[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/boost: boost-1.46.1-r1.ebuild metadata.xml boost-1.49.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.51.0-r1.ebuild ChangeLog boost-1.47.0.ebuild boost-1.35.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.47.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.39.0.ebuild boost-1.50.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.42.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.51.0.ebuild boost-1.37.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.42.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.50.0.ebuild boost-1.48.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.42.0.ebuild boost-1.35.0-r5.ebuild boost-1.41.0-r3.ebuild boost-1.45.0.ebuild

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/boost: boost-1.46.1-r1.ebuild metadata.xml boost-1.49.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.51.0-r1.ebuild ChangeLog boost-1.47.0.ebuild boost-1.35.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.47.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.39.0.ebuild boost-1.50.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.42.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.51.0.ebuild boost-1.37.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.42.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.50.0.ebuild boost-1.48.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.42.0.ebuild boost-1.35.0-r5.ebuild boost-1.41.0-r3.ebuild boost-1.45.0.ebuild

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2473 bytes --]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:32:25 +0000 (UTC)
"Diego Petteno (flameeyes)" <flameeyes@gentoo.org> wrote:

> flameeyes    12/10/31 16:32:25
> 
>   Modified:             boost-1.46.1-r1.ebuild metadata.xml
>                         boost-1.49.0-r1.ebuild ChangeLog
>   Added:                boost-1.51.0-r1.ebuild
>   Removed:              boost-1.47.0.ebuild boost-1.35.0-r2.ebuild
>                         boost-1.47.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.39.0.ebuild
>                         boost-1.50.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.42.0-r1.ebuild
>                         boost-1.51.0.ebuild boost-1.37.0-r1.ebuild
>                         boost-1.42.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.50.0.ebuild
>                         boost-1.48.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.42.0.ebuild
>                         boost-1.35.0-r5.ebuild boost-1.41.0-r3.ebuild
>                         boost-1.45.0.ebuild
>   Log:
>   Unslotting. This removes a bunch of older packages that will not build on modern systems, keeps only three versions (stable, mostly-stable and masked). The new 1.51.0-r1 is designed so that it does not have to do any eselect or eselect-like trickery for the symlinks, also drops the tests (which are not working as expected anyway).
>   
>   (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha141/cvs/Linux x86_64, signed Manifest commit with key 1CD13C8AD4301342)

What is this policy of performing widespread destructive changes while:

a) you haven't pinged any of the maintainers of the package nor waited
for their reply,

b) you have ignored output from one of the maintainers of the package,

c) you have committed changes *1 day* after submitting RFC to the ml,
effectively ignoring output of people who do not read the ml daily,

d) you have dropped maintainers from the package without asking,

e) you haven't given our users or overlays any ability of testing them,

f) you have introduced destructive changes to stable systems,

g) and after all, you aren't even maintainer of this package nor member
of the cpp herd.

In other words, you have thrown a big, destructive change to live,
stable systems without prior testing (and don't say you were able to
test it thoroughly in one day's time) and you have left them for other
people to maintain and fix.

I am really getting tired of those 'senior developers' who believe that
Gentoo is their private playground where they can do whatever comes
into their mind and ignore package maintainers.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/boost: boost-1.46.1-r1.ebuild metadata.xml boost-1.49.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.51.0-r1.ebuild ChangeLog boost-1.47.0.ebuild boost-1.35.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.47.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.39.0.ebuild boost-1.50.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.42.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.51.0.ebuild boost-1.37.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.42.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.50.0.ebuild boost-1.48.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.42.0.ebuild boost-1.35.0-r5.ebuild boost-1.41.0-r3.ebuild boost-1.45.0.ebuild

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

On 31/10/2012 11:49, Michał Górny wrote:
> In other words, you have thrown a big, destructive change to live,
> stable systems without prior testing (and don't say you were able to
> test it thoroughly in one day's time) and you have left them for other
> people to maintain and fix.
> 
> I am really getting tired of those 'senior developers' who believe that
> Gentoo is their private playground where they can do whatever comes
> into their mind and ignore package maintainers.

Given the kind of destructive behaviour that boost has been having,
given that everybody else _beside you_ don't see any reason to keep that
slotted boost, given that you've been acting for the most part as a
sockpuppet for a developer who's been kicked out of Gentoo, I think it's
obvious why I went the way I went.

If this is "destructive", everything that has been done with boost up to
this point is "apocalyptic".

Here's the deal: I've stated clearly what the situation was going to be;
Tiziano has been the primary maintainer (first in the list) and he's
okay with the move, he _is_ in the cpp herd that will take care of it,
and as I said I'll make sure to help out because I have a number of
packages depending on boost (but not on other C++ libraries).

You had a month while Mike delayed glibc-2.16 stable, among other things
because of boost-1.50, and you did _squat_ to handle it. So it's time
that people who've been there before step up and fix it the way that it
has to be fixed.

(And yes, I haven't tested it _thoroughly_ unfortunately, because of the
stupid testsuite that goes nowhere and so on ... but I made sure that an
update on a stable system does not change links to libraries and
headers, and now I'm running tinderboxing for both ~arch, masked and
stable.)

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flameeyes@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/boost: boost-1.46.1-r1.ebuild metadata.xml boost-1.49.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.51.0-r1.ebuild ChangeLog boost-1.47.0.ebuild boost-1.35.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.47.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.39.0.ebuild boost-1.50.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.42.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.51.0.ebuild boost-1.37.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.42.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.50.0.ebuild boost-1.48.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.42.0.ebuild boost-1.35.0-r5.ebuild boost-1.41.0-r3.ebuild boost-1.45.0.ebuild

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2232 bytes --]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:58:16 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@flameeyes.eu> wrote:

> On 31/10/2012 11:49, Michał Górny wrote:
> > In other words, you have thrown a big, destructive change to live,
> > stable systems without prior testing (and don't say you were able to
> > test it thoroughly in one day's time) and you have left them for other
> > people to maintain and fix.
> > 
> > I am really getting tired of those 'senior developers' who believe that
> > Gentoo is their private playground where they can do whatever comes
> > into their mind and ignore package maintainers.
> 
> Given the kind of destructive behaviour that boost has been having,
> given that everybody else _beside you_ don't see any reason to keep that
> slotted boost, given that you've been acting for the most part as a
> sockpuppet for a developer who's been kicked out of Gentoo, I think it's
> obvious why I went the way I went.

If you have a personal vendetta against Arfrever, then take it to him.
As far as I'm concerned, Arfrever is a very knowledgeable person and I
doubt that you can compete with him in the area of Python
(and the Python counterpart of boost, effectively).

And even if that, you have no right to remove maintainers
from a package or unCC them from bugs just because you don't like them
or disagree with their opinion. Especially that you are not
a maintainer of this package.

> Here's the deal: I've stated clearly what the situation was going to be;
> Tiziano has been the primary maintainer (first in the list) and he's
> okay with the move, he _is_ in the cpp herd that will take care of it,
> and as I said I'll make sure to help out because I have a number of
> packages depending on boost (but not on other C++ libraries).

Sorry, I didn't notice his reply. That's my mistake.

> You had a month while Mike delayed glibc-2.16 stable, among other things
> because of boost-1.50, and you did _squat_ to handle it. So it's time
> that people who've been there before step up and fix it the way that it
> has to be fixed.

Is this something like 'people didn't fix issues yet, so let's throw
the issues at users to motivate them'?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/boost: boost-1.46.1-r1.ebuild metadata.xml boost-1.49.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.51.0-r1.ebuild ChangeLog boost-1.47.0.ebuild boost-1.35.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.47.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.39.0.ebuild boost-1.50.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.42.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.51.0.ebuild boost-1.37.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.42.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.50.0.ebuild boost-1.48.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.42.0.ebuild boost-1.35.0-r5.ebuild boost-1.41.0-r3.ebuild boost-1.45.0.ebuild

[Markos Chandras]

On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> And even if that, you have no right to remove maintainers
> from a package or unCC them from bugs just because you don't like them
> or disagree with their opinion. Especially that you are not
> a maintainer of this package.
>

To be honest, I also don't understand why Diego removed the
maintainers from metadata.xml
as these people are the real maintainers. cpp@ (as a group) hasn't
touched boost for years.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2