1 |
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:36 AM Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On June 26, 2020 7:13:07 AM EDT, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> >> Of all the methods listed in the previous posts, the QA reports, etc. |
5 |
> >> there is no excuse individuals can't find out if their package is py2 |
6 |
> >> only. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> >None of those methods were posted until a day or two ago, and the |
9 |
> >python team has done nothing to actually ensure all the impacted |
10 |
> >maintainers are aware of them. Perhaps a communication to |
11 |
> >-dev-announce with the preferred approach would be better? |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> |
14 |
> You should also look at qa-reports. Do we really need to *teach* others "how to fish" here? Why can't folks just ask for assistance? |
15 |
|
16 |
Just looked at it: |
17 |
|
18 |
1. I had no idea that a list of py2-only packages was listed there. |
19 |
I don't think I've ever actually looked at that page. |
20 |
|
21 |
2. The report does not list maintainers, which means nobody is likely |
22 |
to know they have a package on the list. |
23 |
|
24 |
> |
25 |
> See above. Qa-reports will output a very nice list (even a graphic!) of such things. Anyway, yes, I do expect devs to understand their packages state if they maintain it. Don't be so myopic. |
26 |
|
27 |
Well, you can expect whatever you want, and then you can be frustrated |
28 |
out of your mind when 95% of devs fail to meet your expectations. |
29 |
|
30 |
Or you could just work with them where they're at and maybe get your |
31 |
project completed more quickly and with less effort... |
32 |
|
33 |
If you want people to look at a qa-report, maybe post on -dev-announce |
34 |
and ask everybody to do it? Most people aren't going to be following |
35 |
all the tools used by the python team if they aren't python devs. |
36 |
|
37 |
> >At least some devs here seemed surprised about the masks. Did you try |
38 |
> >filing a bug? |
39 |
> |
40 |
> Have you looked for said bugs? |
41 |
|
42 |
Of course. Do you think I'd invite such an obvious reply without |
43 |
actually checking. |
44 |
|
45 |
I just went to the first complaint on this list about there not being |
46 |
a bug, and verified that there wasn't a bug. |
47 |
|
48 |
As far as I can tell there is no bug for app-misc/golly. If I missed |
49 |
one feel free to cite it. |
50 |
|
51 |
> |
52 |
> > |
53 |
> >Masking something for all users is basically like torturing a kitten |
54 |
> >to get the attention of its owner. It is a necessary step if the |
55 |
> >package is actually to be removed. I don't think it is even allowable |
56 |
> >under our policies if no bug was filed. |
57 |
> > |
58 |
> |
59 |
> Do tell where said policy is? |
60 |
|
61 |
https://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/package-maintainers/index.html |
62 |
|
63 |
Granted, a mask isn't a package commit, but I think the spirit of the |
64 |
policy covers it. |
65 |
|
66 |
In any case, there is no reason not to communicate with a maintainer |
67 |
before touching a package. That should involve something more than a |
68 |
generic notice that everybody should become a detective to figure out |
69 |
if they are covered by an upcoming change. If you have a list of |
70 |
impacted packages, then just file bugs against them. |
71 |
|
72 |
> |
73 |
> Nothing is really hard about masking packages for removal... honestly. |
74 |
|
75 |
The complaint isn't that masks are hard on you. The complaint is that |
76 |
it bombards users with unnecessary warnings. |
77 |
|
78 |
> The work comes in defending the position here for the few that complain. |
79 |
|
80 |
And how are you enjoying doing all that extra work? Would you prefer |
81 |
if devs started opening up QA/Comrel bugs that you then have to |
82 |
formally respond to? |
83 |
|
84 |
Or maybe you could try notifying devs before masking their packages? |
85 |
|
86 |
> If I filed a bug... they would complain or not respond... If I sent out a dev-announce they would complain or not respond. |
87 |
|
88 |
Sometimes, sure. But at least you would have gone through due |
89 |
process, and you're unlikely to get much push back. |
90 |
|
91 |
And I suspect a number of those packages would actually get fixed. |
92 |
|
93 |
> |
94 |
> You see the fun here? Which method is effective? Mask a 100 packages for removal... Someone complains... A few packages get saved and 90 get removed... Life goes on. |
95 |
|
96 |
Would you want a dev to just mask one of your packages if they saw a |
97 |
bug in it, without bothering to open a bug? |
98 |
|
99 |
-- |
100 |
Rich |