28:13 AM Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) wrote:
>>>> scarabeus    11/03/08 12:28:13
>>>>
>>>>   Modified:             ChangeLog
>>>>   Added:                libva-1.0.10.ebuild
>>>>   Log:
>>>>   Update to libva shipped by freedesktop. So we do the same as debian or
>>>>
>>>> archlinux. Fixes bug #336854.
>>>
>>> Please read metadata.xml before committing...
>>
>> I did, x11 is the herd last time i looked.
> 
> x11 is the herd because when I added it I thought that it was low level enough 
> that x11 may help from time to time. This never gave the right to anyone to 
> break and hijack it without discussion nor notice like you did.
> Since it seems to be more a burden than a help, I'll remove x11 herd from 
> metadata too when removing the fdo version.
> 
> Maybe something you didn't understand: herd/maintainership isn't about 
> territoriality and giving the right to commit crap, it's about area of 
> responsability.
> 
>>
>>> How comes I'm supposed to be the maintainer and have not seen any single
>>> discussion about it ? Why is it better, etc ? Being a "mouton de Panurge"
>>> is not a reason [1] :)
>>> The only "better" thing I see is a greater version number. May I suggest
>>> you to run a diff and explain me why such a change was needed ?
>>
>> ok lovely list:
>> 1) it has freedesktop web page, and we should preffer fdo alternatives
>> anyway
> 
> yes, didnt you think that maybe there's a reason I've been using the sds 
> version for almost one year ?
You never named them anywhere.
> 
>> 2) it has existing git repo (could not find repo for the va you use)
> 
> you clearly didnt run a diff... its the fdo version + a debian/patches dir 
> with, heh, some fixes and improvements I'm using...
I did run a diff, what am I supposed to trust some weird patches not
signed or commited to some repo...
> 
>> 3) debian/archlinux/fedora use this one I commited, not former one.
> 
> so what?
We have this tendency to use what others do so...
> 
>> 4) the bug was reported to you with x11 CC and you had 6 months already
>> to at least reply to it why/if you don't agree with the switch.
>> Suprisingly we try to close long-open bugs with no-maintainer reply.
> 
> There was no reply because I didn't see the point, for now, to flame users by 
> telling them that a version number doesnt necessarily bring them more code nor 
> features. I thought gentoo developers were aware of that. I was wrong.
> I left it open because I thought, at some point, that we will not need the sds 
> version. I don't think it's the case now.
So first you say you was not aware of the discussion, now you say you
just didn't feel the need to reply.
I did see that you commited copied version of older one, given the fancy
amount of people just doing cp a b for version bumps and not bothering
by any bugs I just went ahead and looked what other guys does and made
it same. I would commit the update even if it would be libva-0.0.1 I
didn't do it for sake of the version.
> 
> Seeing that I bumped it ~1 week ago, did you really expect that it was an 
> abandonned package and that you were saving it ? Were you trying to hijack it? 
> Or maybe just piss me off ?
> 

Just consider I tried to piss you off if you have this attitude. I could
not care less about some libva if i would not be looking on that bug for
some time without any damn reply from maintainer and x11 in CC.

I usually ask on irc, but given the fact you don't bother with the
media... just remove x11 from herds and enjoy your package.

You might also consider dropping x11 from x11-libs/vdpau-video

Cheerios
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk13fQ4ACgkQHB6c3gNBRYe7uQCfYDna/Scn7UHhic5V6shuk70p
PvUAn2ijeJeu0qdwyvT3avR48k1tXJ/m
=xp8D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-libs/libva: ChangeLog libva-1.0.10.ebuild

[Jeremy Olexa]

On 03/09/2011 06:08 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:

> Or maybe just piss me off ?

Please calm down. I would have taken some action too if it was in my bug 
queue (via CC) and the primary maintainer didn't respond for 6 months. 
It isn't flaming the users to respond and acknowledge their work but 
politely refusing.

-Jeremy

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-libs/libva: ChangeLog libva-1.0.10.ebuild

[Alexis Ballier]

