[gentoo-dev] Lastrite: lince and slmodem

[gentoo-dev] Lastrite: lince and slmodem

[Samuli Suominen]

# Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> (01 Feb 2011)
# Masked for QA because the package has not been installable for an year
now.
# See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=302456
# Removal in 30 days
net-dialup/slmodem

# Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> (30 Jan 2011)
# Forces downgrade of rb_libtorrent that pulls in old slot
# of python. Fails to build with rb_libtorrent-0.15 series.
# And most likely will fail to build with libnotify-0.7.
# Bug 353238. Removal in 30 days.
net-p2p/lince

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: lince and slmodem

[Antoni Grzymala]

Samuli Suominen dixit (2011-02-01, 21:09):

> # Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> (01 Feb 2011)
> # Masked for QA because the package has not been installable for an year
> now.
> # See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=302456
> # Removal in 30 days
> net-dialup/slmodem

“Thanks Lech, works again! Now, can we get this update to portage
ASAP... please, Gentoo devs???”

-- 
[a]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: lince and slmodem

[Matt Turner]

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Antoni Grzymala <awaria@chopin.edu.pl> wrote:
> Samuli Suominen dixit (2011-02-01, 21:09):
>
>> # Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> (01 Feb 2011)
>> # Masked for QA because the package has not been installable for an year
>> now.
>> # See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=302456
>> # Removal in 30 days
>> net-dialup/slmodem
>
> “Thanks Lech, works again! Now, can we get this update to portage
> ASAP... please, Gentoo devs???”

There's an apparently working version in the bug report cited, but
you're still masking it for removal?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: lince and slmodem

[Samuli Suominen]

On 02/01/2011 11:08 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Antoni Grzymala <awaria@chopin.edu.pl> wrote:
>> Samuli Suominen dixit (2011-02-01, 21:09):
>>
>>> # Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> (01 Feb 2011)
>>> # Masked for QA because the package has not been installable for an year
>>> now.
>>> # See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=302456
>>> # Removal in 30 days
>>> net-dialup/slmodem
>>
>> “Thanks Lech, works again! Now, can we get this update to portage
>> ASAP... please, Gentoo devs???”
> 
> There's an apparently working version in the bug report cited, but
> you're still masking it for removal?
> 

You can't really expect me to take responsibility for a commit I can't
test.  It's better to have users picking up a working package from
upstream, than waste time on the 'crap' we have in tree.  So yes, I've
masked it for removal.

Feel free to pick it up and unmask it. Be sure to add yourself in
metadata.xml as this one seems to break with every second kernel version.

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: lince and slmodem

[Matt Turner]

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> You can't really expect me to take responsibility for a commit I can't
> test.

And I don't.

Maybe you did this already, but it seems like the amount of time spent
masking a package could have been spent poking whoever is supposed to
be maintaining it (Alin Năstac <mrness@gentoo.org>
). Admittedly, the last changes to the ebuild came 18 months ago...

Matt

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: lince and slmodem

[Jeremy Olexa]

On 02/01/2011 07:33 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Samuli Suominen<ssuominen@gentoo.org>  wrote:
>> You can't really expect me to take responsibility for a commit I can't
>> test.
>
> And I don't.
>
> Maybe you did this already, but it seems like the amount of time spent
> masking a package could have been spent poking whoever is supposed to
> be maintaining it (Alin Năstac<mrness@gentoo.org>
> ). Admittedly, the last changes to the ebuild came 18 months ago...
>
> Matt
>

Cmon Matt, a bug open for over 1 year with 12 comments is not enough 
poking for you? Alin is not _overly_ active with Gentoo[1][2] but he is 
active enough that he should have seen the bug reports, but apparently 
doesn't care. Now, at least 3 users care, so if someone could test 
it..that would be nice for their sake.

[1]: 
http://bugs.gentoo.org/custom_userhistory.cgi?matchstr=mrness@gentoo.org
[2]: http://cia.vc/stats/author/mrness

-Jeremy

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: lince and slmodem

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1122 bytes --]

On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 21:05:39 Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> On 02/01/2011 07:33 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> You can't really expect me to take responsibility for a commit I can't
> >> test.
> > 
> > And I don't.
> > 
> > Maybe you did this already, but it seems like the amount of time spent
> > masking a package could have been spent poking whoever is supposed to
> > be maintaining it (Alin Năstac<mrness@gentoo.org>
> > ). Admittedly, the last changes to the ebuild came 18 months ago...
> 
> Cmon Matt, a bug open for over 1 year with 12 comments is not enough
> poking for you? Alin is not _overly_ active with Gentoo[1][2] but he is
> active enough that he should have seen the bug reports, but apparently
> doesn't care. Now, at least 3 users care, so if someone could test
> it..that would be nice for their sake.

what Alin chooses to do with his time is his business.  unless you're stepping 
up to fix the bugs in question and no one else does, the package can simply go 
the lastrites way like any other dead package.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: lince and slmodem

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

Il giorno mer, 02/02/2011 alle 01.33 +0000, Matt Turner ha scritto:
> 
> Maybe you did this already, but it seems like the amount of time spent
> masking a package could have been spent poking whoever is supposed to
> be maintaining it (Alin Năstac <mrness@gentoo.org>
> 

I can't obviously speak for Alin, but I'd like to point out one
particular issue here: Alin has been maintaining for a long time the
whole net-dialup herd alone, and has been doing a very good job,
considering the amount of different packages in that.

On the other hand, packages that require specific hardware to be tested
cannot really be maintained by developers that don't have them (any
longer). What does that mean? Mostly it means that a lot of packages for
hardware devices that are no longer commonly used (such as softmodems)
cannot be easily kept up-to-date, unless we have people using them on a
daily basis who can step up to maintain them.

Furthermore, for the packages that are implemented in kernel-space or
mixed in kernel- and user-space, each kernel version will be a further
problem.

This said, I'd suggest users and developers alike to add themselves (or
ask to be added) to the metadata.xml files for packages requiring
specific hardware support, so that even if one maintainer ends up not
being active, we have a list of people who can actually tell us whether
a given package works or not.

And don't simply avoid doing so because there is someone else on that
list already; we don't have a limit of one, two or three people listed
in metadata.xml. The more people we know are ready to test a given
package on actual hardware, the better (and you can be listed as "just a
tester" after all).

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: lince and slmodem

[Chris Richards]

On 02/04/2011 05:24 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> This said, I'd suggest users and developers alike to add themselves (or
> ask to be added) to the metadata.xml files for packages requiring
> specific hardware support, so that even if one maintainer ends up not
> being active, we have a list of people who can actually tell us whether
> a given package works or not.
>
> And don't simply avoid doing so because there is someone else on that
> list already; we don't have a limit of one, two or three people listed
> in metadata.xml. The more people we know are ready to test a given
> package on actual hardware, the better (and you can be listed as "just a
> tester" after all).
What's true of developers is also true of users; a user may add 
themselves to the list, forget they are on it, and a year from now be 
asked to test something they no longer have hardware for.

Not saying that this isn't worth doing, merely pointing out that we may 
discover that we don't have anyone to test even WITH the list of willing 
users.

Later,
Chris