[gentoo-dev] RFC: News item for net-firewall/shorewall all-in-one package migration

[gentoo-dev] RFC: News item for net-firewall/shorewall all-in-one package migration

[Thomas D.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6178 bytes --]

Hi,

some of you maybe know or already have noticed that the
net-firewall/shorewall* ebuilds were re-integrated into a new all-in-one
ebuild for easier maintenance.

The package is proxy-maintained.

While preparing the new ebuild I discussed with the proxy-maint team and
shorewall users if we should create a news item for that change.
Most people participating in the discussion thought that emerge's error
message like

> # emerge -p --update net-firewall/shorewall::gentoo
> 
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> 
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [ebuild     U  ] net-firewall/shorewall-4.6.6.2::gentoo [4.5.21.10-r1::gentoo] USE="doc init%* ipv4%* ipv6%* lite4%* -lite6%" 0 KiB
> [blocks B      ] net-firewall/shorewall-init ("net-firewall/shorewall-init" is blocking net-firewall/shorewall-4.6.6.2)
> [blocks B      ] net-firewall/shorewall-core ("net-firewall/shorewall-core" is blocking net-firewall/shorewall-4.6.6.2)
> 
> Total: 1 package (1 upgrade), Size of downloads: 0 KiB
> Conflict: 2 blocks (2 unsatisfied)
> 
> !!! Multiple package instances within a single package slot have been pulled
> !!! into the dependency graph, resulting in a slot conflict:
> 
> net-firewall/shorewall:0
> 
>   (net-firewall/shorewall-4.6.6.2:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
>     net-firewall/shorewall::gentoo (Argument)
> 
>   (net-firewall/shorewall-4.5.21.10-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
>     =net-firewall/shorewall-4.5.21.10-r1 required by (net-firewall/shorewall-init-4.5.21.10-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed)
>     ^                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> It may be possible to solve this problem by using package.mask to
> prevent one of those packages from being selected. However, it is also
> possible that conflicting dependencies exist such that they are
> impossible to satisfy simultaneously.  If such a conflict exists in
> the dependencies of two different packages, then those packages can
> not be installed simultaneously. You may want to try a larger value of
> the --backtrack option, such as --backtrack=30, in order to see if
> that will solve this conflict automatically.
> 
> For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man
> page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.
> 
> 
>  * Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot be
>  * installed at the same time on the same system.
> 
>   (net-firewall/shorewall-init-4.5.21.10-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
>     net-firewall/shorewall-init required by @selected
> 
>   (net-firewall/shorewall-core-4.5.21.10-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
>     =net-firewall/shorewall-core-4.5.21.10-r1 required by (net-firewall/shorewall-4.5.21.10-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed)
> 
> 
> For more information about Blocked Packages, please refer to the following
> section of the Gentoo Linux x86 Handbook (architecture is irrelevant):
> 
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Handbook:X86/Working/Portage#Blocked_packages

should be clear enough for everyone.


Well, it turns out that not everyone understands the merge conflict and
knows what to do. Multiple users filled bugs and requested a news item,
two recent examples:

- https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=544216#c2
- https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=539664#c2


As proxy-maintainer I changed my mind today and created a news item.
Mostly because it doesn't hurt anyone (no negative impact). It only
helps people who don't know what to do... and why shouldn't we help if
we can?

Please review my proposal below:

Just a few notes to explain my choice of words:

1) The news item will tell the user what has changed and why this change
   was made. Interested users can read the bug report for further
   information.

2) The given emerge command should work on all systems for every user.
   No need to check which package in detail they need to remove.
   No error messages like
     "--- Couldn't find 'net-firewall/shorewall-lite' to unmerge."
   because they didn't have shorewall-lite installed.

3) The last paragraph should indicate that the new shorewall ebuild is
   "stable" and that they don't have to react immediately but within the
   next 30-60 days if they don't want to upgrade now.


===========================================================================
Title: New net-firewall/shorewall all-in-one package
Author: Thomas D. <whissi@whissi.de>
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2015-04-<to-be-set>
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: net-firewall/shorewall-core
Display-If-Installed: net-firewall/shorewall6
Display-If-Installed: net-firewall/shorewall-lite
Display-If-Installed: net-firewall/shorewall6-lite
Display-If-Installed: net-firewall/shorewall-init

Starting with net-firewall/shorewall-4.6 we have re-integrated

  - net-firewall/shorewall-core
  - net-firewall/shorewall6
  - net-firewall/shorewall-lite
  - net-firewall/shorewall6-lite
  - net-firewall/shorewall-init

into a new all-in-one net-firewall/shorewall ebuild (see bug 522278).

The new all-in-one ebuild makes maintenance a lot more easier because
the package is proxy-maintained and finding someone who is willing to
help you bumping 6 packages each time you provide an update was not easy
in the past.

Because net-firewall/shorewall{-core,6,-lite,6-lite,init} is now
integrated in net-firewall/shorewall, we have to hard mask these old
ebuilds in the new monolithic ebuild to prevent file collisions.

Due to this block we cannot migrate to the new version without user
interaction. Please remove the previous split ebuilds from your system
if you want to upgrade:

  $ emerge --ask --unmerge 'net-firewall/shorewall-*' \
            'net-firewall/shorewall6*'


Please note:
Since the second shorewall-4.6 ebuild is now stabilized and
shorewall-4.5 is not compatible with the perl-5.20 (see bug 524558) we
will start the removal process for shorewall-4.5 ebuilds within the next
30 days.
===========================================================================


-Thomas


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: News item for net-firewall/shorewall all-in-one package migration

[Daniel Campbell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 04/04/2015 01:09 PM, Thomas D. wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> some of you maybe know or already have noticed that the 
> net-firewall/shorewall* ebuilds were re-integrated into a new
> all-in-one ebuild for easier maintenance.
> 
> The package is proxy-maintained.
> 
> While preparing the new ebuild I discussed with the proxy-maint
> team and shorewall users if we should create a news item for that
> change. Most people participating in the discussion thought that
> emerge's error message like
> 
>> # emerge -p --update net-firewall/shorewall::gentoo
>> 
>> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
>> 
>> Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild     U  ]
>> net-firewall/shorewall-4.6.6.2::gentoo [4.5.21.10-r1::gentoo]
>> USE="doc init%* ipv4%* ipv6%* lite4%* -lite6%" 0 KiB [blocks B
>> ] net-firewall/shorewall-init ("net-firewall/shorewall-init" is
>> blocking net-firewall/shorewall-4.6.6.2) [blocks B      ]
>> net-firewall/shorewall-core ("net-firewall/shorewall-core" is
>> blocking net-firewall/shorewall-4.6.6.2)
>> 
>> Total: 1 package (1 upgrade), Size of downloads: 0 KiB Conflict:
>> 2 blocks (2 unsatisfied)
>> 
>> !!! Multiple package instances within a single package slot have
>> been pulled !!! into the dependency graph, resulting in a slot
>> conflict:
>> 
>> net-firewall/shorewall:0
>> 
>> (net-firewall/shorewall-4.6.6.2:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for
>> merge) pulled in by net-firewall/shorewall::gentoo (Argument)
>> 
>> (net-firewall/shorewall-4.5.21.10-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed)
>> pulled in by =net-firewall/shorewall-4.5.21.10-r1 required by
>> (net-firewall/shorewall-init-4.5.21.10-r1:0/0::gentoo,
>> installed) ^                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> 
>> It may be possible to solve this problem by using package.mask
>> to prevent one of those packages from being selected. However, it
>> is also possible that conflicting dependencies exist such that
>> they are impossible to satisfy simultaneously.  If such a
>> conflict exists in the dependencies of two different packages,
>> then those packages can not be installed simultaneously. You may
>> want to try a larger value of the --backtrack option, such as
>> --backtrack=30, in order to see if that will solve this conflict
>> automatically.
>> 
>> For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge
>> man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.
>> 
>> 
>> * Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot
>> be * installed at the same time on the same system.
>> 
>> (net-firewall/shorewall-init-4.5.21.10-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed)
>> pulled in by net-firewall/shorewall-init required by @selected
>> 
>> (net-firewall/shorewall-core-4.5.21.10-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed)
>> pulled in by =net-firewall/shorewall-core-4.5.21.10-r1 required
>> by (net-firewall/shorewall-4.5.21.10-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed)
>> 
>> 
>> For more information about Blocked Packages, please refer to the
>> following section of the Gentoo Linux x86 Handbook (architecture
>> is irrelevant):
>> 
>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Handbook:X86/Working/Portage#Blocked_packages
>
>> 
> should be clear enough for everyone.
> 
> 
> Well, it turns out that not everyone understands the merge conflict
> and knows what to do. Multiple users filled bugs and requested a
> news item, two recent examples:
> 
> - https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=544216#c2 -
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=539664#c2
> 
> 
> As proxy-maintainer I changed my mind today and created a news
> item. Mostly because it doesn't hurt anyone (no negative impact).
> It only helps people who don't know what to do... and why shouldn't
> we help if we can?
> 
> Please review my proposal below:
> 
> Just a few notes to explain my choice of words:
> 
> 1) The news item will tell the user what has changed and why this
> change was made. Interested users can read the bug report for
> further information.
> 
> 2) The given emerge command should work on all systems for every
> user. No need to check which package in detail they need to
> remove. No error messages like "--- Couldn't find
> 'net-firewall/shorewall-lite' to unmerge." because they didn't have
> shorewall-lite installed.
> 
> 3) The last paragraph should indicate that the new shorewall ebuild
> is "stable" and that they don't have to react immediately but
> within the next 30-60 days if they don't want to upgrade now.
> 
> 
> ===========================================================================
>
> 
Title: New net-firewall/shorewall all-in-one package
> Author: Thomas D. <whissi@whissi.de> Content-Type: text/plain 
> Posted: 2015-04-<to-be-set> Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 1.0 
> Display-If-Installed: net-firewall/shorewall-core 
> Display-If-Installed: net-firewall/shorewall6 Display-If-Installed:
> net-firewall/shorewall-lite Display-If-Installed:
> net-firewall/shorewall6-lite Display-If-Installed:
> net-firewall/shorewall-init
> 
> Starting with net-firewall/shorewall-4.6 we have re-integrated
> 
> - net-firewall/shorewall-core - net-firewall/shorewall6 -
> net-firewall/shorewall-lite - net-firewall/shorewall6-lite -
> net-firewall/shorewall-init
> 
> into a new all-in-one net-firewall/shorewall ebuild (see bug
> 522278).
> 
> The new all-in-one ebuild makes maintenance a lot more easier
> because the package is proxy-maintained and finding someone who is
> willing to help you bumping 6 packages each time you provide an
> update was not easy in the past.
> 
> Because net-firewall/shorewall{-core,6,-lite,6-lite,init} is now 
> integrated in net-firewall/shorewall, we have to hard mask these
> old ebuilds in the new monolithic ebuild to prevent file
> collisions.
> 
> Due to this block we cannot migrate to the new version without
> user interaction. Please remove the previous split ebuilds from
> your system if you want to upgrade:
> 
> $ emerge --ask --unmerge 'net-firewall/shorewall-*' \ 
> 'net-firewall/shorewall6*'
> 
> 
> Please note: Since the second shorewall-4.6 ebuild is now
> stabilized and shorewall-4.5 is not compatible with the perl-5.20
> (see bug 524558) we will start the removal process for
> shorewall-4.5 ebuilds within the next 30 days. 
> ===========================================================================
>
> 
> 
> -Thomas
> 

As someone who runs shorewall on a VPS, the news item would be really
helpful when I get around to updating the packages for it so I don't
miss the blockage. I'm not a dev (yet) but this seems sane to me.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVIGsDAAoJEJUrb08JgYgHAOoH/iOtw2eUqDf4IRn8AhHudWGq
tVTwZJX04lfLyo1dXImRMJHG4cmMebSpzKQ0BrxcIrjQHpyUeXqSx6ksfZUmd/C6
sQSvcQyBpNGB37TI80JR2ljF8P7DLtagZKlcqhkvPxehKIm1PbmVavGzbqeJWMs9
9d3bcYFfNGLEroBuiw40d6196IhweqHybVdk9brKnu6npsXnsikuAWE9WIk3t3+S
zi2LO4T2wQgUtY3cB6ugq6nWlqQaZLy7KyXNFHqG5mKPU2qDBtMdNKx7Eau7rvKR
JgwVkp00/Sha5JhH55mHhmJ7jEULOdS67OjdWSDkDVzuocXmZ5w9hE8xlsUl72s=
=+i33
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: News item for net-firewall/shorewall all-in-one package migration

[Duncan]

Thomas D. posted on Sat, 04 Apr 2015 22:09:36 +0200 as excerpted:

> Title: New net-firewall/shorewall all-in-one package

$ echo "New net-firewall/shorewall all-in-one package" | wc -c
46

The glep says the title must be 44 chars, max.  You're over by a couple 
chars.

Abbreviating "package" to "pkg" would do it... but to my eye/ear seems a 
bit less formal than desired.

What about:

net-firewall/shorewall now a single package


wc -c says 44. =:^)

But I'm not wedded to either idea; they're just what I came up with off 
the top of my head.  If someone has a better idea...


(FWIW I had a /terrible/ time finding that glep on the new website to 
double-check, and it's good I did as I thought it was 42, but that's a 
gripe for a new thread...)

-- 
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] Re: RFC: News item for net-firewall/shorewall all-in-one package migration

[Ian Delaney]

On Sun, 5 Apr 2015 04:12:17 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:

> Thomas D. posted on Sat, 04 Apr 2015 22:09:36 +0200 as excerpted:
> 
> > Title: New net-firewall/shorewall all-in-one package
> 
> 
> But I'm not wedded to either idea; they're just what I came up with
> off the top of my head.  If someone has a better idea...
> 
> 
> (FWIW I had a /terrible/ time finding that glep on the new website to 
> double-check, and it's good I did as I thought it was 42, but that's
> a gripe for a new thread...)
> 

It seems these keen folk ought be given support for a reasonable
idea with user support / desire and presented with due attention to
glep requirements.

-- 
kind regards

Ian Delaney

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: News item for net-firewall/shorewall all-in-one package migration

[Thomas D.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 323 bytes --]

Hi,

thank you all for the feedback.

I read through the news archive and most previous news items don't use
the package category in the title.

I'll propose

 > Title: shorewall is now a single package


I filled a bug for the news item request:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=546952


-Thomas


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]