* [gentoo-portage-dev] REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options
@ 2009-10-20 19:23 Arthur D.
2009-10-20 21:38 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] " Duncan
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Arthur D. @ 2009-10-20 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-portage-dev
Hello, everyone.
I think all you know the utility revdep-rebuild. It's very usefull. But it
has
some nasty features, such as totally ignoreing of emerge default options
set in
/etc/make.conf
Would you like portage to be verbose? Ignored.
Do you like portage showing you what's going to be emerged? Ignored!
Do you wish portage to ask for your confirmation before actually doing
compilation?
Yes, IGNORED!
Just press ctrl-c and enjoy scrolling. Then run again. No too user
friendly.
You don't like that behaviour? Just add the desired options to command like
parameters. You don't like adding options explicitly? Hey, that's Gentoo,
just make
a wrapper script and be happy ;-)
I wrote a letter Paul Varner, reporting him about that bug. And what did
he answer?
That's a feature, not a bug. "We purposely do not honor
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS because not
to do so will break revdep-rebuild in unexpected ways"
Ok. There is easy, dumb and stupid way of fixing that - just filter out
harmful options.
I suggested my help in developing the script. I asked him what options
will break things...
No answer. 12 days left.
I made a report in bugzilla: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=289599
And was suggested to make the question up here.
Please, leave your comments, suggestions etc.
Thanks for attention.
--
Best regards, Spinal
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options
2009-10-20 19:23 [gentoo-portage-dev] REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options Arthur D.
@ 2009-10-20 21:38 ` Duncan
2009-10-21 5:07 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] " Zac Medico
2009-10-26 17:54 ` Paul Varner
2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Duncan @ 2009-10-20 21:38 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-portage-dev
Arthur D. posted on Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:23:54 +0300 as excerpted:
> I suggested my help in developing the script. I asked him what options
> will break things...
> No answer. 12 days left.
FWIW, 12 days isn't so bad. It's often two weeks before you get a first
maintainer response on a bug (I'd call that normal, I don't even start to
wonder until three have passed, yes, it IS hard to wait sometimes, when
it's /your/ bug, but...), and I've had bugs with supplied patches sit for
months before they get tested and implemented by the maintainer. Since
Gentoo is all volunteers, and "real life" can and does take precedence a
lot of the time, this is simply a fact of life. If someone doesn't like
it, they can of course work to become a Gentoo dev and volunteer their
own time to get things done faster, or perhaps if they have money, they
can sponsor someone to work on it full time, or they can learn to live
with it... or they can get tired of it and switch to one of the
commercial distributions.
So I'm not going to get involved in the merits of the specific argument
here, but thought I'd reply just to let you know to have a bit of
patience. 12 days does NOT mean the maintainer is ignoring you, or that
he won't actually agree with you when he does get to it. Often, it just
means he has "real life" (TM) to attend to, and perhaps a few more urgent
bugs or bugs he was already in the middle of, and hasn't had time to give
your mail the proper consideration it is due. =:^)
Actually, that he didn't answer right away might be an encouraging sign.
He didn't reject the idea out of hand, and maybe he IS seriously
considering it. I know I'd far rather have a reply delayed a couple weeks
(or 3 or 4 or 6) and have some thoughtful consideration given to it, than
have the thing rejected out of hand! =:^)
That said, the bug was the way to go, as mail can get lost or eaten by
the spam filter or whatever. Gentoo uses the bug tracker for all sorts
of stuff one wouldn't ordinarily think of as bugs, including tracking the
progress of new devs and dev retirement when it's needed (on a private
bug in some cases, of course). Put it in a bug and it's in the system
and will get proper consideration given it. And if having filed it, you
were told to bring it up here, that's good too. =:^)
All I'm really saying is don't get too worried about a response time of a
couple weeks or more. That's simply a fact of life one deals with.
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options
2009-10-20 19:23 [gentoo-portage-dev] REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options Arthur D.
2009-10-20 21:38 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] " Duncan
@ 2009-10-21 5:07 ` Zac Medico
2009-10-21 6:30 ` Arthur D.
2009-10-26 17:54 ` Paul Varner
2 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Zac Medico @ 2009-10-21 5:07 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-portage-dev
Arthur D. wrote:
> Would you like portage to be verbose? Ignored.
> Do you like portage showing you what's going to be emerged? Ignored!
> Do you wish portage to ask for your confirmation before actually doing
> compilation?
> Yes, IGNORED!
I'd suggest passing the -p option to revdep-rebuild on the command
line. That's how I always do it. Then you can run it again and it's
supposed to cache the result (if you don't use the -i option).
--
Thanks,
Zac
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options
2009-10-21 5:07 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] " Zac Medico
@ 2009-10-21 6:30 ` Arthur D.
2009-10-21 20:29 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] " Duncan
2009-10-21 22:03 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] " Zac Medico
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Arthur D. @ 2009-10-21 6:30 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-portage-dev
To Duncan:
> FWIW, 12 days isn't so bad.
I didn't say 12 days is bad or something similar. I opened public bug
report
after having no reply in 12 days. Did I something wrong?
To Zac:
> I'd suggest passing the -p option to revdep-rebuild on the command
> line. That's how I always do it. Then you can run it again and it's
> supposed to cache the result (if you don't use the -i option).
I know how to pass options on command line. I was asking about changing
default behaviour to respect emerge default options out-of-box. Passing
same options every time is not a good way of doing things, no?
--
Best regards, Spinal
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options
2009-10-21 6:30 ` Arthur D.
@ 2009-10-21 20:29 ` Duncan
2009-10-21 22:03 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] " Zac Medico
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Duncan @ 2009-10-21 20:29 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-portage-dev
Arthur D. posted on Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:30:16 +0300 as excerpted:
> To Duncan:
>> FWIW, 12 days isn't so bad.
> I didn't say 12 days is bad or something similar. I opened public bug
> report after having no reply in 12 days. Did I something wrong?
I misunderstood you, then. It read to me as if you had expected an
answer in say two days, and thought he was slacking, so I replied based
on that. If that wasn't the case, no problem, continue as you were. =:^)
(Once in awhile we do get people who just expect things to move faster
than they do, is all. Once it's explained and expectations better match
reality, users are happier because they don't think they're being
ignored, and devs are happier because they don't feel like they're being
pushed around by ungrateful users. I thought this was one of those
cases, but apparently thought wrong.)
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options
2009-10-21 6:30 ` Arthur D.
2009-10-21 20:29 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] " Duncan
@ 2009-10-21 22:03 ` Zac Medico
2009-10-21 23:49 ` Douglas Anderson
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Zac Medico @ 2009-10-21 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-portage-dev
Arthur D. wrote:
> To Zac:
>> I'd suggest passing the -p option to revdep-rebuild on the command
>> line. That's how I always do it. Then you can run it again and it's
>> supposed to cache the result (if you don't use the -i option).
> I know how to pass options on command line. I was asking about changing
> default behaviour to respect emerge default options out-of-box. Passing
> same options every time is not a good way of doing things, no?
Yeah, I think your right. I suppose that revdep-rebuild could simply
assume that the default options are good and allow the user to
specify --ignore-default-opts if necessary. The only options that I
think would conflict are --update, --selective, and --noreplace.
--
Thanks,
Zac
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options
2009-10-21 22:03 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] " Zac Medico
@ 2009-10-21 23:49 ` Douglas Anderson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Douglas Anderson @ 2009-10-21 23:49 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-portage-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1117 bytes --]
There's probably not much reason why a filtered set of OPTS can't be
accepted. I haven't looked this over yet but this code should probably
handle the filtering:
http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/python/changeset/171
from: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=282474#c4
-Doug
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Arthur D. wrote:
> > To Zac:
> >> I'd suggest passing the -p option to revdep-rebuild on the command
> >> line. That's how I always do it. Then you can run it again and it's
> >> supposed to cache the result (if you don't use the -i option).
> > I know how to pass options on command line. I was asking about changing
> > default behaviour to respect emerge default options out-of-box. Passing
> > same options every time is not a good way of doing things, no?
>
> Yeah, I think your right. I suppose that revdep-rebuild could simply
> assume that the default options are good and allow the user to
> specify --ignore-default-opts if necessary. The only options that I
> think would conflict are --update, --selective, and --noreplace.
> --
> Thanks,
> Zac
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1690 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options
2009-10-20 19:23 [gentoo-portage-dev] REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options Arthur D.
2009-10-20 21:38 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] " Duncan
2009-10-21 5:07 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] " Zac Medico
@ 2009-10-26 17:54 ` Paul Varner
2009-10-26 18:01 ` Brian Harring
2009-10-26 18:04 ` Arthur D.
2 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Paul Varner @ 2009-10-26 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-portage-dev
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 22:23 +0300, Arthur D. wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> Just press ctrl-c and enjoy scrolling. Then run again. No too user
> friendly.
