| 1 |
Ühel kenal päeval, E, 18.04.2016 kell 12:38, kirjutas Mike Frysinger: |
| 2 |
> On 16 Apr 2016 09:23, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 3 |
> > So why on earth are we applying a random patch that upstream is not |
| 4 |
> > using |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> not everyone uses glibc, and glibc *is* moving in this |
| 7 |
> direction. Gentoo |
| 8 |
> is simply accelerating the change ... otherwise glibc will take |
| 9 |
> longer to |
| 10 |
> do the actual migration. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
You don't need to break everyone's ~arch for dubious glibc benefits, |
| 13 |
which could be done by a p.masked version and a tinderbox run. |
| 14 |
I am not your tinderbox dummy having to waste time on this to maintain |
| 15 |
my own ~arch stuff. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> packages failing to build under glibc already |
| 18 |
> fail to build in other environments. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
That is simply not true, at least not to the extent you make it sound. |
| 21 |
We have FreeBSD prefix ourselves seemingly building just fine, X.org |
| 22 |
stuff build everywhere UNTIL you apply this currently gentoo specific |
| 23 |
patch, etc. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> > *and* unleashing it on ~arch without any of the usual precautions |
| 26 |
> > like masking the package until some of the issues have been smoked |
| 27 |
> > out? |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> it was masked for a while, some bugs were fixed, but no new ones were |
| 30 |
> really being found. so in the absence of data showing a problem, |
| 31 |
> unmasking is normal. |
| 32 |
> -mike |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Why are all the concerns raised at e.g |
| 35 |
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94231 not resolved then? |
| 36 |
Over there you even told you won't be including this patch in Gentoo, |
| 37 |
but get it trickled in from upstream once they judge it as good to go. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Instead you go ahead and unmask this without removing the gentoo |
| 40 |
specific sysmacros header removal, knowing FULLY WELL that you break |
| 41 |
~arch for a lot of things (just even based on that libdrm bug, merely |
| 42 |
breaking every single ~arch gentoo GUI installation in existence), as |
| 43 |
any simple test would show you, or a tinderbox run would blow up |
| 44 |
immediately. This is glibc ~arch here, not some little independent tool |
| 45 |
or not widely used library where ~arch breakage is acceptable. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
If you wanted to flush out packages breaking, you could simply locally |
| 48 |
compiled stuff and immediately see a ton of stuff, asked someone to do |
| 49 |
a tinderbox run, or whatever. Yet it doesn't help much, because |
| 50 |
upstreams can be resisting to changing anything, because the |
| 51 |
documentation in man-pages tells them they are doing everything |
| 52 |
correctly already. |
| 53 |
Even todays git of man-pages tells that including sys/types.h is |
| 54 |
sufficient and the correct thing to do to get makedev/major/minor. You |
| 55 |
are breaking this with a Gentoo specific patch, this is really a NO-NO. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
I really appreciate your system packages gruntwork, but please please |
| 58 |
start to consider with others and be a little bit more conservative |
| 59 |
about such stuff for ~arch, especially when it's Gentoo specific. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
A heavily disgruntled Gentoo ~arch maintainer unable to do his job due to others adding breakages he shouldn't care about, |
| 63 |
Mart Raudsepp |
Archives