[gentoo-dev] Fw: reviewboard and its bugs

[gentoo-dev] Fw: reviewboard and its bugs

[IAN DELANEY]

Begin forwarded message:

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 08:45:21 +0800
From: IAN DELANEY <idella4@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-python@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: reviewboard and its bugs

cancel the gentoo-python@lists, was intended for gentoo-dev@lists

The package reviewboard has reached a stage of warranting this
submission to the ML.  A simple search of reviewboard in bugzilla lists
a few 'user submitted' bugs and no less than 3 sec bugs. This package I
added initially because interest was expressed mainly by my final
mentor and the other (prior) co-maintainer. Because of changes to
reviewboard upstream, we need a new eclass and category to cater to
certain js packages.

Now wishing to re-write all I have already written in the bugs, in
summary, reviewboard has become unworkable by the developers of
reviewboard itself going down the path of nodejs. Enter npm.
npm was an unknown to me until Djblets and django-pipeline ebuilds
failed due to the absence of UglifyJS and some related js deps.  On
being informed of ebuilds for this and related deps in the overlay of
neurogeek, I discovered they required npm which it seems comes in
nodejs.  The response drawn by fellow devs over npm is in my limited
experience unprecedented.  The overall reaction was leave it and don't
go there.  What became apparent from the ebulds in neurogeek's overlay
was that these deps didn't lend themselves well to writing ebuilds for
them for portage.  In the overlay there is in fact an npm eclass to
overseer their installation into the system.

After some somewhat reluctant discussion of npm in irc, it has at least
been suggested that the use of nodejs' UglifyJS in django-pipeline
could be patched out to relieve us all of any reliance or involvement
of npm to install these js oriented deps.  That has not ofcourse been
attempted or tested and allows for the probability of breaking Djblets
and or reviewboard which I suspect has been written by reviewboard
developers to explicitly depend on and call these deps. The decision it
seems isn't whether to allows npm into portage, it already comes with
nodejs correct me if I misunderstand.  The question is whether to
support this npm installing packages into a gentoo system by ebuilds
essentially outside of portage.  This requires an eclass and it has
been suggested a whole new category for portage under which to
categorise these npm type packages.  Such an eclass has already been
written, however, that it has never been added to portage along with js
style packages in the overlay, to me at least, strongly suggests the
author always had reservations with its addition.

There is ofcourse the alternative; to write ebuilds to install these
packages without npm involvement.  This would still require an
eclass anyway.   Either way, nodejs and java script are totally outside
the realm of pythonic packages and are therefore outside my realm
of knowledge and experience.  Reviewboard developers have essentially
created a huge dilemma for users of reviewboard in gentoo by going
electing to use this js 'toolchain'.  While I normally go to any
lengths to maintain any and all packages within the python realm, this
reviewboard has gone way beyond that realm. Until this, its
underbelly was pure python and posed no real problem. Now I have a
growing and unwelcome list of bugs of this package assigned to me as
the sole remaining maintainer which are now unworkable.

The real problem here is that there is an apparent keen set of would
be users of this package, one of whom is a gentoo dev, who is to be
found in at least one of those bugs.  To delete or mask the package
amounts to a clean solution, and also abandons gentoo users looking
to have the package made work for them.  

In summary, because of changes to reviewboard upstream, we need a new
eclass and category to write ebuilds to these packages and add them to
portage.



-- 
kind regards

Ian Delaney


-- 
kind regards

Ian Delaney

tl;dr: [gentoo-dev] Fw: reviewboard and its bugs

[Alex Xu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 129 bytes --]

tl;dr: python package has nodejs dependencies, we don't have a mechanism
like distutils.eclass to install those system-wide.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: tl;dr: [gentoo-dev] Fw: reviewboard and its bugs

[Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1061 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Alex Xu <alex_y_xu@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> tl;dr: python package has nodejs dependencies, we don't have a mechanism
> like distutils.eclass to install those system-wide.
>
> I gave this a try some time ago and was bummed down by some things. I dont
like nodejs enough, and npm devs seems to not care about centrally/globally
installed packages. There are some npm packages that have to be modified so
they can work when globally installed and it gets boring after a while. npm
packages tend to be really small so one package can have a really high
number of deps.