> You don't like that behaviour? Just add the desired options to command like
> parameters. You don't like adding options explicitly? Hey, that's Gentoo,
> just make
> a wrapper script and be happy ;-)
>
> I wrote a letter Paul Varner, reporting him about that bug. And what did
> he answer?
> That's a feature, not a bug. "We purposely do not honor
> EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS because not
> to do so will break revdep-rebuild in unexpected ways"
> Ok. There is easy, dumb and stupid way of fixing that - just filter out
> harmful options.
>
> I suggested my help in developing the script. I asked him what options
> will break things...
> No answer. 12 days left.
I apologize for the not responding. I actually thought I had but
apparently did not. Anyhow real life has me swamped right now, so I
can't give you an exact answer on what breaks and what doesn't break.
However, any option which can change the ordering of the packages can
break the rebuild of the packages and if it does will result in bugs
being filed against revdep-rebuild.
I am very much against allowing EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS in revdep-rebuild
since I went through hell trying to support it when it was first added
as a feature to portage and I really don't want to go through that
again.
Regards,
Paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options
2009-10-26 17:54 ` Paul Varner
@ 2009-10-26 18:01 ` Brian Harring
2009-10-26 18:27 ` Paul Varner
2009-10-26 18:04 ` Arthur D.
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Brian Harring @ 2009-10-26 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw
To: fuzzyray; +Cc: gentoo-portage-dev
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:54:35PM -0500, Paul Varner wrote:
> I am very much against allowing EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS in revdep-rebuild
> since I went through hell trying to support it when it was first added
> as a feature to portage and I really don't want to go through that
> again.
Just out of curiousity, did you try a blacklist or a whitelist
approach?
~brian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options
2009-10-26 17:54 ` Paul Varner
2009-10-26 18:01 ` Brian Harring
@ 2009-10-26 18:04 ` Arthur D.
2009-10-26 18:37 ` Paul Varner
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Arthur D. @ 2009-10-26 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-portage-dev
> I am very much against allowing EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS in revdep-rebuild
> since I went through hell trying to support it when it was first added
> as a feature to portage and I really don't want to go through that
> again.
Paul, there's good option to filter _only_ safe options from
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS and
pass them to emerge. If you don't like to maintain it alone, I will help
you.
Just forward all tickets connected to EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS to me. Deal?
--
Best regards, Spinal
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options
2009-10-26 18:01 ` Brian Harring
@ 2009-10-26 18:27 ` Paul Varner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Paul Varner @ 2009-10-26 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-portage-dev; +Cc: Brian Harring
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 11:01 -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:54:35PM -0500, Paul Varner wrote:
> > I am very much against allowing EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS in revdep-rebuild
> > since I went through hell trying to support it when it was first added
> > as a feature to portage and I really don't want to go through that
> > again.
>
> Just out of curiousity, did you try a blacklist or a whitelist
> approach?
I tried a blacklist approach, however, it seemed like every time I
turned around some other option was causing it to break. Finally, I got
fed up with the hassle and quit trying to support it.
Regards,
Paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options
2009-10-26 18:04 ` Arthur D.
@ 2009-10-26 18:37 ` Paul Varner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Paul Varner @ 2009-10-26 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-portage-dev
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 20:04 +0200, Arthur D. wrote:
> > I am very much against allowing EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS in revdep-rebuild
> > since I went through hell trying to support it when it was first added
> > as a feature to portage and I really don't want to go through that
> > again.
>
> Paul, there's good option to filter _only_ safe options from
> EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS and
> pass them to emerge. If you don't like to maintain it alone, I will help
> you.
> Just forward all tickets connected to EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS to me. Deal?
The biggest issue is determining that EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS is the
problem. Anyhow, I'm looking at it to see what can be done.
Regards,
Paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-10-26 18:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-10-20 19:23 [gentoo-portage-dev] REVDEP-REBUILD and emerge default options Arthur D.
2009-10-20 21:38 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] " Duncan
2009-10-21 5:07 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] " Zac Medico
2009-10-21 6:30 ` Arthur D.
2009-10-21 20:29 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] " Duncan
2009-10-21 22:03 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] " Zac Medico
2009-10-21 23:49 ` Douglas Anderson
2009-10-26 17:54 ` Paul Varner
2009-10-26 18:01 ` Brian Harring
2009-10-26 18:27 ` Paul Varner
2009-10-26 18:04 ` Arthur D.
2009-10-26 18:37 ` Paul Varner
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox