| 1 |
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 05:05:11PM +0400, Peter Volkov wrote: |
| 2 |
> В Срд, 04/08/2010 в 09:42 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto пишет: |
| 3 |
> > There are already a few bugs that can be attributed to this. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Ok, let's say that this depends on upstream. And for Gentoo this means |
| 6 |
> that the decision how to set version for the package depends on |
| 7 |
> maintainer. Lot's of packages do not have dedicated release tests |
| 8 |
> upstream (even build tests) and for this packages I don't see difference |
| 9 |
> between stable branch and release. In such case our version just |
| 10 |
> indicates that our package is base on tarbal of that version and nothing |
| 11 |
> more. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The core thing people are ignoring in this discussion is that when you |
| 14 |
do the following in your python consuming code- |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
python -c 'import sys.version;print sys.version_info' |
| 17 |
(2, 6, 5, 'final', 0) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
You know what version of python you're running- not even version as |
| 20 |
much as what the api is. Code relies on this. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
When a 2.6.5 is actually a 2.6.6rc* in API but still exporting |
| 23 |
sys.version == 2.6.5, you screw up consuming code's ability to detect |
| 24 |
the version and adjust itself accordingly. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
That right there is a serious problem. Combine that with gentoo's |
| 27 |
longstanding history of patching things to make it work, but not going |
| 28 |
insanely beyond that and you've got a pretty strong qa/policy |
| 29 |
conflict. If you doubt this history, why not look through the python |
| 30 |
projects previous patch- |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/python/browser/patches |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
The point people miss in this discussion is that python isn't some |
| 35 |
standalone pkg- a lot of code consume's it's api's. As such silently |
| 36 |
pulling in api changes that will land in 2.6.6 starts becoming |
| 37 |
_extremely_ problematic, and it's contrary to longstanding gentoo |
| 38 |
maintenance. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> > This is unfortunately the main issue here. You may work on a specific |
| 42 |
> > package on Gentoo, but when that package is essential for the system |
| 43 |
> > use / stability, it stops being just "your" package. This latest |
| 44 |
> > example has lead users to a point where their PM stopped working. |
| 45 |
> > Breaking the PM is not a small "oops" |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> That's completely different topic... I'm not talking about stability at |
| 48 |
> all. Of course, python is special package and should be treated/tested |
| 49 |
> by maintainers as such! Probably for such core packages ~arch is not |
| 50 |
> enough and we need different process... But that a different topic. |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> Bug I mentioned pretends that we have policy how to set version for |
| 53 |
> packages that use backported upstream patches. My point is that there is |
| 54 |
> no such policy and line between _p or -rN is very fuzzy to set such |
| 55 |
> policy. Thus bug itself is INVALID... |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
This is essentially lawyering; it's not bad until someone creates |
| 58 |
a rule saying it's bad, even if historical precedent proceeds it. |
| 59 |
Trying to legislate every possible scenario of common sense/sane |
| 60 |
maintenance practices leads to insanity. Godel had something to say |
| 61 |
about this ;) |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
Gentoo generally speaking, is fixed versions of upstream released. We |
| 64 |
do have integration done, but we don't monkey patch the hell out of |
| 65 |
their releases- notice also I said 'fixed'. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Trying to make 2.6.5 a 2.6.6 isn't exactly "fixing it"- yes there are |
| 68 |
fixes that should be pulled from the maintenance branch, but there is |
| 69 |
a very real difference between selective cherry picking and full scale |
| 70 |
importation as was occuring. |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
~harring |
Archives