[gentoo-dev] Package removal without proper last-riting

[gentoo-dev] Package removal without proper last-riting

[Manuel Rüger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 849 bytes --]

Hi,

I recently noticed it twice, that it seems to be common practice to
remove a package without using the methods described in [1], but just
dropping it from cvs.

From my observations packages removed without last-rites could be
characterized by this:

- it was a dependency of another package
- this package dropped / incorporated the dependency
- no other packages depend on it
- there are possible forks or updates, but maintainer doesn't care^W^W
has no interest

This might work for the main tree, but it won't for overlays, that might
also depend on these packages (because they have a patched / older
version of your maintained package).

Please stop killing user experience or document this "feature" in [1].

Best regards,

Manuel

[1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/ebuild-maintenance/index.html


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1031 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package removal without proper last-riting

[Sergey Popov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1189 bytes --]

11.11.2013 13:32, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I recently noticed it twice, that it seems to be common practice to
> remove a package without using the methods described in [1], but just
> dropping it from cvs.
> 
> From my observations packages removed without last-rites could be
> characterized by this:
> 
> - it was a dependency of another package
> - this package dropped / incorporated the dependency
> - no other packages depend on it
> - there are possible forks or updates, but maintainer doesn't care^W^W
> has no interest

+1, this should be documented IMO. I last-rite
games-strategy/seven-kingdoms-data recently without sending notice,
cause last versions of games-strategy/seven-kingdoms includes all of
it's data.

> This might work for the main tree, but it won't for overlays, that might
> also depend on these packages (because they have a patched / older
> version of your maintained package).

We are trying not to break overlays, but we also can not guarantee full
support for them.

-- 
Best regards, Sergey Popov
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead
Gentoo Qt project lead
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 555 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package removal without proper last-riting

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1499 bytes --]

Dnia 2013-11-11, o godz. 13:38:56
Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> 11.11.2013 13:32, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I recently noticed it twice, that it seems to be common practice to
> > remove a package without using the methods described in [1], but just
> > dropping it from cvs.
> > 
> > From my observations packages removed without last-rites could be
> > characterized by this:
> > 
> > - it was a dependency of another package
> > - this package dropped / incorporated the dependency
> > - no other packages depend on it
> > - there are possible forks or updates, but maintainer doesn't care^W^W
> > has no interest
> 
> +1, this should be documented IMO. I last-rite
> games-strategy/seven-kingdoms-data recently without sending notice,
> cause last versions of games-strategy/seven-kingdoms includes all of
> it's data.

How hard would it be to send proper last rites for that package and add
it to package.mask explaining the move?

Silent removals do us no good. The only valid reason to remove
a package without lastriting it is when it is package-moved with proper
'updates' entry. However, that won't work for package merges, so
the usual lastriting procedure applies.

Overlays are just one of the potential issues. Another issue is users
who ended up with that package in @world. If it were masked, they would
know why they need to remove it. Now, they will just get awful blockers.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package removal without proper last-riting

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5123 bytes --]

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:47:30 +0100
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Silent removals do us no good.

(Disabled wrapping due to table size)

We get mails about these; so, we can enumerate them to tell those doing
it incorrectly to ensure that they correct their way of doing it. Since
there are multiple people involved, this is in no way a way to blame
them but rather to ensure we restore a sane way of doing it.

"+" means properly announced, "-" means unannounced and () is location;
proper assumes announcement in mask, dev and dev-announce.

The last month or so:

