| 1 |
On 03/29/2014 09:49 AM, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA512 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Anthony G. Basile: |
| 6 |
>> On 03/29/2014 09:26 AM, hasufell wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> Anthony G. Basile: |
| 10 |
>>>> On 03/27/2014 09:40 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 11 |
>>>>> Hi everyone, |
| 12 |
>>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>>> The council will be meeing on April 8, 2014 at 1900 UTC. |
| 14 |
>>>>> Please bring forward any agenda items you would like |
| 15 |
>>>>> discussed. |
| 16 |
>>>>> |
| 17 |
>>>>> --Tony |
| 18 |
>>>>> |
| 19 |
>>>> Okay I'd like to add an agenda item. A policy inspired by bug |
| 20 |
>>>> #506034. |
| 21 |
>>>> |
| 22 |
>>>> Motion: "Significant changes to virtuals are to be discussed |
| 23 |
>>>> (via mailing list or bugzilla) with all the maintainers and/or |
| 24 |
>>>> herds which maintain packages those virtuals depend on." |
| 25 |
>>>> |
| 26 |
>>>> Discussion: "Like eclasses, changes to virtuals can affect all |
| 27 |
>>>> the packages which depend on them. Changing existing |
| 28 |
>>>> virtuals, removing virtuals or adding new ones affect the |
| 29 |
>>>> packages they depend on. When such a change is proposed, all |
| 30 |
>>>> maintainers affected need to be included in the discussion." |
| 31 |
>>>> |
| 32 |
>>> Sounds like any other reverse-dep. If people don't discuss |
| 33 |
>>> non-trivial changes (to whatever part of gentoo), then that needs |
| 34 |
>>> to be fixed, not policies introduced for every single situation |
| 35 |
>>> that arises. |
| 36 |
>> |
| 37 |
>> True, I did think of that, but we do have a policy for eclasses. |
| 38 |
>> With deeper uses of virtuals, it does not hurt to make the |
| 39 |
>> reverse-dep issue explicit. |
| 40 |
>> |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> IMO, eclasses are special since they are not really versioned. |
| 43 |
> Virtuals are regular packages, versioned and with stable and unstable |
| 44 |
> keywords. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
And yet we do have many such policies beyond eclasses. For example, in |
| 47 |
profiles/base/make.conf we have: |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
# Env vars to expand into USE vars. Modifying this requires prior |
| 50 |
# discussion on gentoo-dev@g.o. |
| 51 |
USE_EXPAND= |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
There is precedence withing Gentoo for asking that far reaching design |
| 54 |
changes (eg USE_EXPAND) be discussed on the list. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> Unless you really want to apply this policy on _all_ reverse deps. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
It is difficult to enumerate _all_. I believe Tom and I have identified |
| 60 |
two more areas were we should encourage list wide discussion when the |
| 61 |
consequences by affect others: virtuals and profiles. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> And if people don't follow it, then what? There have been a hundred |
| 65 |
> situations (including eclasses) that were sufficient to say "stop" to |
| 66 |
> some people who regularly do undiscussed, non-trivial changes. Until |
| 67 |
> now, not much has happened about it. I doubt that this policy will |
| 68 |
> change any of that. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
If nothing else it raises awareness that we are a community where our |
| 71 |
changes affect one another. The "enforcement" I would hope for is the |
| 72 |
respect that we show one another. |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
> |
| 75 |
> [sarcasm] |
| 76 |
> But it gives us an impression of progress, at least... and policies |
| 77 |
> seem to be a trend lately. |
| 78 |
> [/sarcasm] |
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
-- |
| 82 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D. |
| 83 |
Chair of Information Technology |
| 84 |
D'Youville College |
| 85 |
Buffalo, NY 14201 |
| 86 |
(716) 829-8197 |
Archives