[gentoo-dev] proposal for consistency between {RUBY,PYTHON,PHP}_TARGETS

[gentoo-dev] proposal for consistency between {RUBY,PYTHON,PHP}_TARGETS

[Theo Chatzimichos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 388 bytes --]

Hello,

We currently have values like the following:
RUBY_TARGETS="ruby19"
PHP_TARGETS="php5-3"
PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7"

I find it confusing, and I would like to propose to keep the same style for all 
the above values. I personally prefer the ruby one.
Keep in mind that if the relevant teams decide to migrate to some other style, 
it needs an announcement and migration plan.

Theo

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal for consistency between {RUBY,PYTHON,PHP}_TARGETS

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 443 bytes --]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 15:30:07 +0100
Theo Chatzimichos <tampakrap@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> We currently have values like the following:
> RUBY_TARGETS="ruby19"
> PHP_TARGETS="php5-3"
> PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7"
> 
> I find it confusing, and I would like to propose to keep the same style for all 
> the above values. I personally prefer the ruby one.

What if ruby 1.10 is released?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal for consistency between {RUBY,PYTHON,PHP}_TARGETS

[Brian Dolbec]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 989 bytes --]

On Sat, 2012-11-24 at 15:30 +0100, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> We currently have values like the following:
> RUBY_TARGETS="ruby19"
> PHP_TARGETS="php5-3"
> PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7"
> 
> I find it confusing, and I would like to propose to keep the same style for all 
> the above values. I personally prefer the ruby one.
> Keep in mind that if the relevant teams decide to migrate to some other style, 
> it needs an announcement and migration plan.
> 
> Theo


+1 for the idea,

 but:

 I think format should be python2_7, a simple replace('_', '.') produces
the correct version string. If need be it can be extended to minor
versions
2_7_3 to get 2.7.3

For  ruby19,  split in the middle to get 1.9, but what about 110, is it
11.0 or 1.10.  

For php5-3, what happens if a future package has a digit as part of it's
name which is allowed and are in the tree.  It looks too much like php5
dash version 3
-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal for consistency between {RUBY,PYTHON,PHP}_TARGETS

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 592 bytes --]

On 24/11/2012 07:46, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> For  ruby19,  split in the middle to get 1.9, but what about 110, is it
> 11.0 or 1.10.  

Okay stop.

There's no 1.10.

There's 2.0 that's being developed for a long time.

And we're not going to change our scheme just because of some
theoretical corner case that has been proven not happening in our world.

Especially since we were the first (and not even with ruby-ng, the
syntax has been the same for years, starting with ruby16).

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


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 551 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal for consistency between {RUBY,PYTHON,PHP}_TARGETS

[Peter Stuge]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1892 bytes --]

Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 24/11/2012 07:46, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> > For  ruby19,  split in the middle to get 1.9, but what about 110, is it
> > 11.0 or 1.10.  
> 
> Okay stop.
> 
> There's no 1.10.
> 
> There's 2.0 that's being developed for a long time.
> 
> And we're not going to change our scheme just because of some
> theoretical corner case

Diego, remember the original point. It is obvious that a common
syntax is more coherent and thus easier for the world to understand.
Having that would be a good thing. It is also obvious that the ruby
syntax is problematic in the general case.


> Especially since we were the first

Who cares? I sure don't. For my systems I don't even care that the
various languages use different syntax, but for Gentoo as a whole I
care a lot more. Coherency creates a more professional impression
than incoherency, which helps Gentoo to be taken more seriously by
more individuals.

NIH bikeshedding - not so much.


Thise fierce syntax revolution could be taken one step further though
- although it might require a larger change. Look at the following:

PHP_TARGETS="php5-3"
RUBY_TARGETS="ruby19"
PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7"

Note the redundancy, which I'm not quite sure why we have at all..

Why not also eliminate the language name in one of the two places;
either in the variable name, or in the target name?

I think this looks rather pleasant, because it is quite obvious:

PHP_TARGETS="5.3 5.4"
RUBY_TARGETS="1.9"
PYTHON_TARGETS="2.7"

But maybe it would be too problematic?

The point of weak separation between package name and version was
made. "python2_7" and "ruby19" are both valid package names. If this
is going to change now to become coherent (I think that would be good
for Gentoo, even if it is a small thing) then may as well try to take
that redundancy out.


//Peter

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal for consistency between {RUBY,PYTHON,PHP}_TARGETS

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

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

On 24/11/2012 10:19, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Diego, remember the original point. It is obvious that a common
> syntax is more coherent and thus easier for the world to understand.
> Having that would be a good thing. It is also obvious that the ruby
> syntax is problematic in the general case.

And the Ruby syntax has been devised to suit the _installed commands_
for the most part: ruby18 and ruby19 are _the commands you run_.

We're not going to change it just because. So stop trying to use us as
an example.

Thank you very much,
-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flameeyes@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 551 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal for consistency between {RUBY,PYTHON,PHP}_TARGETS

[Mike Gilbert]

On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
<flameeyes@flameeyes.eu> wrote:
> On 24/11/2012 10:19, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> Diego, remember the original point. It is obvious that a common
>> syntax is more coherent and thus easier for the world to understand.
>> Having that would be a good thing. It is also obvious that the ruby
>> syntax is problematic in the general case.
>
> And the Ruby syntax has been devised to suit the _installed commands_
> for the most part: ruby18 and ruby19 are _the commands you run_.
>

Makes sense to me.

We are (almost) doing the same for python, but we can't have periods
in USE flag names. The underscore is a convenient replacement.

I suppose we could use a hyphen like php does, but I don't think it is
worth the effort at this point.

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal for consistency between {RUBY,PYTHON,PHP}_TARGETS

[Peter Stuge]

Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
> > PHP_TARGETS="5.3 5.4"
> > RUBY_TARGETS="1.9"
> > PYTHON_TARGETS="2.7"
> > 
> > But maybe it would be too problematic?
> 
> What will you do with PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_2 pypy1_9
> jython2_5" then?

That's an excellent point. Thanks!

Thinking out loud another round: _TARGETS is an interface by Gentoo,
so maybe it would not be such a bad idea to use existing Gentoo
identifiers there, ie. (a subset of?) PMS version specifications.


Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > the ruby syntax is problematic in the general case.
> 
> And the Ruby syntax has been devised to suit the _installed commands_
> for the most part: ruby18 and ruby19 are _the commands you run_.

This discussion is not about how wise the RUBY_TARGETS syntax is for
ruby, it is about if it would be possible to find and use a common
syntax for all languages, to make a more consistent Gentoo interface.


> We're not going to change it just because.

Sorry, what do you mean by "just because" ?

I guess that you agree that being consistent and coherent helps
acceptance, and that increasing Gentoo acceptance is desirable?

If not that's fine, but please say so in that case? It's not clear
to me why you are defensive rather than discussing merits of the
change and possibilities for a general syntax. :\


Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > ruby18 and ruby19 are _the commands you run_.
> 
> Makes sense to me.

Look at the bigger picture. If the same process does not happen to
work for all languages (I think unlikely) then in order for Gentoo
to be consistent it would need a thicker layer for this task than
refering to the commands.


> We are (almost) doing the same for python, but we can't have periods
> in USE flag names. The underscore is a convenient replacement.

Inconsistent names are inconsistent.. The underscore replacement is
confusing, without deep insight into how all these target atoms end
up being converted to USE flags, and I also don't think it's obvious
that USE flags aren't allowed to contain periods.


> I suppose we could use a hyphen like php does, but I don't think it
> is worth the effort at this point.

I think it would absolutely be worth the effort for everyone to
change to a common, consistent, coherent, obvious syntax, as proposed
in this thread, because even though it may be seen as a small thing
it will only become more relevant with more languages and packages,
and being consistent and coherent would allow Gentoo to make an even
better impression. I would like that.

The only way to succeed is if everyone who would effect the change
actually wants to do it, e.g. because they also think that it would
benefit Gentoo.

Diego seems to be very protective in general of "his" packages, and
he doesn't seem to want to change this, so I guess that this improvement
is impossible, if he is the ultimate decision maker for ruby in Gentoo,
but I'm not sure about any of that - please do clarify.


Thanks!


//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal for consistency between {RUBY,PYTHON,PHP}_TARGETS

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

On 24/11/2012 11:20, Peter Stuge wrote:
> This discussion is not about how wise the RUBY_TARGETS syntax is for
> ruby, it is about if it would be possible to find and use a common
> syntax for all languages, to make a more consistent Gentoo interface.

Pffft...

>> We're not going to change it just because.
> 
> Sorry, what do you mean by "just because" ?
> 
> I guess that you agree that being consistent and coherent helps
> acceptance, and that increasing Gentoo acceptance is desirable?

No. Being consistently stupid is not a good reason to be consistent.

And since as I said the RUBY_TARGETS interface is designed to be _usable
by Ruby developers_, being consistent and breaking that, is not
something I would care about.

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: proposal for consistency between {RUBY,PYTHON,PHP}_TARGETS

[Nicolas Sebrecht]

The 24/11/12, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:

> No. Being consistently stupid is not a good reason to be consistent.

Stop being fallacious, please.

> And since as I said the RUBY_TARGETS interface is designed to be _usable
> by Ruby developers_, being consistent and breaking that, is not
> something I would care about.

The request is for Gentoo administration. So, talking about developers
of a language is not the question. 

I am a ruby developer and having ruby18 or ruby_1_8 is not much a
problem. There are a lot of package names not matching a command name
and it's not a problem either.

Talking of ruby developers when it comes to Gentoo admins is wrong.

-- 
Nicolas Sebrecht

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: proposal for consistency between {RUBY,PYTHON,PHP}_TARGETS

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

On 26/11/2012 00:20, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> The request is for Gentoo administration. So, talking about developers
> of a language is not the question. 

"Gentoo administration"? What on earth would that be?

> I am a ruby developer and having ruby18 or ruby_1_8 is not much a
> problem. There are a lot of package names not matching a command name
> and it's not a problem either.

It is a problem if that means having to change hundres of packages,
three eclasses, and every developer's configuration.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal for consistency between {RUBY,PYTHON,PHP}_TARGETS

[Peter Stuge]

Peter Stuge wrote:
> Thinking out loud another round: _TARGETS is an interface by Gentoo,
> so maybe it would not be such a bad idea to use existing Gentoo
> identifiers there, ie. (a subset of?) PMS version specifications.

Including the package name. This would also make the UX change
smaller, but it would still require changes on the inside, because
I guess those atoms don't fit into USE flags.

To spell it out, the _TARGETS would need a little bit of separate
infrastructure, but not much, just enough to let them use actual
version specifiers, which would go through version comparison as
expected. (I.e. even if I have python-2.7.3-r2 installed I can still
say something like TARGETS="python-2.7".)


//Peter

[gentoo-dev] Re: proposal for consistency between {RUBY,PYTHON,PHP}_TARGETS

[Duncan]

Peter Stuge posted on Sat, 24 Nov 2012 20:20:27 +0100 as excerpted:

> Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
>>> PHP_TARGETS="5.3 5.4"
>>> RUBY_TARGETS="1.9"
>>> PYTHON_TARGETS="2.7"
>>> 
>>> But maybe it would be too problematic?
>> 
>> What will you do with PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_2 pypy1_9
>> jython2_5" then?
> 
> That's an excellent point. Thanks!
> 
> Thinking out loud another round: _TARGETS is an interface by Gentoo,
> so maybe it would not be such a bad idea to use existing Gentoo
> identifiers there, ie. (a subset of?) PMS version specifications.

On the net-nntp/pan upstream (which I've been involved with for about a 
decade now), but I'm sure it's not original to pan, wishlist bugs that 
would be nice to fix "someday", maybe when all the other bugs are fixed, 
or if someone profiles all the patches, does a bunch of testing, etc... 
these sorts of wishlist bugs are set to milestone target "bluesky".

IMO, that's exactly what this is, a "target bluesky" wishlist item.  
Except here it's worse, because the change will be very end-user visible, 
requiring configuration adjustments on running/working systems, for 
little reason, and unlike someone providing patches, someone can't 
reasonably volunteer to go around and fix everyone's systems for them.

Yes, it'd be nice to have consistent *_TARGETS values.  But IMO it's a 
whole lot of potentially bug triggering work on packages that are working 
just fine as they are, for comparatively little gain.  What's worse is 
that these changes will require end-user configuration changes.  So 
people aren't impressed with the inconsistency.  They'll be far LESS 
impressed if things break due to bugs, and I know a lot of former 
gentooers who already complain about both that, and about the need for 
constant attention to config changes, reading news and the various elog 
style notifications and jumping thru the necessary hoops to keep things 
working, etc.  We don't need MORE of those hoops to jump thru, and at 
this point, I just don't see that it's worth it.  Rather, it's almost at 
the level of change for change' sake, or at least, it's sure going to 
look like that to the users having to adjust their *_TARGETS vars.  
That's far less impressive than a bit of inter-package *_TARGETS 
inconsistency.

So like someone suggested in an earlier thread on simply changing some 
name or other, I take it if we're discussing this, all the REAL bugs are 
already fixed and there's nothing else more important left to do, right?  
Because that's about the point at which I think we should be focusing on 
things like this.

Just MHO, no more, no less.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal for consistency between {RUBY,PYTHON,PHP}_TARGETS

[Ole Markus With]

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

On 24/11/12 19:46, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò 
> <flameeyes@flameeyes.eu> wrote:
>> On 24/11/2012 10:19, Peter Stuge wrote:
>>> Diego, remember the original point. It is obvious that a
>>> common syntax is more coherent and thus easier for the world to
>>> understand. Having that would be a good thing. It is also
>>> obvious that the ruby syntax is problematic in the general
>>> case.
>> 
>> And the Ruby syntax has been devised to suit the _installed
>> commands_ for the most part: ruby18 and ruby19 are _the commands
>> you run_.
>> 
> 
> I suppose we could use a hyphen like php does, but I don't think it
> is worth the effort at this point.
> 

I would not mind changing to underscore if people really think
it is worth the effort. It will certainly take some time to implement
though.

Maybe I could change the currently masked php5-5 slot to php5_5 instead
and then eventually phase our the hyphen based slots. This would mean
inconsistency between the php slots for some time, but eventual
consistency with Python, which I do see as a good thing.

- -- 
Ole Markus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQsSS3AAoJEGurSuXEqSv14NIIAJtc6nbIIL504IZ8Vn77xaRC
GQKRXRU2LUs3JbTTsedugad7XmuLvy/QRkwk+b5RDJFawXQAR0RhMi4H34mLw3fZ
Am1uB34DuPWk4b+WvOfbxJdGH1wD73MemZBUr483K7RO2ejNmbEial3zhXlZGyKQ
UAQ/X25/YAjQDJutXxbvA+q3oHaxGWYooTxniRYpQxszFmGeWefprUQT2ygCyO3h
sxfyCapYx9/e2cuAVEuqddk6sqg2zqJI8TpzXWuAoetlZxbrfdhnXaGPrpnir7yc
Zlqqtlk50Fac4d++gTbVen7Hz+eBOCQJQ7lkf6AWVBpI/vqKLlAoV0erDroOrwg=
=CCx/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal for consistency between {RUBY,PYTHON,PHP}_TARGETS

[Peter Stuge]

Ole Markus With wrote:
> Maybe I could change the currently masked php5-5 slot to php5_5 instead
> and then eventually phase our the hyphen based slots. This would mean
> inconsistency between the php slots for some time, but eventual
> consistency with Python, which I do see as a good thing.

I think that's a good idea. Go for it.


Duncan wrote:
> these changes will require end-user configuration changes.

I don't know if it's neccessary to make a change overnight. I think
the gradual approach is fine, even if it will take a bit of time to
reach the sky.


> I know a lot of former gentooers who already complain about both
> that, and about the need for constant attention to config changes

I would never update a package unless I actually wanted to update it.