On Wednesday, March 09, 2011 10:13:50 AM Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Dne 9.3.2011 13:08, Alexis Ballier napsal(a):
> > On Tuesday, March 08, 2011 12:23:03 PM Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> >> Dne 8.3.2011 15:51, Alexis Ballier napsal(a):
> >>> On Tuesday, March 08, 2011 09:28:13 AM Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) wrote:
> >>>> scarabeus    11/03/08 12:28:13
> >>>> 
> >>>>   Modified:             ChangeLog
> >>>>   Added:                libva-1.0.10.ebuild
> >>>>   Log:
> >>>>   Update to libva shipped by freedesktop. So we do the same as debian
> >>>>   or
> >>>> 
> >>>> archlinux. Fixes bug #336854.
> >>> 
> >>> Please read metadata.xml before committing...
> >> 
> >> I did, x11 is the herd last time i looked.
> > 
> > x11 is the herd because when I added it I thought that it was low level
> > enough that x11 may help from time to time. This never gave the right to
> > anyone to break and hijack it without discussion nor notice like you
> > did.
> > Since it seems to be more a burden than a help, I'll remove x11 herd from
> > metadata too when removing the fdo version.
> > 
> > Maybe something you didn't understand: herd/maintainership isn't about
> > territoriality and giving the right to commit crap, it's about area of
> > responsability.
> > 
> >>> How comes I'm supposed to be the maintainer and have not seen any
> >>> single discussion about it ? Why is it better, etc ? Being a "mouton
> >>> de Panurge" is not a reason [1] :)
> >>> The only "better" thing I see is a greater version number. May I
> >>> suggest you to run a diff and explain me why such a change was needed
> >>> ?
> >> 
> >> ok lovely list:
> >> 1) it has freedesktop web page, and we should preffer fdo alternatives
> >> anyway
> > 
> > yes, didnt you think that maybe there's a reason I've been using the sds
> > version for almost one year ?
> 
> You never named them anywhere.

Indeed, I always thought that's the one that wants to change something that 
needs to explain why. Moreover, I understood you don't care about them since 
you didn't even bother to ask before committing.
As for the reasons: "its the fdo version + a debian/patches dir with, heh, 
some fixes and improvements I'm using..."

> 
> >> 2) it has existing git repo (could not find repo for the va you use)
> > 
> > you clearly didnt run a diff... its the fdo version + a debian/patches
> > dir with, heh, some fixes and improvements I'm using...
> 
> I did run a diff, what am I supposed to trust some weird patches not
> signed or commited to some repo...

you can, eg, review the patches, and decide if you want them or not

> 
> >> 3) debian/archlinux/fedora use this one I commited, not former one.
> > 
> > so what?
> 
> We have this tendency to use what others do so...

This is what I called being a "mouton de Panurge" in my first email ;) I have 
this tendency to use what I am convinced is the best.

> >> 4) the bug was reported to you with x11 CC and you had 6 months already
> >> to at least reply to it why/if you don't agree with the switch.
> >> Suprisingly we try to close long-open bugs with no-maintainer reply.
> > 
> > There was no reply because I didn't see the point, for now, to flame
> > users by telling them that a version number doesnt necessarily bring
> > them more code nor features. I thought gentoo developers were aware of
> > that. I was wrong. I left it open because I thought, at some point, that
> > we will not need the sds version. I don't think it's the case now.
> 
> So first you say you was not aware of the discussion, now you say you
> just didn't feel the need to reply.

Maybe we do not have the same definition of a "discussion". Nobody compared it 
to the sds version, nobody said we should drop the sds version, the only thing 
I've ever seen is that it has a greater version number...
A discussion would have been someone explaining why we should move away from 
sds to fdo and we could have weighted the alternatives.

> I did see that you commited copied version of older one, given the fancy
> amount of people just doing cp a b for version bumps and not bothering
> by any bugs I just went ahead and looked what other guys does and made
> it same. 

You shouldn't assume people are stupid by default ;) in case of doubt, sending 
an email never killed anyone.

> I would commit the update even if it would be libva-0.0.1 I
> didn't do it for sake of the version.
> 
> > Seeing that I bumped it ~1 week ago, did you really expect that it was an
> > abandonned package and that you were saving it ? Were you trying to
> > hijack it? Or maybe just piss me off ?
> 
> Just consider I tried to piss you off if you have this attitude. I could
> not care less about some libva if i would not be looking on that bug for
> some time without any damn reply from maintainer and x11 in CC.

A ping on the bug would have been more appropriate ;)

> I usually ask on irc, but given the fact you don't bother with the
> media...

If I were on irc I would be idle most of the time. Email or bgo are more 
reliable medias if you want to get an answer.

> just remove x11 from herds and enjoy your package.
> 
> You might also consider dropping x11 from x11-libs/vdpau-video
> 

fair enough

A.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-libs/libva: ChangeLog libva-1.0.10.ebuild

[Matt Turner]

2011/3/9 Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>:
> As for the reasons: "its the fdo version + a debian/patches dir with, heh,
> some fixes and improvements I'm using..."

So, the SDS version is simply the freedesktop version with a few
patches on top? So, the freedesktop version is actually... upstream?

We patch plenty of things in Gentoo. Why are we depending on SDS to do
that for us?

Matt

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-libs/libva: ChangeLog libva-1.0.10.ebuild

[Matt Turner]

2011/4/29 Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>:
> 2011/3/9 Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>:
>> As for the reasons: "its the fdo version + a debian/patches dir with, heh,
>> some fixes and improvements I'm using..."
>
> So, the SDS version is simply the freedesktop version with a few
> patches on top? So, the freedesktop version is actually... upstream?
>
> We patch plenty of things in Gentoo. Why are we depending on SDS to do
> that for us?
>
> Matt

So...? Why are we shipping this version when it seems to be just the
upstream version + patches? People on the X11 team already have commit
access to freedesktop, and by extension, libva, so if the patches are
reasonable we could just commit them ourselves. Why are we bothering
with this SDS version?

