[gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-08-14

[gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-08-14

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 570 bytes --]

In a little less than two weeks from now, the council will meet again.
This is the time to raise and prepare items that the council should put
on the agenda to vote on.

Please respond to this email with agenda items.  Please do not hestitate
to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
suggested one (since the last meeting).

The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out a week before the
meeting by the meeting's chairman.

Please respond to gentoo-project list, if possible.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-08-14

[hasufell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/01/2012 08:29 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> In a little less than two weeks from now, the council will meet
> again. This is the time to raise and prepare items that the council
> should put on the agenda to vote on.
> 
> Please respond to this email with agenda items.  Please do not
> hestitate to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you
> previously suggested one (since the last meeting).
> 
> The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out a week before the 
> meeting by the meeting's chairman.
> 
> Please respond to gentoo-project list, if possible.
> 
> 

As per devmanual
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/common-mistakes/index.html
build log should always be verbose.

A tracker has been added:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=429308

However, it does not make much sense to fix all of this per-package,
since we can change the behavior of certain build systems. For cmake
this has been mostly fixed via cmake-utils.eclass.

For autotools based build systems we need to modify econf as it has
already been done in:
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=1cc39de72ac5311db748341ef9183586556719d9
(add --disable-silent-rules if the configure script has this option)
and then reverted again, cause PMS guys intervened this will cause
breakage, because './configure --help' will be unconditionally invoked
by econf (however this is already the case for EAPI=4, but not for 0-3).

reason for this commit was:
In order to have consistent behavior that follows this gentoo policy
accross the whole tree we should always try to fix this above
per-package level, either on eclass or PM level.
Otherwise we will have to file many bugs for this. This has actually
been requested by another dev who was annoyed by my bugreports.

==========
The council should vote on the following:
1. apply that portage commit again and add that information to PMS
retroactively.
2. If point 1 is declined, then vote on applying this to EAPI=4
retrocatively since this one already calls './configure --help'.
==========

Why point 1 should be declined as per PMS guys opinion:
It may break ebuilds and changes older EAPIs behavior.

Why point 2 should be declined as per some random guys opinion:
It changes older EAPIs behavior.

Why point 1 should be accepted IMO:
If this only applies to EAPI=4 then all affected packages using EAPI=3
or lower would either need an EAPI-bump or append
- --disable-silent-rules to econf.
Both is per-package level and will result in many many bugs being
filed again (and I predict many of them will just be ignored, because
devs will be annoyed by them).
If an ebuild that uses EAPI=3 breaks, because econf simply calls
'./configure --help', then it is already borked and should be fixed,
cause it's using a handcrafted configure script with econf which was
designed for autotools based build systems.
This is not a strong reason to avoid this retroactive change which
will bring us consistent behavior regarding autotools based build systems.

Why at least point 2 should be accepted IMO:
There is no technical argument against it. No one could think of any
kind of breakage this might cause to EAPI=4 + we have at least a
retroactive fix for this one to get SOME consistent behavior for the
tree. It will take years until the majority of ebuilds will have
migrated to EAPI=5.
Don't rely on future EAPIs to fix current problems within the tree.


You can follow part of the discussion on:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379497


Don't discuss this here please. I just tried to sum it up, so I might
have missed something.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQI8TBAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzM5IH/2bzr4Z8HwgCUw7mihvp2VDg
Ld26sgtn0s/MpaqAeA+6LjgNG26bAmk19bNYhd7Atm1LoYTsPFzLuiYYQDv6wGZN
Bf+3/n5YYXgPAwkD9q9q/h1fTHl45CSycd73gL8a3/3jVcEt9HX+9Qp7g7ZnD/NQ
dWD1c3snb5I9iUbOZZw75IauJZujxN4AnWxp2Z1ncGl5xHrjIgOY0RPbHFDWyUyj
tOPBh1SQIEPmkjagcb9vHXrSQMiTj4+TJH8xqN3yPR7ZYu76TijV8WOnBjUsrHpW
QxOEzaShd1mHpc2tWn1vi/stvdZQttxXGihc+d8HNFJYJ3z9kULfRVGyOuS3qkg=
=NVAx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-08-14

[Ciaran McCreesh]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:10:09 +0200
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> If an ebuild that uses EAPI=3 breaks, because econf simply calls
> './configure --help', then it is already borked and should be fixed,
> cause it's using a handcrafted configure script with econf which was
> designed for autotools based build systems.

This simply isn't true, as was already discussed on the bug.

To the Council: please don't rely upon the descriptions in the parent
email to get an accurate understanding of the problem.

- -- 
Ciaran McCreesh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlAjx4AACgkQ96zL6DUtXhESPwCglke+uLZ1siWUwwtcbRFoteIx
kbAAn3T4v+OpFKZLnjy0WcNGrz9ixYQY
=cbaN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-08-14

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1181 bytes --]

On 09-08-2012 15:21:49 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:10:09 +0200
> hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > If an ebuild that uses EAPI=3 breaks, because econf simply calls
> > './configure --help', then it is already borked and should be fixed,
> > cause it's using a handcrafted configure script with econf which was
> > designed for autotools based build systems.
> 
> This simply isn't true, as was already discussed on the bug.
> 
> To the Council: please don't rely upon the descriptions in the parent
> email to get an accurate understanding of the problem.

I also strongly suggest people to read the bug [1].

In any case, this issue (as in changing existing behaviour for existing
EAPIs) is too late for this month's meeting.

My personal opinion on this matter is that it should be just in EAPI5,
and that if a list of items for EAPI5 is compiled that is ready to go,
we (council) can quickly get EAPI5 a fact.
That said, since EAPI5 features are on the agenda, in principle it could
even be so this month still.


[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379497

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-08-14

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

hasufell schrieb:
> On 08/01/2012 08:29 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > In a little less than two weeks from now, the council will meet
> > again. This is the time to raise and prepare items that the council
> > should put on the agenda to vote on.
>
> > Please respond to this email with agenda items.  Please do not
> > hestitate to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you
> > previously suggested one (since the last meeting).
>
> > The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out a week before the
> > meeting by the meeting's chairman.
>
> > Please respond to gentoo-project list, if possible.
>
>
>
> As per devmanual
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/common-mistakes/index.html
> build log should always be verbose.

I request that council does not force verbose build logs in any EAPI
until Infra can increase attachment size limit in Bugzilla[1].


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=430160

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-08-14

[hasufell]

On 08/09/2012 04:49 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> I request that council does not force verbose build logs in any EAPI
> until Infra can increase attachment size limit in Bugzilla[1].
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> 
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=430160
> 
> 

Why make this a blocker? I would agree with you and add it to the list,
but there is no need that his happens at the same time as many build
logs are already verbose.

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-08-14

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

hasufell schrieb:
> On 08/09/2012 04:49 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> I request that council does not force verbose build logs in any EAPI
>> until Infra can increase attachment size limit in Bugzilla[1].
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
>>
>> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=430160
>>
>>
> Why make this a blocker? I would agree with you and add it to the list,
> but there is no need that his happens at the same time as many build
> logs are already verbose.
>

I would prefer if you replied to my posting to -dev on the matter.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn