[gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[Maxim Koltsov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 346 bytes --]

Hi,
Currently there are 61 leechcraft packages in tree scattered across several
categories. We propose to move them to one new category to make maintaining
easy as well as rsync --exclude'ing.
So, two questions:
1) Do you agree with adding new category?
2) How should we call it: app-leechcraft, leechcraft-base or anything else?

Thanks,
Maxim.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 489 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[Georg Rudoy]

2013/3/6 Maxim Koltsov <maksbotan@gentoo.org>:
> 1) Do you agree with adding new category?
Yep :)

> 2) How should we call it: app-leechcraft, leechcraft-base or anything else?
Personally I'd prefer app-leechcraft (or maybe app-lc to save some
typing). I doubt there will be anything but that single category in
the foreseeable future, and leechcraft-base suggests also something
like leechcraft-addons.

-- 
  Georg Rudoy
  LeechCraft — http://leechcraft.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

On 06/03/2013 08:07, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> 1) Do you agree with adding new category?

Not really... are you going to add any more packages?

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[Georg Rudoy]

2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@flameeyes.eu>:
> On 06/03/2013 08:07, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
>> 1) Do you agree with adding new category?
>
> Not really... are you going to add any more packages?

Yes, definitely.

-- 
  Georg Rudoy
  LeechCraft — http://leechcraft.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[Maxim Koltsov]

2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@flameeyes.eu>
>
> On 06/03/2013 08:07, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> > 1) Do you agree with adding new category?
>
> Not really... are you going to add any more packages?

It's very probable, yes. Also I think 60 packages is quite big number,
as we have many categories with 20 or even less packages.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

On 06/03/2013 10:15, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> It's very probable, yes. Also I think 60 packages is quite big number,
> as we have many categories with 20 or even less packages.
> 

The fact that we made mistakes in the past does not justify making more
mistakes.

How many more are you expecting? (and the answer "many!" is not going to
fly, if anything would make me more convinced we shouldn't do this).

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Maxim Koltsov <maksbotan@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Not really... are you going to add any more packages?
>
> It's very probable, yes. Also I think 60 packages is quite big number,
> as we have many categories with 20 or even less packages.

It's not *just* the number of packages. I, for one, had never even
heard of it except via your email to this list. And having looked at
the site, I don't really see why people would want to use it, anyway.
Not that you have to explain it, but that leads me to wonder if (a)
there are other Gentoo devs who would maintain this stuff if you
become disinterested, and (b) how many users there even are for
LeechCraft-related packages.

FWIW, in Debian's popcon, there seems to be about 6 users who have
LeechCraft installed (which ranks it slightly south of 70,000th).

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[Georg Rudoy]

2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@flameeyes.eu>:
> How many more are you expecting?

Six components are ready to be packaged in the nearest future, four
are being developed, and there are plans for, well, like a dozen more.

Also, keeping stuff in one category allows splitting several huge
ebuilds like leechcraft-azoth into more smaller ones. Each use flag
there is basically a separate plugin, and as plugins could be built
separately, there is no need in recompiling all of them just to
install/uninstall/etc a single one. That single azoth thingie adds
around 30 more packages.

-- 
  Georg Rudoy
  LeechCraft — http://leechcraft.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[Ben de Groot]

On 6 March 2013 15:07, Maxim Koltsov <maksbotan@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> Currently there are 61 leechcraft packages in tree scattered across several
> categories. We propose to move them to one new category to make maintaining
> easy as well as rsync --exclude'ing.
> So, two questions:
> 1) Do you agree with adding new category?

I don't see why not.

> 2) How should we call it: app-leechcraft, leechcraft-base or anything else?

Yes, something like that.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[George Shapovalov]

On Wednesday 06 March 2013 10:33:58 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> The fact that we made mistakes in the past does not justify making more
> mistakes.
Um, what are you talking about, too many categories? 
I am afraid, there is no "fix" in the form of "lets not add any". Every 
commits summary message has at least 3x more added packages vs removed ones. 
This stuff has to go somewhere and some categories are becoming way overfilled 
I'd say. At the same time I do agree that the present flat list of super-sub 
categories is not scaling well either (OTOH it is still nicer than some of the 
200+ large categories of present). May be it is time to scratch the flat list 
of categories and finally go into a full tree mode?
I.e.:
app-* =>
app/accessibility
     /admin
etc,
and subdivide where necessary? (e.g. app/admin/eselect/ would be just one such  
beneficiary).

Just a thought..

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[Georg Rudoy]

2013/3/6 Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@gentoo.org>:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Maxim Koltsov <maksbotan@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Not that you have to explain it, but that leads me to wonder if (a)
> there are other Gentoo devs who would maintain this stuff if you
> become disinterested
Yep, Pinkbyte is also co-maintaining, and in case of something
terrible I could try becoming a maintainer, since I'm also a long-time
Gentoo user :)

(b) how many users there even are for LeechCraft-related packages.
Summer estimates are around 10k more or less permanent users.

> FWIW, in Debian's popcon, there seems to be about 6 users who have
> LeechCraft installed (which ranks it slightly south of 70,000th).
Debian's popcon is slightly irrelevant as LC isn't available in Debian repos.

--
  Georg Rudoy
  LeechCraft — http://leechcraft.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

On 06/03/2013 13:04, George Shapovalov wrote:
> I am afraid, there is no "fix" in the form of "lets not add any". Every 
> commits summary message has at least 3x more added packages vs removed ones. 

I'm just saying that I wouldn't want to create a category for ten
packages. If we're talking ~100 I'm fine with it.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
<flameeyes@flameeyes.eu> wrote:
>
> I'm just saying that I wouldn't want to create a category for ten
> packages. If we're talking ~100 I'm fine with it.

Can't say I'm likely to be a leechcraft user, but the original
proposal indicated they were up to 60 now, and had at least 10-20 more
in the works.  I don't think a category is unreasonable, and if at
some point in time popularity wanes and it needs treecleaning it makes
the whole task that much easier...

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

On 06/03/2013 15:23, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Can't say I'm likely to be a leechcraft user, but the original
> proposal indicated they were up to 60 now, and had at least 10-20 more
> in the works.  I don't think a category is unreasonable, and if at
> some point in time popularity wanes and it needs treecleaning it makes
> the whole task that much easier...

I would have said no for 61 (as I would have expected them to wane, as
you said) — for 100 I'm fine, if that's happening.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[Maxim Koltsov]

2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@flameeyes.eu>:
> On 06/03/2013 15:23, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Can't say I'm likely to be a leechcraft user, but the original
>> proposal indicated they were up to 60 now, and had at least 10-20 more
>> in the works.  I don't think a category is unreasonable, and if at
>> some point in time popularity wanes and it needs treecleaning it makes
>> the whole task that much easier...
>
> I would have said no for 61 (as I would have expected them to wane, as
> you said) — for 100 I'm fine, if that's happening.

So, what have we decided? I'm pretty sure it'll go up to 100 quite soon.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[Markos Chandras]

On 6 March 2013 15:12, Maxim Koltsov <maksbotan@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@flameeyes.eu>:
>> On 06/03/2013 15:23, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> Can't say I'm likely to be a leechcraft user, but the original
>>> proposal indicated they were up to 60 now, and had at least 10-20 more
>>> in the works.  I don't think a category is unreasonable, and if at
>>> some point in time popularity wanes and it needs treecleaning it makes
>>> the whole task that much easier...
>>
>> I would have said no for 61 (as I would have expected them to wane, as
>> you said) — for 100 I'm fine, if that's happening.
>
> So, what have we decided? I'm pretty sure it'll go up to 100 quite soon.
>
>> --
>> Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
>> flameeyes@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
>>
>

I have no problem with the new category. We recently created a new
category for the Qt packages which has around 20 packages in it, so I
am not sure why Diego wants more than 100 packages for the new
category.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

On 06/03/2013 16:19, Markos Chandras wrote:
> I have no problem with the new category. We recently created a new
> category for the Qt packages which has around 20 packages in it, so I
> am not sure why Diego wants more than 100 packages for the new
> category.

I wasn't too happy about that either, if you remember.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

On 06/03/2013 16:12, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> So, what have we decided? I'm pretty sure it'll go up to 100 quite soon.

Then go for it. I'd suggest just app-leechcraft

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[Maxim Koltsov]

2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@flameeyes.eu>:
> On 06/03/2013 16:12, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
>> So, what have we decided? I'm pretty sure it'll go up to 100 quite soon.
>
> Then go for it. I'd suggest just app-leechcraft

Thanks. Do i have to do anything more that add it to
profiles/categories and mkdir?

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



-- 
Regards, Maxim.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[Tom Wijsman]

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

On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 20:05:51 +0400
Maxim Koltsov <maksbotan@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@flameeyes.eu>:
> > On 06/03/2013 16:12, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> >> So, what have we decided? I'm pretty sure it'll go up to 100 quite
> >> soon.
> >
> > Then go for it. I'd suggest just app-leechcraft
> 
> Thanks. Do i have to do anything more that add it to
> profiles/categories and mkdir?
> 
> > --
> > Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
> > flameeyes@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
> >
> 
> 
> 

No, just make sure it is a separate commit according to
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/profiles/categories/index.html.

As for moving packages, don't forget to do this as well:

Grep the entire Portage tree to correct files that block / depend on
it, correct profile files that list it and also specify `move oldcat/oldpkg
newcat/newpkg` instructions in the profiles/updates directory according
to http://devmanual.gentoo.org/profiles/updates/index.html.


With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New category for LeechCraft

[Michael Palimaka]

Hi,

On 6/03/2013 18:07, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> Hi,
> Currently there are 61 leechcraft packages in tree scattered across
> several categories. We propose to move them to one new category to make
> maintaining easy as well as rsync --exclude'ing.
> So, two questions:
> 1) Do you agree with adding new category?
+1

> 2) How should we call it: app-leechcraft, leechcraft-base or anything else?
app-leechcraft sounds fine. I agree with what was mentioned in another 
post that leechcraft-base implies some other leechcraft category with extras

>
> Thanks,
> Maxim.

Best regards,
Michael