[gentoo-dev] app-cvs

[gentoo-dev] app-cvs

[Tal Peer]

Hi,

While discussing the state of the php-cvs package on #gentoo_dev, lu_zero 
suggested that we open a new category 'app-cvs' and move all -cvs packages 
there. That way we don't litter all the categories with -cvs ebuilds that 
most of users don't need/want.

Comments?


Tal

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-cvs

[FRLinux]

Great stuff ! i had a couple of ebuilds refused because they were
dependant on CVS, i hope they will get in this time.
Steph

> Hi,
>
> While discussing the state of the php-cvs package on #gentoo_dev,
> lu_zero  suggested that we open a new category 'app-cvs' and move all
> -cvs packages  there. That way we don't litter all the categories with
> -cvs ebuilds that  most of users don't need/want.
>
> Comments?
>
>
> Tal
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list


-- 
Mail sent on Gentoo 1.4rc3 k2420 AMD 2600+
"Piece by Piece, the penguins are taking my sanity apart ..."
http://frlinux.net - frlinux@frlinux.net
http://gentoofr.org - Portail Francais sur Gentoo Linux



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-cvs

[Michele Balistreri]

But categories shouldnt categorize packages for what they do? I mean, 
if i need something to do video editing, i go search in media-video. I 
dont think app-cvs could let people think about cvs ebuilds, i would 
think more about cvs related applications. In my opinion categories 
shouldnt be used for such things, maybe add an herd "cvs" if there isnt 
already is enough.

Lunedì, 14 lug 2003, alle 11:25 Europe/Rome, Tal Peer ha scritto:

> Hi,
>
> While discussing the state of the php-cvs package on #gentoo_dev, 
> lu_zero
> suggested that we open a new category 'app-cvs' and move all -cvs 
> packages
> there. That way we don't litter all the categories with -cvs ebuilds 
> that
> most of users don't need/want.
>
> Comments?
>
>
> Tal
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
Michele Balistreri
Gentoo Developer, KDE Team
Rome, Italy


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-cvs

[Svyatogor]

I don't think it makes much sense. The current portage hierarchy is based on the
are of use of the application, and this is how many users search for the program
they need. E.g.: If I see gaim package in this category, I expect to find
gaim-cvs next in the list.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:25:16 +0300 (IDT)
Tal Peer <coredumb@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> While discussing the state of the php-cvs package on #gentoo_dev, lu_zero 
> suggested that we open a new category 'app-cvs' and move all -cvs packages 
> there. That way we don't litter all the categories with -cvs ebuilds that 
> most of users don't need/want.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> 
> Tal
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 


-- 
Let the Force be with us!
Sergey Kuleshov <svyatogor@gentoo.org>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-cvs

[rob holland]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 651 bytes --]


--On Monday, July 14, 2003 12:25:16 +0300 Tal Peer <coredumb@gentoo.org> 
wrote:

> While discussing the state of the php-cvs package on #gentoo_dev, lu_zero
> suggested that we open a new category 'app-cvs' and move all -cvs
> packages  there. That way we don't litter all the categories with -cvs
> ebuilds that  most of users don't need/want.

I don't think this is a good idea. It defeats the purpose of the 
categories. Why would we do this when we don't do app-ftp for all apps 
which have an ftp url in the SRC_URI?

Regards,

Rob

--

robh@gentoo.org / robh:irc.freenode.net
http://dev.gentoo.org/~robh/robh@gentoo.org.asc

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-cvs

[Luca Barbato]

rob holland wrote:
> 
> --On Monday, July 14, 2003 12:25:16 +0300 Tal Peer <coredumb@gentoo.org> 
> wrote:
> 
>> While discussing the state of the php-cvs package on #gentoo_dev, lu_zero
>> suggested that we open a new category 'app-cvs' and move all -cvs
>> packages  there. That way we don't litter all the categories with -cvs
>> ebuilds that  most of users don't need/want.
> 
> 
> I don't think this is a good idea. It defeats the purpose of the 
> categories. Why would we do this when we don't do app-ftp for all apps 
> which have an ftp url in the SRC_URI?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Rob
> 
> -- 
> 
> robh@gentoo.org / robh:irc.freenode.net
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~robh/robh@gentoo.org.a
> sc

Another good name is apps-in-itinere or half-done, if that gives you a 
better picture of what is the idea of that new cat.



