Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Joshua Jackson <tsunam@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unmasking modular X
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:18:16
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unmasking modular X by Donnie Berkholz
2 Hash: SHA1
4 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
5 > Joshua Jackson wrote:
6 >> In the oldest version of the package (as all these were), I don't
7 >> see much point in the change. They will be removed within a
8 >> fairly short amount of time.
9 >
10 > Fairly short meaning what, 6 months? A lot of old ebuilds tend to
11 > stick around forever.
12 >
13 True, some older packages stay around longer then they probably
14 should, and was a exageration on my part but it does prove the point
15 that the check is somewhat superfluous for most users, since it seems
16 that most people (from a rough estimate of 2 years on the forums)
17 seems that 1month is about the outside for most people's updates. As
18 the point has been brought up about packages being in there longer,
19 it'd be interesting to write something to do a check for multiple
20 stable versions with a older version being >=6 months old. Something I
21 might go look into.
22 >> Secondary, you are suggesting that any dev who comes across a
23 >> modular x problem to fix it..even if this is a direct violation
24 >> of the guidelines set forth in the documentation?
25 >
26 > Which guidelines, exactly? I'm having trouble finding these vague
27 > guidelines to which you refer.
28 >
29 > I found one that said "If you make an internal, stylistic change to
30 > the ebuild that does not change any of the installed files, then
31 > there is no need to bump the revision number."
32 >
33 > I also found "When a package version has proved stable for
34 > sufficient time and the Gentoo maintainer of the package is
35 > confident that the upgrade will not break a regular Gentoo user's
36 > machine, then it can be moved from ~ARCH to ARCH," which, to my
37 > reading, can also apply to transferring ~arch modular X deps to
38 > stable.
39 >
40 > Thanks, Donnie
41 >
43 To quote one of the ebuild-quiz questions: You wish to make a change
44 to an ebuild, but you checked the ChangeLogs and metadata.xml and it
45 appears to be maintained by someone else. How should you proceed?
47 A general response that is obtained from the documentation source
48 (either the unofficial dev guide or the developer doc's) Concerns
49 getting in contact with the maintainer before you make the changes.
50 Explaining the how and why and either asking them to take care of it
51 or asking for permission to do so. We've had many developers get
52 highly upset at another developer changing even a minor thing in their
53 ebuild...such as the simple changing of depends.
55 Bringing it back around to Mark's initial point, the check causes
56 extra work for a arch developer that would require stepping on another
57 herd/developers package's..this is a Relations nightmare. Not to
58 mention Quality Control implications it can have, something that I
59 think as a whole development community we've worked very hard at
60 improving vastly.
62 Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
64 iD8DBQFD3x1lSENan+PfizARAqFoAJ9tAQ9UI0X3MCXG9A7DjWgrheBWfgCgnUG+
65 gRDzL4aW8JKoiZEcdNAPgLk=
66 =/VRh
67 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
69 --
70 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unmasking modular X Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o>