Re: [gentoo-dev] Reverse use of Python/Ruby versions

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:10:44 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
>
> I don't see how attempting to discredit me is a fact regarding your
> idea.

You may assume what ever. I simply pointed out you are 1 of on a team
of many. I have no requirement or duty to bring my ideas to you. If
anything maybe the team lead.

None the less, this issue crosses teams. Thus -dev ml and not directly
with teams individually. Another thing you have missed.
 
>
> >
> > Who do you think you are, to approach me or ANYONE such way? You are
> > one person. The word team does not mean I, MGORNY....
>
> Personal attack. Does not seem very factual.

Stating a fact is not an attack. But the previous statement stands.
Funny you send a copy to comrel. You start with insults much greater
than any I lobbed your way. Yet instead of being man and taking what
your shoveling out. You run off to the police....

Really funny, but I did not personally insult you as you did with your
statements of ignorance, etc. If comrel was to act, it should be
against you for your emails. Starting with your first. You should not
approach anyone that way on a public list.

> Except that the constant low level of posts on this list has resulted
> in most of the developers avoiding it. If you cared about opinion of
> the teams, you should have CC-ed them.

You do not need to tell me or anyone to contact teams etc. Again if one
team had a good idea. How would the other team know?

Having redundant conversations on two lists with two groups is
pointless. Kinda like spending time adding/removing targets from
ebuilds.

I am sorry you do not agree with my approach. But that is  your opinion.

> This is the best *working* way. I don't see you being able to figure
> out a way that wouldn't randomly result in huge semi-random breakages
> of dependency tree (as others have already pointed out), and that
> wouldn't in the end require even more effort to fix them and keep
> people able to upgrade anything without hitting huge conflicts.

The idea here is to discuss better ways. This same thing happens to
Java, Perl, and PHP. I think if those three can manage a better way.
Python and Ruby can as well.

Packaging things like Java is CONSIDERABLY more difficult than most
other languages. If Java can do it, so can others. There used to be
several Java VMs etc. There still are at least 3, Oracle, OpenJDK, and
IBM.

Go add JDK 9. See what that process is like and what all it entails.

> Once again, you are focusing on attempting to discredit me by throwing
> some random useless stats. This is how factual you are.

Take it how ever you will. I am talking about WHO will do the work.
Your commenting on something you are not doing yourself. That is not
discrediting. Its showing you are not spending your time on this. But
you expect others to.

This is similar to the eapply thing of patch p1.  Which I do not
disagree with. But that also means allot of working patches need be
modified just for that change. I do not like major changnes like that.
When the people initiating the change are not doing the work.

Pointing out that you are not the one managing python targets. Its
showing you are not spending your time on this. If you were, I think
you would feel otherwise. I think you would look to make things better
since you would be doing minor edits on hundreds of ebuilds.

That you are not doing that. Your trying to avoid something that may
reduce work for others. Work that you are not doing. Yet your saying
it is bad. Maybe let those who are managing the PYTHON_COMPAT in
ebuilds to comment.

I doubt they like that, or thing it is a efficient use of their time.
  
> Again, you're attempting to discredit me, through some semi-relevant
> oversimplification of history. And I'm afraid all that is proven by
> this example is that your ebuild skills are seriously lacking and you
> refuse to learn, and just rage quit.

No that was a fact. You thought you were doing QA and making things
better. You were not using the package nor testing out changes you were
suggesting. I assuming you knew better allowed it, and others had to
fix.

I had a 1 line fix to correct an issue with logrotate permissions
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=547442

Your series of comments here
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/101

Let to the entire revision of the ebuild, per your QA
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/154

Which you put in tree....
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit/9b00135f4696e539a3cbee711ac687f4f9ded105

However you broke things and missed others

Bug you created
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=577956

A user fixed with more fixes to the ebuild you missed.
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/3357

>
> > Maybe just in mgorny's mind....
>
> This is a clear personal attack, not a fact.

Get over yourself. If you are concerned with being attacked. Maybe do
not attack people to begin with. Your first post set the tone. Which
another commented on before I did.

> My point is that if you do not know how to write correct Python
> ebuilds, you do not have a correct test case to even start planning
> out your idea.

I am not sure anyone but you knows how to write a correct ebuild from
what I have seen. Given my experience with your QA on ebuilds. I
seriously question it after having seen what all went on with Firebird.
It was NOT the only one.

Another package you voiced your QA over. You missed a grave issue that
flameeyes/Deigo pointed out to me in a private email when I reached out
to him for help.

That FACT that you are missing things, creating other bugs, all in the
name of your QA. The whole idea of QA is quality assurance. If your
missing things, then your QA lacks QA....

But introducing new issues, which shows you did not even test your
modifications. Not even sure how you can say its QA without testing....

> >
> > > [1]:https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/os-xtoo/blob/master/dev-pytho
> > > n/python-efl/python-efl-9999.ebuild
> >
> > That is new, and FYI mostly a copy form what is in TREE... Go diff
> > and see for yourself. What ever issues I expect YOU mgorny to go
> > fix in tree. Otherwise be quiet.
> > https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/tree/master/dev-libs/efl
>
> This is irrelevant + once again, a personal attack. If you don't want
> me to judge your Python skills by the ebuilds you have in the
> overlay, then why are you using the overlay to prove them in the
> first place?

You want to question my python ebuild skills on an ebuild I did not
write. Then revert to a different argument. Ask yourself why did I even
move it to my overlay than use in tree? What was the purpose?

Did I provide ANY links to python ebuilds in my overlay as an example
of who to write a python ebuild the correct way? No. I simple said I
wrote a few recently, and that was NOT one.

Maybe look at the ebuild. I guess you missed entirely....

# Based on ebuild from enlightenment-live overlay
# Copyright 1999-2016 Gentoo Foundation
https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/os-xtoo/blob/master/dev-libs/efl/efl-9999.ebuild

How do you call it QA when you miss obvious things like that?

> Finally, since you seem to be completely resistant to do at least some
> basic research, and you keep trying to prove that I'm some developer
> who is barely doing anything, lemme tell you a funny thing: I wrote
> these eclasses, I designed this model and I was responsible for
> switching it from opt-out to opt-in.

How do you know what research I have and have not done? I never said
you were doing nothing. I stated you are NOT the one adding/removing
PYTHON targets from ebuilds. That is a fact. That is considerable work
to add/remove new python targets.

So you re-wrote the ebuilds, and are causing tremendous work for
others. But you are not doing that work yourself. Yet standing by a
design that you had some influence over. While still not doing the
resulting work from said design.

Again go modify a few hundred python packages to remove say 3.4. I
think about 10-20 ebuilds in. You will be scripting and looking for
another way....

> But then, all that work was obviously non-constructive, unlike
> reviving the topic on the mailing list without doing any research or
> simply asking the person who did it.

What of your comments have been constructive? This discussion is not
about everything to do with mgorny. I was pointing out you have not
presented any alternative ideas. Nothing constructive, just criticism
after starting with clear insults.

I keep providing facts, and examples.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.