+dev-games/neoengine                       2013-10-03 04:39:14 creffett
+dev-games/neotools                        2013-10-03 13:37:49 creffett
+dev-python/pyme                           2013-10-05 18:40:23 mgorny
-net-irc/ezbounce (dev-only)               2013-10-12 12:01:50 pacho
-app-misc/gpsdrive (dev-only)              2013-10-12 12:02:26 pacho
-sys-fs/cdfs (dev-only)                    2013-10-12 12:04:00 pacho
+virtual/python-json                       2013-10-12 12:19:49 pacho
+dev-php/symfony                           2013-10-12 12:22:32 pacho
-dev-vcs/bzr-svn (mask-only)               2013-10-12 12:23:34 pacho
+dev-tex/natbib                            2013-10-12 20:15:11 dilfridge
-dev-db/edb (dev-only)                     2013-10-19 06:08:25 mr_bones_
-x11-plugins/yawmppp (dev-only)            2013-10-19 06:09:06 mr_bones_
-x11-plugins/mountapp (dev-only)           2013-10-19 06:09:07 mr_bones_
-net-p2p/lopster (dev-only)                2013-10-19 06:09:46 mr_bones_
-net-p2p/gnapster (dev-only)               2013-10-19 06:09:46 mr_bones_
-net-dialup/gcdial (dev-only)              2013-10-19 06:10:17 mr_bones_
-dev-embedded/xgpasm (dev-only)            2013-10-19 06:10:54 mr_bones_
-app-mobilephone/tsemgr (dev-only)         2013-10-19 06:11:21 mr_bones_
-app-dicts/babytrans (dev-only)            2013-10-19 06:12:29 mr_bones_
-app-dicts/babytrans-en (dev-only)         2013-10-19 06:12:29 mr_bones_
-app-dicts/babytrans-en2en (dev-only)      2013-10-19 06:12:29 mr_bones_
-app-dicts/babytrans-en2fre (dev-only)     2013-10-19 06:12:30 mr_bones_
-app-dicts/babytrans-en2ger (dev-only)     2013-10-19 06:12:30 mr_bones_
-app-dicts/babytrans-en2ita (dev-only)     2013-10-19 06:12:30 mr_bones_
-app-dicts/babytrans-en2pt (dev-only)      2013-10-19 06:12:30 mr_bones_
-app-dicts/babytrans-en2spa (dev-only)     2013-10-19 06:12:30 mr_bones_
+sys-firmware/amd-ucode                    2013-10-21 19:48:13 hwoarang
+virtual/pyparsing                         2013-10-22 15:42:19 mgorny
+net-news/raggle                           2013-10-29 03:48:16 mrueg
+app-office/tpp                            2013-10-29 03:49:10 mrueg
+dev-ruby/ncurses-ruby                     2013-10-29 03:50:27 mrueg
+dev-ruby/main                             2013-10-29 03:51:53 mrueg
+dev-ruby/rcov                             2013-10-29 03:52:19 mrueg
+dev-ruby/ruby-svg                         2013-10-29 03:52:53 mrueg
+dev-ruby/rqr                              2013-10-29 03:53:15 mrueg
+dev-ruby/heckle                           2013-10-29 03:53:39 mrueg
-x11-themes/qtcurve-qt4 (pkg-move)         2013-11-04 04:54:16 yngwin
-net-im/python-otr (pkg-move)              2013-11-09 18:10:16 hanno
-dev-games/gigi (mask-only)                2013-11-10 14:14:48 tomka
-games-strategy/seven-kingdoms-data (none) 2013-11-10 15:38:27 pinkbyte

Two interesting things to note here are that

 1) dev-only seems to be the main cause of lost announcements, which
    isn't that worry some as most of us still receive them but it would
    be nice for them to be in dev-announce as well;

 2) pkg-moves land up in removals, we might want to see if we can bring
    these under a separate list in the automatic script by hwoarang.

After all there seem to be no worrying removals in this set, which is good;
we might want to follow this up slightly more closely though.

We also get to see some timed out last rites that were not removed yet:

# Vicente Olivert Riera <vincent@gentoo.org> (08 Jul 2013)
# Fails to install. Maintainer suggested treeclean.
# Masked for removal in 30 days, bug #440670.
dev-java/pat-1.5.3

^ This is an interesting one, still exists in tree; not in package.mask
and also not in the ChangeLog of package.mask. What happened here?

# Justin Lecher <jlec@gentoo.org> (17 Jul 2013)
# superseeded by sci-biology/allpathslg
# Upstream wants anybody to move over
sci-biology/allpaths

# Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> (20 Sep 2013)
# on behalf of mozilla@gentoo.org
# Severely outdated, no interest in maintaining,
# only a matter of time before it breaks,
# major QA issues with newer versions
# See bug #442122 for discussion
# Masked for removal in 30 days
www-plugins/mozplugger

These persons were reminded on IRC.

-- 
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 --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package removal without proper last-riting

[Thomas Kahle]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 690 bytes --]

On 11/11/2013 01:51 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:47:30 +0100
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> -dev-games/gigi (mask-only)                2013-11-10 14:14:48 tomka

This was also "dev-only" not "mask-only":
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/88455/match=gigi

> Two interesting things to note here are that
> 
>  1) dev-only seems to be the main cause of lost announcements, which
>     isn't that worry some as most of us still receive them but it would
>     be nice for them to be in dev-announce as well;

I simply last-rite so seldom that I forgot that they go to dev-announce.

Cheers,
Thomas


-- 
Thomas Kahle


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 555 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package removal without proper last-riting

[Dustin C. Hatch]

On 11/11/2013 06:51, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:47:30 +0100
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Silent removals do us no good.
...
>
>   1) dev-only seems to be the main cause of lost announcements, which
>      isn't that worry some as most of us still receive them but it would
>      be nice for them to be in dev-announce as well;

This is actually the reason I subscribed to -dev in the first place. I 
started noticing that some packages I needed/used/used to use/etc. were 
being removed and I wanted to find out why. At first, I subscribed to 
-announce and -dev-announce, but I found that I still wasn't being notified.

I know overlays aren't officially supported, but the courtesy of 
announcing package removals, especially libraries, would be much 
appreciated. There have been times that a library I use for an internal 
project, for example, was removed without notice, forcing me to look at 
the CVS attic to find out why. More often than not, though, the commit 
message is simply "removed" or "clean up," which is just as unhelpful. 
While I have no problem copying stuff back out of the attic into a local 
overlay, it would be nice to prepare for that before something breaks.

Thank you,

-- 
♫Dustin
http://dustin.hatch.name/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package removal without proper last-riting

[Sergey Popov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1613 bytes --]

12.11.2013 03:55, Dustin C. Hatch пишет:
> On 11/11/2013 06:51, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:47:30 +0100
>> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Silent removals do us no good.
> ...
>>
>>   1) dev-only seems to be the main cause of lost announcements, which
>>      isn't that worry some as most of us still receive them but it would
>>      be nice for them to be in dev-announce as well;
> 
> This is actually the reason I subscribed to -dev in the first place. I
> started noticing that some packages I needed/used/used to use/etc. were
> being removed and I wanted to find out why. At first, I subscribed to
> -announce and -dev-announce, but I found that I still wasn't being
> notified.

And this is bad thing, cause IIRC devmanual says that such removals
should be sent to -dev-announce.

> I know overlays aren't officially supported, but the courtesy of
> announcing package removals, especially libraries, would be much
> appreciated. There have been times that a library I use for an internal
> project, for example, was removed without notice, forcing me to look at
> the CVS attic to find out why. More often than not, though, the commit
> message is simply "removed" or "clean up," which is just as unhelpful.
> While I have no problem copying stuff back out of the attic into a local
> overlay, it would be nice to prepare for that before something breaks.
> 
> Thank you,
> 


-- 
Best regards, Sergey Popov
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead
Gentoo Qt project lead
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 555 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Package removal without proper last-riting

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1525 bytes --]

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:32:55 +0100
Manuel Rüger <mrueg@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I recently noticed it twice, that it seems to be common practice to
> remove a package without using the methods described in [1], but just
> dropping it from cvs.
> 
> From my observations packages removed without last-rites could be
> characterized by this:
> 
> - it was a dependency of another package
> - this package dropped / incorporated the dependency
> - no other packages depend on it
> - there are possible forks or updates, but maintainer doesn't care^W^W
> has no interest
> 
> This might work for the main tree, but it won't for overlays, that might
> also depend on these packages (because they have a patched / older
> version of your maintained package).
> 
> Please stop killing user experience or document this "feature" in [1].
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Manuel
> 
> [1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/ebuild-maintenance/index.html

I wasn't aware last-riting had become general policy.  It was originally
started by the treecleaner team to give people time to object to
maintainer-needed removals, and others thought it was a good idea, but it was
always up to the discretion of the maintainer back then.

I'm not one of the offenders, just pointing out maybe some people missed the
policy change as I did.


-- 
Ryan Hill                        psn: dirtyepic_sk
   gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org

47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E  7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Package removal without proper last-riting

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 513 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I wasn't aware last-riting had become general policy.  It was originally
> started by the treecleaner team to give people time to object to
> maintainer-needed removals, and others thought it was a good idea, but it
> was
> always up to the discretion of the maintainer back then.
>

Last riting predates treecleaners by quite a bit.


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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1032 bytes --]