You weren't kidding about not being on IRC. !seen aballier says 7 months ago.

Matt

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-libs/libva: ChangeLog libva-1.0.10.ebuild

[Alexis Ballier]

On Monday, May 09, 2011 12:25:18 PM Matt Turner wrote:
> 2011/4/29 Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>:
> > 2011/3/9 Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>:
> >> As for the reasons: "its the fdo version + a debian/patches dir with,
> >> heh, some fixes and improvements I'm using..."
> > 
> > So, the SDS version is simply the freedesktop version with a few
> > patches on top? So, the freedesktop version is actually... upstream?
> > 
> > We patch plenty of things in Gentoo. Why are we depending on SDS to do
> > that for us?
> > 
> > Matt
> 
> So...? Why are we shipping this version when it seems to be just the
> upstream version + patches? People on the X11 team already have commit
> access to freedesktop, and by extension, libva, so if the patches are
> reasonable we could just commit them ourselves. Why are we bothering
> with this SDS version?

maybe your answer is in the readme :)
http://www.splitted-desktop.com/~gbeauchesne/libva/patches/000_README

some of them are needed, some of them are useful, some we could certainly 
drop. If the most important patches could go upstream then, again, I'm all for 
going to fdo, but I'm not that enthusiastic about it (e.g. fdo git still 
installs the test programs, they make """releases""" that don't even build, 
etc...).

If it's for maintaining my own patchset with the sds patches then I prefer 
using sds directly :) We could start excluding some sds patches to stop 
applying them, bringing us closer to fdo though, it's just I don't see the 
need. Feel free to propose me somes to drop with justifications ;) 


> 
> You weren't kidding about not being on IRC. !seen aballier says 7 months
> ago.

Heh ;)

A.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-libs/libva: ChangeLog libva-1.0.10.ebuild

[Matt Turner]

2011/5/9 Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>:
> maybe your answer is in the readme :)
> http://www.splitted-desktop.com/~gbeauchesne/libva/patches/000_README
>
> some of them are needed, some of them are useful, some we could certainly
> drop. If the most important patches could go upstream then, again, I'm all for
> going to fdo, but I'm not that enthusiastic about it (e.g. fdo git still
> installs the test programs, they make """releases""" that don't even build,
> etc...).
>
> If it's for maintaining my own patchset with the sds patches then I prefer
> using sds directly :) We could start excluding some sds patches to stop
> applying them, bringing us closer to fdo though, it's just I don't see the
> need. Feel free to propose me somes to drop with justifications ;)

The most obvious thing about the SDS version is that the last release
was 24-Feb-2011. There looks to be a number of fixes in the FDO
version that, given the last release was in February of SDS libva,
haven't made it to the SDS version.

We can certainly fix the FDO version to our liking and push things
back upstream, and since FDO actually is upstream, this seems to make
sense.

So, it only seems reasonable to (1) move to the FDO version, (2) fix
and commit fixes for stupid things like installing test programs.
We're not doing much to maintain the software if we just rely on some
guy to patch it for us, I think.

Matt

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-libs/libva: ChangeLog libva-1.0.10.ebuild

[Alexis Ballier]

On Monday, May 09, 2011 07:00:09 PM Matt Turner wrote:
> 2011/5/9 Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>:
> > maybe your answer is in the readme :)
> > http://www.splitted-desktop.com/~gbeauchesne/libva/patches/000_README
> > 
> > some of them are needed, some of them are useful, some we could certainly
> > drop. If the most important patches could go upstream then, again, I'm
> > all for going to fdo, but I'm not that enthusiastic about it (e.g. fdo
> > git still installs the test programs, they make """releases""" that
> > don't even build, etc...).
> > 
> > If it's for maintaining my own patchset with the sds patches then I
> > prefer using sds directly :) We could start excluding some sds patches
> > to stop applying them, bringing us closer to fdo though, it's just I
> > don't see the need. Feel free to propose me somes to drop with
> > justifications ;)
> 
> The most obvious thing about the SDS version is that the last release
> was 24-Feb-2011. There looks to be a number of fixes in the FDO
> version that, given the last release was in February of SDS libva,
> haven't made it to the SDS version.
> 
> We can certainly fix the FDO version to our liking and push things
> back upstream, and since FDO actually is upstream, this seems to make
> sense.
> 
> So, it only seems reasonable to (1) move to the FDO version, (2) fix
> and commit fixes for stupid things like installing test programs.

switch 2 and 1 and we get a deal ;)

> We're not doing much to maintain the software if we just rely on some
> guy to patch it for us, I think.

I don't see anything wrong with this. Once again, if you want things to move, 
please start looking carefuly at sds patches, pushing what's needed to fdo and 
proposing me to drop what's not. If you're suggesting I do it, then it's not 
_that_ urgent for me since sds works quite well and users seem happy with it.

A.