Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Tim Boudreau <niftiness@×××××.com>
To: Gentoo Developers <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Fw: reviewboard and its bugs
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 03:51:17
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Fw: reviewboard and its bugs by IAN DELANEY
1 FWIW, I suspect npm is here to stay, and it has a facility for installing
2 system-wide utilities; and NodeJS is both usable and convenient for
3 system-level scripting which has no connection to webapps, and has the
4 ability to build native code that integrates with NodeJS code as well.
6 IMO, it would be pretty insane to write packages that duplicate npm
7 packages; support within portage for installing things with it makes more
8 sense. I've occasionally toyed with the idea of a webapp that exposes
9 packages in npm as ebuilds and generates the required metadata on the fly,
10 so anything in the npm repository would simply *be* a Gentoo package. Not
11 sure the idea is viable, but it might be. If that existed, and then some
12 known-stable subset of packages for which system-wide installation is
13 appropriate could be mirrored in the portage tree, that would probably be
14 ideal.
16 -Tim
20 On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:48 PM, IAN DELANEY <della5@×××××××××.au> wrote:
22 >
23 >
24 > Begin forwarded message:
25 >
26 > Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 08:45:21 +0800
27 > From: IAN DELANEY <idella4@g.o>
28 > To: gentoo-python@l.g.o
29 > Subject: reviewboard and its bugs
30 >
31 > cancel the gentoo-python@lists, was intended for gentoo-dev@lists
32 >
33 > The package reviewboard has reached a stage of warranting this
34 > submission to the ML. A simple search of reviewboard in bugzilla lists
35 > a few 'user submitted' bugs and no less than 3 sec bugs. This package I
36 > added initially because interest was expressed mainly by my final
37 > mentor and the other (prior) co-maintainer. Because of changes to
38 > reviewboard upstream, we need a new eclass and category to cater to
39 > certain js packages.
40 >
41 > Now wishing to re-write all I have already written in the bugs, in
42 > summary, reviewboard has become unworkable by the developers of
43 > reviewboard itself going down the path of nodejs. Enter npm.
44 > npm was an unknown to me until Djblets and django-pipeline ebuilds
45 > failed due to the absence of UglifyJS and some related js deps. On
46 > being informed of ebuilds for this and related deps in the overlay of
47 > neurogeek, I discovered they required npm which it seems comes in
48 > nodejs. The response drawn by fellow devs over npm is in my limited
49 > experience unprecedented. The overall reaction was leave it and don't
50 > go there. What became apparent from the ebulds in neurogeek's overlay
51 > was that these deps didn't lend themselves well to writing ebuilds for
52 > them for portage. In the overlay there is in fact an npm eclass to
53 > overseer their installation into the system.
54 >
55 > After some somewhat reluctant discussion of npm in irc, it has at least
56 > been suggested that the use of nodejs' UglifyJS in django-pipeline
57 > could be patched out to relieve us all of any reliance or involvement
58 > of npm to install these js oriented deps. That has not ofcourse been
59 > attempted or tested and allows for the probability of breaking Djblets
60 > and or reviewboard which I suspect has been written by reviewboard
61 > developers to explicitly depend on and call these deps. The decision it
62 > seems isn't whether to allows npm into portage, it already comes with
63 > nodejs correct me if I misunderstand. The question is whether to
64 > support this npm installing packages into a gentoo system by ebuilds
65 > essentially outside of portage. This requires an eclass and it has
66 > been suggested a whole new category for portage under which to
67 > categorise these npm type packages. Such an eclass has already been
68 > written, however, that it has never been added to portage along with js
69 > style packages in the overlay, to me at least, strongly suggests the
70 > author always had reservations with its addition.
71 >
72 > There is ofcourse the alternative; to write ebuilds to install these
73 > packages without npm involvement. This would still require an
74 > eclass anyway. Either way, nodejs and java script are totally outside
75 > the realm of pythonic packages and are therefore outside my realm
76 > of knowledge and experience. Reviewboard developers have essentially
77 > created a huge dilemma for users of reviewboard in gentoo by going
78 > electing to use this js 'toolchain'. While I normally go to any
79 > lengths to maintain any and all packages within the python realm, this
80 > reviewboard has gone way beyond that realm. Until this, its
81 > underbelly was pure python and posed no real problem. Now I have a
82 > growing and unwelcome list of bugs of this package assigned to me as
83 > the sole remaining maintainer which are now unworkable.
84 >
85 > The real problem here is that there is an apparent keen set of would
86 > be users of this package, one of whom is a gentoo dev, who is to be
87 > found in at least one of those bugs. To delete or mask the package
88 > amounts to a clean solution, and also abandons gentoo users looking
89 > to have the package made work for them.
90 >
91 > In summary, because of changes to reviewboard upstream, we need a new
92 > eclass and category to write ebuilds to these packages and add them to
93 > portage.
94 >
95 >
96 >
97 > --
98 > kind regards
99 >
100 > Ian Delaney
101 >
102 >
103 > --
104 > kind regards
105 >
106 > Ian Delaney
107 >
108 >
111 --


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Fw: reviewboard and its bugs "Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek)" <neurogeek@g.o>