| 1 |
On 20.09.2015 18:57, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 09/20/2015 06:47 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 20.09.2015 16:26, hasufell wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 09/20/2015 03:27 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> Please stop introducing further tree-wide changes regarding libressl. |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> That's not possible, because in order to introduce the USE flag, we have |
| 8 |
>>> to break the dep-graph on ~arch temporarily (for 'libressl' USE flag |
| 9 |
>>> only ofc), because of circular deps. |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> I am working on restoring it now. This does not affect stable branch at |
| 12 |
>>> all and no one who is not using 'libressl' USE flag (which is |
| 13 |
>>> practically impossible currently). |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Yet the way you execute your plan now violates several devmanual |
| 17 |
>> policies. Is there any reason for that rush? |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Any reason to bother me? There have been several threads about libressl |
| 21 |
> and the overlay has been up for more than one year I think. If you have |
| 22 |
> a suggestions, say it. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
There has been an ongoing discussion after you announced your plan. |
| 25 |
Instead of getting your suggestion actually reviewed and probably |
| 26 |
improve your plan on a further iteration, you're creating accomplished |
| 27 |
facts. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
>>> If you have useful comments regarding the transition, please speak up. |
| 30 |
>>> |
| 31 |
>> |
| 32 |
>> I remember you being one of the devs who considered code reviewing as a |
| 33 |
>> useful tool. |
| 34 |
>> Why don't you add a pull request to Gentoo's github mirror and let other |
| 35 |
>> devs review and ack it there? |
| 36 |
>> |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Because then I could simply give up with ~550 packages, where for most |
| 39 |
> of them the change is a two-liner in RDEPEND. It is common in gentoo to |
| 40 |
> not ask every single maintainer for tree-wide changes. The python herd |
| 41 |
> does that too. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
What about the packages that are not part of "most"? Some include |
| 45 |
patches, that haven't seen any testing by their downstream maintainers. |
| 46 |
See 1fbc7d68335e35af898606f1dfdaedf9bf6bea14 or |
| 47 |
9c9eff93fe71c5b446df8367d69c407d62811b05. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> If I don't know how to do something or if the changes are non-trivial, |
| 51 |
> then I will definitely open a bug/PR. |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> Again: this all happens in unstable arch and practically effects no one, |
| 54 |
> because people cannot effectively enable the USE flag yet. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
And after you're done, people will argument: "Should we really change |
| 58 |
500 packages again?" |
| 59 |
This renders any further discussion redundant and is not how an open |
| 60 |
development process should look like. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
- Manuel |
Archives