-- 
Luca Barbato
Developer
Gentoo Linux				http://www.gentoo.org/~lu_zero




--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-cvs

[Michele Balistreri]

Lunedì, 14 lug 2003, alle 13:12 Europe/Rome, Luca Barbato ha scritto:
> Another good name is apps-in-itinere or half-done, if that gives you a 
> better picture of what is the idea of that new cat.

I think we should avoid cvs packages as much as we can, why not make 
snapshots and work on them? They should be easier to mantain, i see cvs 
package useful just for us, to backport patches. Anyway "half-done" 
doesnt describe what an app does, but his development status

Michele Balistreri
Gentoo Developer, KDE Team
Rome, Italy


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-cvs

[Dhruba Bandopadhyay]

Tal Peer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> While discussing the state of the php-cvs package on #gentoo_dev, lu_zero 
> suggested that we open a new category 'app-cvs' and move all -cvs packages 
> there. That way we don't litter all the categories with -cvs ebuilds that 
> most of users don't need/want.
> 
> Comments?

This is a difficult one.

This is more the exception rather than the rule.  CVS is a unique 
minority category where the packages require greater maintenance from 
both the user and dev perspective and generally suffer more problems or 
issues of some sort.

A separate category would make listing all cvs packages easier and may 
(or may not) also make maintenance easier.  The directory is making not 
only a statement of different retrieval method but also a different 
genre of packages in terms of cutting edge application versions.

Intuitively speaking, I'd find it quite natural to look in app-cvs for 
gaim-cvs just like net-im.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-cvs

[Patrick Kursawe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 349 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 12:41:39PM +0100, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
> Intuitively speaking, I'd find it quite natural to look in app-cvs for 
> gaim-cvs just like net-im.

I would look for cvs and related applications there. Just like I don't
check net-www for office programs which can be downloaded by www.

Just my 0.02 EUR,

Patrick	

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-cvs

[Georgi Georgiev]

On 14/07/2003 at 12:41:39(+0100), Dhruba Bandopadhyay used 1.0K just to say:
> Tal Peer wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >While discussing the state of the php-cvs package on #gentoo_dev, lu_zero 
> >suggested that we open a new category 'app-cvs' and move all -cvs packages 
> >there. That way we don't litter all the categories with -cvs ebuilds that 
> >most of users don't need/want.
> >
> >Comments?
> 
> This is a difficult one.
> 
> This is more the exception rather than the rule.  CVS is a unique 
> minority category where the packages require greater maintenance from 
> both the user and dev perspective and generally suffer more problems or 
> issues of some sort.
> 
> A separate category would make listing all cvs packages easier and may 
> (or may not) also make maintenance easier.  The directory is making not 
> only a statement of different retrieval method but also a different 
> genre of packages in terms of cutting edge application versions.
> 
> Intuitively speaking, I'd find it quite natural to look in app-cvs for 
> gaim-cvs just like net-im.

Huh, what's wrong with

ls -ld /usr/portage/*/*-cvs

Or just add a 

mkdir /usr/portage/app-cvs
ln -s /usr/portage/*/*-cvs /usr/portage/app-cvs/

to some custom emerge-sync script.

-- 
/\   Georgi Georgiev   /\  "The inside of my head was exploding with   /\
\/    chutz@gg3.net    \/ fireworks. Fortunately, my last thought      \/
/\  +81(90)6266-1163   /\ turned out the lights when it left." ---     /\
\/ ------------------- \/ Calvin                                       \/

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-cvs

[Todd Berman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 728 bytes --]

Just in general, app-cvs is a 'BAD' idea.

It defeats the *entire* purpose of what is going on in general.

However, I fully agree with known good cvs-snapshots being used for
packages in the portage tree, but live cvs ebuilds prevent any sort of
QA in general being done on Gentoo's end. And if you are really wanting
to use cvs, its assumed that you will be updating and recompiling fairly
often, and a live-pull cvs ebuild doesnt really help you.

In general, baring notable exceptions (gaim-cvs, private live-cvs pull
ebuilds) I dont think live-cvs ebuilds are a good idea at all, and
surely not a sound reason to add a category just for their use.

Sorry if this is a bit rambling, just woke up :)

--Todd

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-cvs

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 872 bytes --]

On Monday 14 July 2003 15:24, Todd Berman wrote:
> Just in general, app-cvs is a 'BAD' idea.
>
> It defeats the *entire* purpose of what is going on in general.
>
> However, I fully agree with known good cvs-snapshots being used for
> packages in the portage tree, but live cvs ebuilds prevent any sort of
> QA in general being done on Gentoo's end. And if you are really wanting
> to use cvs, its assumed that you will be updating and recompiling fairly
> often, and a live-pull cvs ebuild doesnt really help you.
>
> In general, baring notable exceptions (gaim-cvs, private live-cvs pull
> ebuilds) I dont think live-cvs ebuilds are a good idea at all, and
> surely not a sound reason to add a category just for their use.
>

I fully agree with this.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Categorization [was: app-cvs]

[Markus Bertheau]

В Пнд, 14.07.2003, в 15:24, Todd Berman пишет:
> Just in general, app-cvs is a 'BAD' idea.
> 
> It defeats the *entire* purpose of what is going on in general.
> 
> In general, baring notable exceptions (gaim-cvs, private live-cvs pull
> ebuilds) I dont think live-cvs ebuilds are a good idea at all, and
> surely not a sound reason to add a category just for their use.
> 
Also as a related issue packages can be categorized in many ways and
often packages would belong to more that one category. To be consistent
we should use the same "categorization scheme" for every package. An
example:

nurbs++ is a C++ library, and it's in media-libs, I'm totally fine with
that. Then we have libxmlpp, which is a C++ wrapper to the C libxml (I
think), in dev-cpp. Given that I find nurbs++ in media-libs, I'd expect
to find libxmlpp in dev-libs. We don't put nurbs++ in dev-cpp just
because it's a C++ library.

Now the difference between nurbs++ and libxmlpp is, that libxmlpp is a
C++ wrapper, and nurbs++ is not, it's "natively" C++. But in my opinion
that doesn't justify putting it in a "C++ libraries" directory. After
all I don't think "Hmm, I'm writing a C++ application, let's look in
dev-cpp what library I could use", but rather "Hmm, I'm writing a
multimedia application, let's look in media-libs if there's already a
library doing half of my work".

-- 
Markus Bertheau.
Berlin, Berlin.
Germany.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-cvs

[Dan Armak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1030 bytes --]

On Monday 14 July 2003 11:25, Tal Peer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While discussing the state of the php-cvs package on #gentoo_dev, lu_zero
> suggested that we open a new category 'app-cvs' and move all -cvs packages
> there. That way we don't litter all the categories with -cvs ebuilds that
> most of users don't need/want.

I don't like this idea. As others have said here, it defeats the purpose of 
categories as app groups. Also, there are many ebuilds most users don't need/
want, but I wouldn't define them as litter. I don't see that -cvs ebuilds in 
various categories interfere with users in any way, and they make it easy to 
see which packages have -cvs counterparts and which only have -cvs versions, 
since they are listed together.

Finally, some of us write cvs ebuilds that don't have -cvs extensions :-)

-- 
Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE)
Matan, Israel
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD  0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-cvs

[Alvaro Figueroa Cabezas]

On Jul 15 20:56, Dan Armak wrote:

> Finally, some of us write cvs ebuilds that don't have -cvs extensions :-)

It also discriminates subversion and other like it :)

-- 
Alvaro Figueroa


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-cvs

[Michael Andrews]

> > While discussing the state of the php-cvs package on #gentoo_dev, lu_zero
> > suggested that we open a new category 'app-cvs' and move all -cvs packages
> > there. That way we don't litter all the categories with -cvs ebuilds that
> > most of users don't need/want.
> 
i think variables for the cvs type ebuilds should be included in regular ebuild files.  that would reduce the clutter.  if you wanted to checkout sources you could use emerge with a -b BRANCH flag or something.  just an idea.
michael

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-cvs

[James H. Cloos Jr.]

>>>>> "Tal" == Tal Peer <coredumb@gentoo.org> writes:

Tal> lu_zero suggested that we open a new category 'app-cvs' and move
Tal> all -cvs packages there. That way we don't litter all the
Tal> categories with -cvs ebuilds that most of users don't need/want.

There is no point of the catagories at all if they are not used.

And it seems incongruous that users attracted to gentoo because
everything is build from source would be put off by building
from cvs.

Much better to leave the -cvs ebuild where they are.

-JimC


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list