[gentoo-dev] Actions of python team, especially Arfrever wrt python eclass and python-3*
Hi together, since i am not able to get any real argument or even discussion on IRC nor on this mailing list from Arfrever (main person behind those changes), i would like to raise the following points now on this mailing list as told on IRC, so he gets the chance to answer those points and to clear the issues: -major changes to python eclasses have been done without peer review on this mailing list. This includes pulling in python-3* versions, even when they are not required nor used on the user system Our policy is, that major changes to main eclasses should previously shown and discussed publically on this mailing list, this did not happen for the python eclass. I think, he was already told about it, but i still did not see any RFC about those eclass changes. Additionally, those changes now pull in python-3 for every user, also no package does require python-3 nor will it be used, since the main python version still has to be python-2. This results in vasted time for additional compilation (both for python-3 and every python module, which is able to work with python-3) and vasted space on the user system, since those files are not used anywhere. Additionally, every additional package raises the security risks since it raises the amount of code around, also this is nothing python specific. Since python-3 is totally optional, it should be an option to pull it in, not a forced pull, where users have to know, that is is optional and could be masked. -A news item, which is only shown, once python-3* is installed. It is only shown _after_ installation of python-3. It just suggests to not set python-3 as main python version and to run the python-updater, but it does not tell the user, that python-3 is still completly optional and not needed for him. -Arfrever also said, he would add a seperate news item, when python-3 gets stabilized. Now the stabilisation bug is open, the first arch is stabilized and i still dont see any news item, which does prepare the users in advance. Beside those points, one additional main issue is, that i and others dont seem to be able to have a discussion with Arfrever about this topics. He says, he has no time for it or says, that he already had shown arguments, but cannot show any evidence or just stops responding without any note. Even if all those changes would have good reasons for them, the way, how they are done and communicated is not very well chosen. And since i dont seem to be able to get any discussion with Arfrever about those points, i will also CC devrel. For now, to inform them and, also in the hope, that it is not needed and those issues can be resolved, in preparation for a discussion and decision on those topics, if needed later one. So for Arfrever: I also CCed you, so that i can be sure, that you get the mail. Please answer to all of my above points with arguments. Choose whatever way you prefer for that (public mail, private mail, public IRC discussion or private message via IRC). If you missed some points or others appear, i will answer and ask about those. If you do not answer at all or do not answer with arguments to my satisfaction within 14 days, i will escalate those issues to devrel. -- Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Actions of python team, especially Arfrever wrt python eclass and python-3*
Le jeudi 27 mai 2010 à 16:33 +0200, Thomas Sachau a écrit : > Hi together, > > since i am not able to get any real argument or even discussion on IRC nor on > this mailing list from > Arfrever (main person behind those changes), i would like to raise the > following points now on this > mailing list as told on IRC, so he gets the chance to answer those points and > to clear the issues: > > -major changes to python eclasses have been done without peer review on this > mailing list. This > includes pulling in python-3* versions, even when they are not required nor > used on the user system python3 being pulled has already been discussed on this mailing list. Any ebuild that has a >=python-2 dependency will pull python3 (at least with portage). -- Gilles Dartiguelongue Gentoo
[gentoo-dev] Fwd: [Bug 319061] media-libs/libfoo-1.4.2 update not handled by preserved-libs due to uninstall of older SLOT
There is no libfoo. This bug is about libpng. Don't try to hide the problem by renaming it. Cheers, Ben -- Forwarded message -- From: Date: 27 May 2010 10:44 Subject: [Bug 319061] media-libs/libfoo-1.4.2 update not handled by preserved-libs due to uninstall of older SLOT To: yng...@gentoo.org DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL. Also, do not reply via email to the person whose email is mentioned below. To comment on this bug, please visit: Clear-Text: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=319061 Secure: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=319061 ssuomi...@gentoo.org changed: What |Removed |Added Summary|media-libs/libpng-1.4.2 |media-libs/libfoo-1.4.2 |update not handled by |update not handled by |preserved-libs due to |preserved-libs due to |uninstall of older SLOT |uninstall of older SLOT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.gentoo.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: [Bug 319061] media-libs/libfoo-1.4.2 update not handled by preserved-libs due to uninstall of older SLOT
On 05/27/2010 11:27 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: > There is no libfoo. This bug is about libpng. Don't try to hide the > problem by renaming it. No, the bug is about Portage 2.2 and @preserved-libs feature. It was restricted by Arfrever before, then you unrestricted it and the (unrelated) bugspam continued because people wandered there by the $summary and lack of knowledge what the bug is for. Marked as duplicate of bug 286714 now. > > Cheers, > Ben > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: > Date: 27 May 2010 10:44 > Subject: [Bug 319061] media-libs/libfoo-1.4.2 update not handled by > preserved-libs due to uninstall of older SLOT > To: yng...@gentoo.org > > > DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL. Also, do not reply via email to the person > whose email is mentioned below. To comment on this bug, please visit: > > Clear-Text: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=319061 > Secure: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=319061 > > > ssuomi...@gentoo.org changed: > > What|Removed |Added > >Summary|media-libs/libpng-1.4.2 |media-libs/libfoo-1.4.2 > |update not handled by |update not handled by > |preserved-libs due to |preserved-libs due to > |uninstall of older SLOT |uninstall of older SLOT > > > > -- > Configure bugmail: https://bugs.gentoo.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email > --- You are receiving this mail because: --- > You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. >
Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: [Bug 319061] media-libs/libfoo-1.4.2 update not handled by preserved-libs due to uninstall of older SLOT
On 27 May 2010 22:52, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 05/27/2010 11:27 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: >> There is no libfoo. This bug is about libpng. Don't try to hide the >> problem by renaming it. > > No, the bug is about Portage 2.2 and @preserved-libs feature. > > It was restricted by Arfrever before, then you unrestricted it and the > (unrelated) bugspam continued because people wandered there by the > $summary and lack of knowledge what the bug is for. > > Marked as duplicate of bug 286714 now. Then what is the bug for problems caused by the libpng-1.4 update? Cheers, Ben
Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: [Bug 319061] media-libs/libfoo-1.4.2 update not handled by preserved-libs due to uninstall of older SLOT
On 05/28/2010 12:09 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 27 May 2010 22:52, Samuli Suominen wrote: >> On 05/27/2010 11:27 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: >>> There is no libfoo. This bug is about libpng. Don't try to hide the >>> problem by renaming it. >> >> No, the bug is about Portage 2.2 and @preserved-libs feature. >> >> It was restricted by Arfrever before, then you unrestricted it and the >> (unrelated) bugspam continued because people wandered there by the >> $summary and lack of knowledge what the bug is for. >> >> Marked as duplicate of bug 286714 now. > > Then what is the bug for problems caused by the libpng-1.4 update? > > Cheers, > Ben > If you have real bugs to report, open one per one package and make it block the tracker 305095. At the moment, there's none. If you want to discuss about local upgrading problems, then use the forums. The ebuild already comes with the workaround script for the broken .la files, and revdep-rebuild is in the gentoolkit package.