//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal for consistency between {RUBY,PYTHON,PHP}_TARGETS

[Jauhien Piatlicki]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 660 bytes --]

24.11.12 19:19, Peter Stuge написав(ла):
> Look at the following:
> 
> PHP_TARGETS="php5-3"
> RUBY_TARGETS="ruby19"
> PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7"
> 
> Note the redundancy, which I'm not quite sure why we have at all..
> 
> Why not also eliminate the language name in one of the two places;
> either in the variable name, or in the target name?
> 
> I think this looks rather pleasant, because it is quite obvious:
> 
> PHP_TARGETS="5.3 5.4"
> RUBY_TARGETS="1.9"
> PYTHON_TARGETS="2.7"
> 
> But maybe it would be too problematic?

What will you do with PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_2 pypy1_9
jython2_5" then?

Jauhien




[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 897 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal for consistency between {RUBY,PYTHON,PHP}_TARGETS

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 767 bytes --]

On 24/11/2012 10:40, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
> What will you do with PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_2 pypy1_9
> jython2_5" then?

That's another good point. And since Ruby has been brought up before,
let's not forget that we're not really slotting just for the sake of it
most of the time.

JRuby is not slotted at all and there are no plans to slot it.

Ruby Enterprise was supposed to be slotted but it's going to be removed
instead.

Rubinius is its own implementation and is also not slotted.

The two that are not slotted, don't have version suffix either, and we
don't plan to add them just because.

So, once again, please leave us alone.

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


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 551 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal for consistency between {RUBY,PYTHON,PHP}_TARGETS

[Brian Dolbec]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1427 bytes --]

On Sat, 2012-11-24 at 08:07 -0800, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 24/11/2012 07:46, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> > For  ruby19,  split in the middle to get 1.9, but what about 110, is it
> > 11.0 or 1.10.  
> 
> Okay stop.
> 
> There's no 1.10.
> 
> There's 2.0 that's being developed for a long time.
> 
> And we're not going to change our scheme just because of some
> theoretical corner case that has been proven not happening in our world.
> 
> Especially since we were the first (and not even with ruby-ng, the
> syntax has been the same for years, starting with ruby16).
> 

Sorry, I didn't mean/intend to pick on ruby.  I personally don't use it,
nor do I have RUBY_TARGETS, or PHP_TARGETS set.  I was just trying to
point out a possible flaw in using that scheme as a common method of
specifying versions in all those variables, or any future *_TARGETS type
variable.

ok, then please substitute "foo" for any ruby, python, php references in
my previuos post...

If we are going to come up with a common way of doing it, we will need
to consider such a "corner case" so that we have as few exceptions to
the rule as possible.  Unlike the English language that I think too
often has more exceptions to the rule than ones that actually follow the
rule :/

It was not my intention to start yet ANOTHER -dev mail list flame war!
My apologies to the list.
-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal for consistency between {RUBY,PYTHON,PHP}_TARGETS

[hasufell]

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

On 11/24/2012 03:30 PM, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> We currently have values like the following: RUBY_TARGETS="ruby19" 
> PHP_TARGETS="php5-3" PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7"
> 
> I find it confusing, and I would like to propose to keep the same
> style for all the above values. I personally prefer the ruby one. 
> Keep in mind that if the relevant teams decide to migrate to some
> other style, it needs an announcement and migration plan.
> 

I don't find it confusing and I don't care, so I think it's useless
work to migrate to one or another.

There are far worse things to fix like the required_use messages
confusing users every day if you read #gentoo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQsfb/AAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzDUoH/29pWD/m5wbuVOhyDciPfP6i
sZ0OOT8JtlaysTnbSQrduGETYiZp29fTy7ZTOZkrYEuTZzfc3ozHeMm+aG1kvIjs
sWqzWVPFmyRcvO8srZvW3PnWWn2Dirrn4gPw64hUFmOvUR+PFoFSFVDfy/SrY7WG
jKaiN5m79KBj76Edd13tYTvAxTjSeSy4Ad0SH0IxcLhGPZQ8R39sGrYpPTLTAHMx
aEITq7FChQZqs/fdjBLkoOurYiDgTbbD1X+0+5E8pGXyb0/trJOkDpTyE5EPgfTa
W6IUKOj6obFGWPMDH71kFtv7l/u8ryxFIre9m+kSyh2/pC9awSTt0LMLv4oUtQg=
=p+nO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----