1 |
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:01:44 +0200 |
2 |
Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 18:18:43 +0000 |
5 |
> bugzilla-daemon@g.o wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > (In reply to Jeroen Roovers from comment #5) |
8 |
> > > No, you broke it for HPPA users and for devs working on mpv. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > Yes, HPPA only because of the comment in package.use.mask; no |
11 |
> > problems for devs. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> "Breaking the tree" in this case quite literally means "using repoman |
14 |
> commit --force" because repoman would not otherwise let you do |
15 |
> that[a]. As I explained to you in comment #5[b] you should have |
16 |
> simply dropped the keywords instead of messing with the profiles and |
17 |
> you should have notified the affected arch teams (all of them): |
18 |
|
19 |
Yes, I will drop the HHPA keyword in the future, that was a mistake; as |
20 |
for notifying the arches, that was planned so why do you repeat that? |
21 |
|
22 |
> > > Sometimes you may need to remove a keyword because of new |
23 |
> > > unresolved dependencies. If you do this, you *must* file a bug |
24 |
> > > notifying the relevant arch teams."[1] |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> > For all arches Nikoli planned to do this (#gentoo-desktop; to avoid |
27 |
> > filing duplicate, I didn't); he delayed this, but this should not |
28 |
> > form a problem since the temporary masks are in place. It does on |
29 |
> > HPPA, as I am not permitted to remove the keyword on the USE flag. |
30 |
> > |
31 |
> > > *After* you broke the tree. |
32 |
> > |
33 |
> > The comment literally says to file a bug instead of touching it; so, |
34 |
> > yes, as a result of what I am requested to do by that comment the |
35 |
> > tree breaks for HPPA. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> You didn't file a bug report and you committed a broken ebuild. |
38 |
|
39 |
Because I prefer not to file a duplicate, Nikoli planned to file it; |
40 |
this was decided in #gentoo-desktop. |
41 |
|
42 |
> > That's what the file is designed to solve; and as far as I can tell, |
43 |
> > only HPPA does it different so as I'm new to doing this on the HPPA |
44 |
> > arch I'm not sure what you want instead. We did plan to do what was |
45 |
> > intended; so, why is it atrocity? |
46 |
> > |
47 |
> > We should pursue consensus on consistent USE masking on the |
48 |
> > profile.use.mask [1] thread as two different methods of which one |
49 |
> > undocumented doesn't make much sense; anyhow, that's outside the |
50 |
> > scope of this bug. |
51 |
> |
52 |
> As it has been discussed on this mailing list endlessly, there already |
53 |
> is a consensus: |
54 |
> |
55 |
> 1a) you drop the affected keywords, unless |
56 |
> 1b) this causes you to drop (many) more keywords on revdeps, in which |
57 |
> case you can package.(use.)mask the relevant bits |
58 |
> 2) you inform the affected arch teams |
59 |
|
60 |
Please provide a reference to this consensus. |
61 |
|
62 |
> Step 2) could easily be done well in advance of 1/a). In the |
63 |
> media-video/mpv case, nothing was stopping you from doing the most |
64 |
> easy, single-line-of-code change to fix the issue, which was to drop |
65 |
> the affected keywords. Instead you chose to edit a multitude of files |
66 |
> in profiles/ without notification to the arch teams. |
67 |
|
68 |
Or committing the same effort to package.use.mask; which appears to be |
69 |
fine for all other architectures but an exception on HPPA, which does |
70 |
not appear to have consensus, so that's where the breakage comes from. |
71 |
|
72 |
One can also edit the package.use.mask in the base file, which I have |
73 |
learned as per the thread [1] below; so it doesn't have to be multitude. |
74 |
|
75 |
As said before numerous time, the notification was planned; since your |
76 |
architecture is the only one instructing me to do an exception as per |
77 |
the comment, it broke. |
78 |
|
79 |
For the others there is no need for urgency, because of the temporary |
80 |
mask the Portage tree is not broken for them; it might have caused the |
81 |
delay, because Nikoli might have not been aware of HPPA breaking, |
82 |
which might have been an error in communication on our side. |
83 |
|
84 |
Sorry for that too, I'll prefer to file the bugs myself in the future... |
85 |
|
86 |
> > [1] |
87 |
> > http://gentoo.2317880.n4.nabble.com/best-way-to-use-profiles-and-package-use-mask-td16465.html |
88 |
> |
89 |
> Well, you read my response there. Nothing has changed. devmanual |
90 |
> hasn't changed either. What is your point here? |
91 |
|
92 |
Consistency. Such that HPPA members do not need to yell "atrocity" at |
93 |
people; your reply and comment in package.use.mask are red herrings. |
94 |
|
95 |
Please handle small mistakes like this is a professional way, I'm all |
96 |
fine with you having a certain vision and using it on your |
97 |
architecture. But if it is undocumented and/or does not have consensus |
98 |
then please do not expect people to be able to do the right thing right |
99 |
away, or to suppose they agree with your vision of dropping a whole |
100 |
keyword as opposed to dropping a keyword on an USE flag. |
101 |
|
102 |
Human errors and conflicts happen due to the unawareness of certain |
103 |
undocumented exceptions that exist; since our efforts are limited, we |
104 |
can't be expected to know every single undocumented exception out there. |
105 |
|
106 |
So, I have done exactly what was stated in the comment... |
107 |
|
108 |
Yes, I've made a small mistake; due to an exception I haven't heard of. |
109 |
|
110 |
P.S.: It is interesting to see the effects of AutoRepoman beating |
111 |
people to filing bugs, maybe I should write AutoNotifyman as a response |
112 |
to not having the chance to file the bug in a reasonable time frame. |
113 |
|
114 |
-- |
115 |
With kind regards, |
116 |
|
117 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
118 |
Gentoo Developer |
119 |
|
120 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
121 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
122 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |