1 |
Begin forwarded message: |
2 |
|
3 |
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 08:45:21 +0800 |
4 |
From: IAN DELANEY <idella4@g.o> |
5 |
To: gentoo-python@l.g.o |
6 |
Subject: reviewboard and its bugs |
7 |
|
8 |
cancel the gentoo-python@lists, was intended for gentoo-dev@lists |
9 |
|
10 |
The package reviewboard has reached a stage of warranting this |
11 |
submission to the ML. A simple search of reviewboard in bugzilla lists |
12 |
a few 'user submitted' bugs and no less than 3 sec bugs. This package I |
13 |
added initially because interest was expressed mainly by my final |
14 |
mentor and the other (prior) co-maintainer. Because of changes to |
15 |
reviewboard upstream, we need a new eclass and category to cater to |
16 |
certain js packages. |
17 |
|
18 |
Now wishing to re-write all I have already written in the bugs, in |
19 |
summary, reviewboard has become unworkable by the developers of |
20 |
reviewboard itself going down the path of nodejs. Enter npm. |
21 |
npm was an unknown to me until Djblets and django-pipeline ebuilds |
22 |
failed due to the absence of UglifyJS and some related js deps. On |
23 |
being informed of ebuilds for this and related deps in the overlay of |
24 |
neurogeek, I discovered they required npm which it seems comes in |
25 |
nodejs. The response drawn by fellow devs over npm is in my limited |
26 |
experience unprecedented. The overall reaction was leave it and don't |
27 |
go there. What became apparent from the ebulds in neurogeek's overlay |
28 |
was that these deps didn't lend themselves well to writing ebuilds for |
29 |
them for portage. In the overlay there is in fact an npm eclass to |
30 |
overseer their installation into the system. |
31 |
|
32 |
After some somewhat reluctant discussion of npm in irc, it has at least |
33 |
been suggested that the use of nodejs' UglifyJS in django-pipeline |
34 |
could be patched out to relieve us all of any reliance or involvement |
35 |
of npm to install these js oriented deps. That has not ofcourse been |
36 |
attempted or tested and allows for the probability of breaking Djblets |
37 |
and or reviewboard which I suspect has been written by reviewboard |
38 |
developers to explicitly depend on and call these deps. The decision it |
39 |
seems isn't whether to allows npm into portage, it already comes with |
40 |
nodejs correct me if I misunderstand. The question is whether to |
41 |
support this npm installing packages into a gentoo system by ebuilds |
42 |
essentially outside of portage. This requires an eclass and it has |
43 |
been suggested a whole new category for portage under which to |
44 |
categorise these npm type packages. Such an eclass has already been |
45 |
written, however, that it has never been added to portage along with js |
46 |
style packages in the overlay, to me at least, strongly suggests the |
47 |
author always had reservations with its addition. |
48 |
|
49 |
There is ofcourse the alternative; to write ebuilds to install these |
50 |
packages without npm involvement. This would still require an |
51 |
eclass anyway. Either way, nodejs and java script are totally outside |
52 |
the realm of pythonic packages and are therefore outside my realm |
53 |
of knowledge and experience. Reviewboard developers have essentially |
54 |
created a huge dilemma for users of reviewboard in gentoo by going |
55 |
electing to use this js 'toolchain'. While I normally go to any |
56 |
lengths to maintain any and all packages within the python realm, this |
57 |
reviewboard has gone way beyond that realm. Until this, its |
58 |
underbelly was pure python and posed no real problem. Now I have a |
59 |
growing and unwelcome list of bugs of this package assigned to me as |
60 |
the sole remaining maintainer which are now unworkable. |
61 |
|
62 |
The real problem here is that there is an apparent keen set of would |
63 |
be users of this package, one of whom is a gentoo dev, who is to be |
64 |
found in at least one of those bugs. To delete or mask the package |
65 |
amounts to a clean solution, and also abandons gentoo users looking |
66 |
to have the package made work for them. |
67 |
|
68 |
In summary, because of changes to reviewboard upstream, we need a new |
69 |
eclass and category to write ebuilds to these packages and add them to |
70 |
portage. |
71 |
|
72 |
|
73 |
|
74 |
-- |
75 |
kind regards |
76 |
|
77 |
Ian Delaney |
78 |
|
79 |
|
80 |
-- |
81 |
kind regards |
82 |
|
83 |
Ian Delaney |