If anybody is interested in this, check out my repo with npm packages[0]
and a really simple g-npm tool[1] to generate ebuilds for them. These tools
might be outdated cause I don't use nodejs anymore and I dont care much
about it.

Feel free to ping me if you have questions.

Cheers,

[0] https://github.com/neurogeek/gentoo-overlay (I might have something
more recent somewhere)
[1] https://github.com/neurogeek/g-npm

-- 
Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek)
Gentoo Developer

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1838 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fw: reviewboard and its bugs

[Tim Boudreau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5084 bytes --]

FWIW, I suspect npm is here to stay, and it has a facility for installing
system-wide utilities;  and NodeJS is both usable and convenient for
system-level scripting which has no connection to webapps, and has the
ability to build native code that integrates with NodeJS code as well.

IMO, it would be pretty insane to write packages that duplicate npm
packages;  support within portage for installing things with it makes more
sense.  I've occasionally toyed with the idea of a webapp that exposes
packages in npm as ebuilds and generates the required metadata on the fly,
so anything in the npm repository would simply *be* a Gentoo package.  Not
sure the idea is viable, but it might be.  If that existed, and then some
known-stable subset of packages for which system-wide installation is
appropriate could be mirrored in the portage tree, that would probably be
ideal.

-Tim



On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:48 PM, IAN DELANEY <della5@iinet.com.au> wrote:

>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 08:45:21 +0800
> From: IAN DELANEY <idella4@gentoo.org>
> To: gentoo-python@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: reviewboard and its bugs
>
> cancel the gentoo-python@lists, was intended for gentoo-dev@lists
>
> The package reviewboard has reached a stage of warranting this
> submission to the ML.  A simple search of reviewboard in bugzilla lists
> a few 'user submitted' bugs and no less than 3 sec bugs. This package I
> added initially because interest was expressed mainly by my final
> mentor and the other (prior) co-maintainer. Because of changes to
> reviewboard upstream, we need a new eclass and category to cater to
> certain js packages.
>
> Now wishing to re-write all I have already written in the bugs, in
> summary, reviewboard has become unworkable by the developers of
> reviewboard itself going down the path of nodejs. Enter npm.
> npm was an unknown to me until Djblets and django-pipeline ebuilds
> failed due to the absence of UglifyJS and some related js deps.  On
> being informed of ebuilds for this and related deps in the overlay of
> neurogeek, I discovered they required npm which it seems comes in
> nodejs.  The response drawn by fellow devs over npm is in my limited
> experience unprecedented.  The overall reaction was leave it and don't
> go there.  What became apparent from the ebulds in neurogeek's overlay
> was that these deps didn't lend themselves well to writing ebuilds for
> them for portage.  In the overlay there is in fact an npm eclass to
> overseer their installation into the system.
>
> After some somewhat reluctant discussion of npm in irc, it has at least
> been suggested that the use of nodejs' UglifyJS in django-pipeline
> could be patched out to relieve us all of any reliance or involvement
> of npm to install these js oriented deps.  That has not ofcourse been
> attempted or tested and allows for the probability of breaking Djblets
> and or reviewboard which I suspect has been written by reviewboard
> developers to explicitly depend on and call these deps. The decision it
> seems isn't whether to allows npm into portage, it already comes with
> nodejs correct me if I misunderstand.  The question is whether to
> support this npm installing packages into a gentoo system by ebuilds
> essentially outside of portage.  This requires an eclass and it has
> been suggested a whole new category for portage under which to
> categorise these npm type packages.  Such an eclass has already been
> written, however, that it has never been added to portage along with js
> style packages in the overlay, to me at least, strongly suggests the
> author always had reservations with its addition.
>
> There is ofcourse the alternative; to write ebuilds to install these
> packages without npm involvement.  This would still require an
> eclass anyway.   Either way, nodejs and java script are totally outside
> the realm of pythonic packages and are therefore outside my realm
> of knowledge and experience.  Reviewboard developers have essentially
> created a huge dilemma for users of reviewboard in gentoo by going
> electing to use this js 'toolchain'.  While I normally go to any
> lengths to maintain any and all packages within the python realm, this
> reviewboard has gone way beyond that realm. Until this, its
> underbelly was pure python and posed no real problem. Now I have a
> growing and unwelcome list of bugs of this package assigned to me as
> the sole remaining maintainer which are now unworkable.
>
> The real problem here is that there is an apparent keen set of would
> be users of this package, one of whom is a gentoo dev, who is to be
> found in at least one of those bugs.  To delete or mask the package
> amounts to a clean solution, and also abandons gentoo users looking
> to have the package made work for them.
>
> In summary, because of changes to reviewboard upstream, we need a new
> eclass and category to write ebuilds to these packages and add them to
> portage.
>
>
>
> --
> kind regards
>
> Ian Delaney
>
>
> --
> kind regards
>
> Ian Delaney
>
>


-- 
http://timboudreau.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6036 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fw: reviewboard and its bugs

[Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6220 bytes --]

I originally responded to another thread. Here is what I said:
<
I gave this a try some time ago and was bummed down by some things. I dont
like nodejs enough, and npm devs seems to not care about centrally/globally
installed packages. There are some npm packages that have to be modified so
they can work when globally installed and it gets boring after a while. npm
packages tend to be really small so one package can have a really high
number of deps.

If anybody is interested in this, check out my repo with npm packages[0]
and a really simple g-npm tool[1] to generate ebuilds for them. These tools
might be outdated cause I don't use nodejs anymore and I dont care much
about it.

Feel free to ping me if you have questions.

Cheers,

[0] https://github.com/neurogeek/gentoo-overlay (I might have something
more recent somewhere)
[1] https://github.com/neurogeek/g-npm
>


On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Tim Boudreau <niftiness@gmail.com> wrote:

> FWIW, I suspect npm is here to stay, and it has a facility for installing
> system-wide utilities;  and NodeJS is both usable and convenient for
> system-level scripting which has no connection to webapps, and has the
> ability to build native code that integrates with NodeJS code as well.
>
> IMO, it would be pretty insane to write packages that duplicate npm
> packages;  support within portage for installing things with it makes more
> sense.  I've occasionally toyed with the idea of a webapp that exposes
> packages in npm as ebuilds and generates the required metadata on the fly,
> so anything in the npm repository would simply *be* a Gentoo package.  Not
> sure the idea is viable, but it might be.  If that existed, and then some
> known-stable subset of packages for which system-wide installation is
> appropriate could be mirrored in the portage tree, that would probably be
> ideal.
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:48 PM, IAN DELANEY <della5@iinet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 08:45:21 +0800
>> From: IAN DELANEY <idella4@gentoo.org>
>> To: gentoo-python@lists.gentoo.org
>> Subject: reviewboard and its bugs
>>
>> cancel the gentoo-python@lists, was intended for gentoo-dev@lists
>>
>> The package reviewboard has reached a stage of warranting this
>> submission to the ML.  A simple search of reviewboard in bugzilla lists
>> a few 'user submitted' bugs and no less than 3 sec bugs. This package I
>> added initially because interest was expressed mainly by my final
>> mentor and the other (prior) co-maintainer. Because of changes to
>> reviewboard upstream, we need a new eclass and category to cater to
>> certain js packages.
>>
>> Now wishing to re-write all I have already written in the bugs, in
>> summary, reviewboard has become unworkable by the developers of
>> reviewboard itself going down the path of nodejs. Enter npm.
>> npm was an unknown to me until Djblets and django-pipeline ebuilds
>> failed due to the absence of UglifyJS and some related js deps.  On
>> being informed of ebuilds for this and related deps in the overlay of
>> neurogeek, I discovered they required npm which it seems comes in
>> nodejs.  The response drawn by fellow devs over npm is in my limited
>> experience unprecedented.  The overall reaction was leave it and don't
>> go there.  What became apparent from the ebulds in neurogeek's overlay
>> was that these deps didn't lend themselves well to writing ebuilds for
>> them for portage.  In the overlay there is in fact an npm eclass to
>> overseer their installation into the system.
>>
>> After some somewhat reluctant discussion of npm in irc, it has at least
>> been suggested that the use of nodejs' UglifyJS in django-pipeline
>> could be patched out to relieve us all of any reliance or involvement
>> of npm to install these js oriented deps.  That has not ofcourse been
>> attempted or tested and allows for the probability of breaking Djblets
>> and or reviewboard which I suspect has been written by reviewboard
>> developers to explicitly depend on and call these deps. The decision it
>> seems isn't whether to allows npm into portage, it already comes with
>> nodejs correct me if I misunderstand.  The question is whether to
>> support this npm installing packages into a gentoo system by ebuilds
>> essentially outside of portage.  This requires an eclass and it has
>> been suggested a whole new category for portage under which to
>> categorise these npm type packages.  Such an eclass has already been
>> written, however, that it has never been added to portage along with js
>> style packages in the overlay, to me at least, strongly suggests the
>> author always had reservations with its addition.
>>
>> There is ofcourse the alternative; to write ebuilds to install these
>> packages without npm involvement.  This would still require an
>> eclass anyway.   Either way, nodejs and java script are totally outside
>> the realm of pythonic packages and are therefore outside my realm
>> of knowledge and experience.  Reviewboard developers have essentially
>> created a huge dilemma for users of reviewboard in gentoo by going
>> electing to use this js 'toolchain'.  While I normally go to any
>> lengths to maintain any and all packages within the python realm, this
>> reviewboard has gone way beyond that realm. Until this, its
>> underbelly was pure python and posed no real problem. Now I have a
>> growing and unwelcome list of bugs of this package assigned to me as
>> the sole remaining maintainer which are now unworkable.
>>
>> The real problem here is that there is an apparent keen set of would
>> be users of this package, one of whom is a gentoo dev, who is to be
>> found in at least one of those bugs.  To delete or mask the package
>> amounts to a clean solution, and also abandons gentoo users looking
>> to have the package made work for them.
>>
>> In summary, because of changes to reviewboard upstream, we need a new
>> eclass and category to write ebuilds to these packages and add them to
>> portage.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> kind regards
>>
>> Ian Delaney
>>
>>
>> --
>> kind regards
>>
>> Ian Delaney
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> http://timboudreau.com
>



-- 
Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek)
Gentoo Developer

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8532 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fw: reviewboard and its bugs

[Tim Boudreau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1592 bytes --]

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek) <
neurogeek@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I originally responded to another thread. Here is what I said:
> <
> I gave this a try some time ago and was bummed down by some things. I dont
> like nodejs enough, and npm devs seems to not care about centrally/globally
> installed packages. There are some npm packages that have to be modified so
> they can work when globally installed and it gets boring after a while. npm
> packages tend to be really small so one package can have a really high
> number of deps.
>

For NodeJS, the first-class thing is web applications, and as far as their
concerned, the "best practice" is, if your application uses a library, it
should have its own copy of it. And, for web applications, that *does*
guarantee that you know what version of everything you're deploying, and
allows an application to have dependencies which themselves have
conflicting dependencies - which helps ensure deployment is uncomplicated
and you know what you're deploying.

However, globally installed packages are supported, and are increasingly
important as people discover NodeJS is useful for things that are not
web-application related.  So it seems like something that's not going away,
and sooner or later package managers will have to deal with it.


> If anybody is interested in this, check out my repo with npm packages[0]
> and a really simple g-npm tool[1] to generate ebuilds for them. These tools
> might be outdated cause I don't use nodejs anymore and I dont care much
> about it.
>

g-npm looks interesting.

-Tim

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2545 bytes --]