date:20221203


These packages have a standard way of implementing a test corpus that
can be invoked by "tree-sitter test" from dev-util/tree-sitter-cli.
Some have additional platform-specific tests that are invoked in a
custom manner, but these are on top of the basic test corpus.

See: 
https://tree-sitter.github.io/tree-sitter/creating-parsers#command-test

Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/844223
Closes: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/28529
Signed-off-by: Matoro Mahri 
---
 eclass/tree-sitter-grammar.eclass | 16 +++-
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/eclass/tree-sitter-grammar.eclass 
b/eclass/tree-sitter-grammar.eclass

index acdb8a7ad73..c607ea9ddfb 100644
--- a/eclass/tree-sitter-grammar.eclass
+++ b/eclass/tree-sitter-grammar.eclass
@@ -29,7 +29,11 @@ S="${WORKDIR}"/${PN}-${TS_PV:-${PV}}/src
 # Needed for tree_sitter/parser.h
 DEPEND="dev-libs/tree-sitter"

-EXPORT_FUNCTIONS src_compile src_install
+BDEPEND+=" test? ( dev-util/tree-sitter-cli )"
+IUSE+=" test"
+RESTRICT+=" !test? ( test )"
+
+EXPORT_FUNCTIONS src_compile src_test src_install

 # @ECLASS_VARIABLE: TS_PV
 # @PRE_INHERIT
@@ -89,6 +93,16 @@ tree-sitter-grammar_src_compile() {
-o "${WORKDIR}"/${soname}
 }

+# @FUNCTION: tree-sitter-grammar_src_test
+# @DESCRIPTION:
+# Runs the Tree Sitter parser's test suite.
+# See: 
https://tree-sitter.github.io/tree-sitter/creating-parsers#command-test

+tree-sitter-grammar_src_test() {
+   debug-print-function ${FUNCNAME} "${@}"
+
+   (cd .. && tree-sitter test) || die "Test suite failed"
+}
+
 # @FUNCTION: tree-sitter-grammar_src_install
 # @DESCRIPTION:
 # Installs the Tree Sitter parser library.
--
2.38.1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

2022-12-03 Thread Mike Gilbert

On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 2:09 AM Michał Górny  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bug
> states with a simple NEW state.  Why?
>
> 1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
> in a meaningful way.
>
> 2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
> UNCONFIRMED for a long time.

I think I could be counted among the devs who at least try to use the
two statuses. If I stumble upon bugs that I have run into myself, I
will flip them from UNCONFIRMED to CONFIRMED. On the opposite end, I
occasionally downgrade bugs from CONFIRMED to UNCONFIRMED if they are
particularly strange looking and were filed by a script (tinderbox).

Anyway, if you decide to make the change, please ensure that it
doesn't generate a bunch of pointless bugmail. I have noticed that
some devs will replace obsolete values in Product/Component without
making any other meaningful changes to the bug. Let's avoid that
situation if possible here.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

2022-12-03 Thread Jonas Stein


Hi all,


I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bug
states with a simple NEW state.  Why?

1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
in a meaningful way.

2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
UNCONFIRMED for a long time.


As someone who is very active on bugzilla I think the users are happy about
- real activity and
- polite, precise and clear answers


Renaming tags will rather confuse.
Yes, some tickets are open for long times (this is not a Gentoo-only 
problem)

We should not hide this with Newspeak.

I suggest to keep it as it is, because sometimes it makes sense to 
confirm a bug.


Are not demotivated, because of the name of the tag.

They are demotivated, if
- bugs remain open/unanswered for long time
- they are told "my dev time is too expensive for your problems" in an 
impolite way


--
Best,
Jonas

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 3/3] dev-libs/tree-sitter-cpp: restrict tests


Requires sample files from tree-sitter-c to be available, but these
files are not installed with dev-libs/tree-sitter-c, and are instead
expected to be pulled down via making the tree-sitter-c javascript
wrapper package a dependency in package.json.  However since we invoke
"tree-sitter test" directly rather than via "npm test" the source
package for tree-sitter-c will not be available.

Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/844223
See: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/28529
Signed-off-by: Matoro Mahri 
---
 dev-libs/tree-sitter-cpp/tree-sitter-cpp-0.20.0.ebuild | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/dev-libs/tree-sitter-cpp/tree-sitter-cpp-0.20.0.ebuild 
b/dev-libs/tree-sitter-cpp/tree-sitter-cpp-0.20.0.ebuild

index dd304585137..654df3497df 100644
--- a/dev-libs/tree-sitter-cpp/tree-sitter-cpp-0.20.0.ebuild
+++ b/dev-libs/tree-sitter-cpp/tree-sitter-cpp-0.20.0.ebuild
@@ -11,3 +11,6 @@ 
HOMEPAGE="https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-cpp;

 LICENSE="MIT"
 SLOT="0"
 KEYWORDS="amd64"
+
+# requires test data from tree-sitter-c
+RESTRICT="test"
--
2.38.1

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/3] tree-sitter-grammar.eclass: Add src_test implementation


These packages have a standard way of implementing a test corpus that
can be invoked by "tree-sitter test" from dev-util/tree-sitter-cli.
Some have additional platform-specific tests that are invoked in a
custom manner, but these are on top of the basic test corpus.

See: 
https://tree-sitter.github.io/tree-sitter/creating-parsers#command-test

Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/844223
Closes: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/28529
Signed-off-by: Matoro Mahri 
---
 eclass/tree-sitter-grammar.eclass | 15 ++-
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/eclass/tree-sitter-grammar.eclass 
b/eclass/tree-sitter-grammar.eclass

index acdb8a7ad73..958b2ce21c7 100644
--- a/eclass/tree-sitter-grammar.eclass
+++ b/eclass/tree-sitter-grammar.eclass
@@ -29,7 +29,10 @@ S="${WORKDIR}"/${PN}-${TS_PV:-${PV}}/src
 # Needed for tree_sitter/parser.h
 DEPEND="dev-libs/tree-sitter"

-EXPORT_FUNCTIONS src_compile src_install
+BDEPEND+=" test? ( dev-util/tree-sitter-cli )"
+IUSE+=" test"
+
+EXPORT_FUNCTIONS src_compile src_test src_install

 # @ECLASS_VARIABLE: TS_PV
 # @PRE_INHERIT
@@ -89,6 +92,16 @@ tree-sitter-grammar_src_compile() {
-o "${WORKDIR}"/${soname}
 }

+# @FUNCTION: tree-sitter-grammar_src_test
+# @DESCRIPTION:
+# Runs the Tree Sitter parser's test suite.
+# See: 
https://tree-sitter.github.io/tree-sitter/creating-parsers#command-test

+tree-sitter-grammar_src_test() {
+   debug-print-function ${FUNCNAME} "${@}"
+
+   (cd .. && tree-sitter test) || die "Test suite failed"
+}
+
 # @FUNCTION: tree-sitter-grammar_src_install
 # @DESCRIPTION:
 # Installs the Tree Sitter parser library.
--
2.38.1

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/3] profiles/features/wd40: mask USE=test tree-sitter-grammar.eclass pkgs


dev-util/tree-sitter-cli will now be a conditional test dep for packages
inheriting tree-sitter-grammar.eclass, which is written in rust, so mask
it on rustless profiles.

Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/844223
See: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/28529
Signed-off-by: Matoro Mahri 
---
 profiles/features/wd40/package.use.mask | 26 +
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)

diff --git a/profiles/features/wd40/package.use.mask 
b/profiles/features/wd40/package.use.mask

index 4dd5915ab85..c86a7036962 100644
--- a/profiles/features/wd40/package.use.mask
+++ b/profiles/features/wd40/package.use.mask
@@ -1,6 +1,32 @@
 # Copyright 1999-2022 Gentoo Authors
 # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2

+# matoro  (2022-12-01)
+# tree-sitter-grammar.eclass adds dev-util/tree-sitter-cli as test dep
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-bash test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-c test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-c-sharp test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-cpp test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-css test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-embedded-template test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-go test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-haskell test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-html test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-java test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-javascript test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-jsdoc test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-json test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-julia test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-ocaml test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-php test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-python test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-ql test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-ruby test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-rust test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-scala test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-tsq test
+dev-libs/tree-sitter-typescript test
+
 # Sam James  (2022-11-19)
 # GNOME packages pulling in e.g. gjs which then needs Rust.
 dev-util/glade gjs
--
2.38.1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

2022-12-03 Thread Mike Pagano





On 12/3/22 08:59, Florian Schmaus wrote:

On 03/12/2022 14.50, Michał Górny wrote:

On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 14:45 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:

I think having UNCONFIRMED / CONFIRMED *helps* the issue reporter, and
other (affected) persons, to decide if they need to "chase" the issue's
assigned entity.

Assume looking at the open bugs list of a developer. If the developer
has old bugs in UNCONFIRMED state, you may want to issue a friendly
ping. Sure, strictly speaking, this would require all bugs to drop back
to UNCONFIMRED when the bug assignee changes. But even without such an
implicit mechanism, those two states provide some value.


I don't understand how UNCONFIRMED/CONFIRMED makes any difference here.
If I file a bug against some package, it is CONFIRMED by default.
If an unprivileged user files it, it's UNCONFIRMED.  In both cases
the assignee didn't do anything.


The assignee not doing anything keeps the bug UNCONFIRMED if it is
filled by an unprivileged user. That makes the bug distinguishable from
a bug that got "verified" by the assignee.

Yes, if *you* (as dev) fill a bug, then it is implicitly CONFIRMED
(whether or not that is sensible is a different discussion). I do not
see how this would invalidate my case, though.

- Flow



The kernel may be a special case, but personally I use unconfirmed and don't 
'confirm' it until it's determined if it's a real kernel bug.
Sometimes the kernel is the messenger and not the cause.  But this is not a 
documented process and only exists in my head.

Whatever the consensus is I can live with.

--
Mike Pagano
Gentoo Developer - Kernel Project
Gentoo Sources - Lead
E-Mail : mpag...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 52CC A0B0 F631 0B17 0142 F83F 92A6 DBEC 81F2 B137
Public Key : 
http://http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=0x92A6DBEC81F2B137=index

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs


On 03/12/2022 14.50, Michał Górny wrote:

On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 14:45 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:

I think having UNCONFIRMED / CONFIRMED *helps* the issue reporter, and
other (affected) persons, to decide if they need to "chase" the issue's
assigned entity.

Assume looking at the open bugs list of a developer. If the developer
has old bugs in UNCONFIRMED state, you may want to issue a friendly
ping. Sure, strictly speaking, this would require all bugs to drop back
to UNCONFIMRED when the bug assignee changes. But even without such an
implicit mechanism, those two states provide some value.


I don't understand how UNCONFIRMED/CONFIRMED makes any difference here.
If I file a bug against some package, it is CONFIRMED by default.
If an unprivileged user files it, it's UNCONFIRMED.  In both cases
the assignee didn't do anything.


The assignee not doing anything keeps the bug UNCONFIRMED if it is 
filled by an unprivileged user. That makes the bug distinguishable from 
a bug that got "verified" by the assignee.


Yes, if *you* (as dev) fill a bug, then it is implicitly CONFIRMED 
(whether or not that is sensible is a different discussion). I do not 
see how this would invalidate my case, though.


- Flow

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 14:45 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> I think having UNCONFIRMED / CONFIRMED *helps* the issue reporter, and 
> other (affected) persons, to decide if they need to "chase" the issue's 
> assigned entity.
> 
> Assume looking at the open bugs list of a developer. If the developer 
> has old bugs in UNCONFIRMED state, you may want to issue a friendly 
> ping. Sure, strictly speaking, this would require all bugs to drop back 
> to UNCONFIMRED when the bug assignee changes. But even without such an 
> implicit mechanism, those two states provide some value.

I don't understand how UNCONFIRMED/CONFIRMED makes any difference here.
If I file a bug against some package, it is CONFIRMED by default.
If an unprivileged user files it, it's UNCONFIRMED.  In both cases
the assignee didn't do anything.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs


On 03/12/2022 13.20, Michał Górny wrote:

On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 13:10 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:

On 03/12/2022 12.34, Michał Górny wrote:

On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:42 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:

On 03/12/2022 08.09, Michał Górny wrote:

Hi,

I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bug
states with a simple NEW state.  Why?

1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
in a meaningful way.

2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
UNCONFIRMED for a long time.


While I do not strictly oppose that change, I like the UNCONFIRMED /
CONFIRMED states.

I don't know how 1. is an argument for removing it. Quite the contrary,
the statement itself says that the feature is used. Furthermore, it is
not my observation that only a handful of developers use it. Most open
bugs are in the CONF state [1], so I would conclude that most use the
feature. Of course, that depends on your definition of "used in a
meaningful way". For me, CONFIRMED was always about someone, usually a
-dev, acknowledging that the bug reports a valid issue that needs to be
addressed (either by Gentoo or upstream). Is that using it in a
meaningful way?


Does that imply that bugs that are UNCONFIRMED are not worth our effort?


No, not all. Could you elaborate how you derive this implication?

I had always assumed that UNCONFIRMED means that nobody (as in, no dev)
looked at the issue report and vetted its validity. Nothing more,
nothing less.



I'm trying to understand what actual value this has.  Unless it's data
for the sake of having data.


That is a valid concern.

I think having UNCONFIRMED / CONFIRMED *helps* the issue reporter, and 
other (affected) persons, to decide if they need to "chase" the issue's 
assigned entity.


Assume looking at the open bugs list of a developer. If the developer 
has old bugs in UNCONFIRMED state, you may want to issue a friendly 
ping. Sure, strictly speaking, this would require all bugs to drop back 
to UNCONFIMRED when the bug assignee changes. But even without such an 
implicit mechanism, those two states provide some value.


A similar case can be made for IN_PROGRESS. However, I see how one could 
argue that IN_PROGRESS provides more value than UNCONFIRMED / CONFIRMED.


As I said, I do not strictly oppose this change. But since this is a 
RFC, I commented. :)


Maybe it is just me being used to bug transition states being

NEW / UNCONFIRMED → CONFIRMED → IN_PROGRESS → CLOSED

(with intermediate states being optional)

- Flow

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 13:10 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 03/12/2022 12.34, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:42 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > > On 03/12/2022 08.09, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bug
> > > > states with a simple NEW state.  Why?
> > > > 
> > > > 1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
> > > > in a meaningful way.
> > > > 
> > > > 2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
> > > > UNCONFIRMED for a long time.
> > > 
> > > While I do not strictly oppose that change, I like the UNCONFIRMED /
> > > CONFIRMED states.
> > > 
> > > I don't know how 1. is an argument for removing it. Quite the contrary,
> > > the statement itself says that the feature is used. Furthermore, it is
> > > not my observation that only a handful of developers use it. Most open
> > > bugs are in the CONF state [1], so I would conclude that most use the
> > > feature. Of course, that depends on your definition of "used in a
> > > meaningful way". For me, CONFIRMED was always about someone, usually a
> > > -dev, acknowledging that the bug reports a valid issue that needs to be
> > > addressed (either by Gentoo or upstream). Is that using it in a
> > > meaningful way?
> > 
> > Does that imply that bugs that are UNCONFIRMED are not worth our effort?
> 
> No, not all. Could you elaborate how you derive this implication?
> 
> I had always assumed that UNCONFIRMED means that nobody (as in, no dev) 
> looked at the issue report and vetted its validity. Nothing more, 
> nothing less.
> 

I'm trying to understand what actual value this has.  Unless it's data
for the sake of having data.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

> On Sat, 03 Dec 2022, Ulrich Mueller wrote:

> Some people found that not satisfactory, so NEW and ASSIGNED were
> replaced by CONFIRMED and IN_PROGRESS. (We also had status REOPENED
> which was removed with the same change.) Unfortunately, I cannot find
> the old discussion, but [1] suggests that the change took place in 2011
> or before.

In 2011, actually. Discussion is here:
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/a22baae8830ca806684da98ce7698206

"Right now, it seems logical to use UNCONFIRMED for the new bugs and let
devs (re-)confirm them as necessary.
I think it might be even a good idea to limit the possibility of setting
'CONFIRMED' to devs. Otherwise, I see users bumping each of their bugs
to 'CONFIRMED' immediately."
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/33e6f39fbfafe95c18c563b12c61d9f0

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs


On 03/12/2022 12.34, Michał Górny wrote:

On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:42 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:

On 03/12/2022 08.09, Michał Górny wrote:

Hi,

I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bug
states with a simple NEW state.  Why?

1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
in a meaningful way.

2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
UNCONFIRMED for a long time.


While I do not strictly oppose that change, I like the UNCONFIRMED /
CONFIRMED states.

I don't know how 1. is an argument for removing it. Quite the contrary,
the statement itself says that the feature is used. Furthermore, it is
not my observation that only a handful of developers use it. Most open
bugs are in the CONF state [1], so I would conclude that most use the
feature. Of course, that depends on your definition of "used in a
meaningful way". For me, CONFIRMED was always about someone, usually a
-dev, acknowledging that the bug reports a valid issue that needs to be
addressed (either by Gentoo or upstream). Is that using it in a
meaningful way?


Does that imply that bugs that are UNCONFIRMED are not worth our effort?


No, not all. Could you elaborate how you derive this implication?

I had always assumed that UNCONFIRMED means that nobody (as in, no dev) 
looked at the issue report and vetted its validity. Nothing more, 
nothing less.


- Flow



OpenPGP_0x8CAC2A9678548E35.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

> On Sat, 03 Dec 2022, Michał Górny wrote:

>> > I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED
>> > bug states with a simple NEW state. Why?
>> 
>> > 1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
>> > in a meaningful way.
>> 
>> > 2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
>> > UNCONFIRMED for a long time.
>> 
>> Then rename UNCONFIRMED to NEW-WITH-SUGAR-ON-TOP-WE-ARE-A-HAPPY-
>> COMMUNITY,

> Done.

Seriously, we had UNCONFIRMED, NEW, and ASSIGNED before. The default
status used to be NEW, but with "expert" reporting users could
explicitly assign the status to UNCONFIRMED.

Some people found that not satisfactory, so NEW and ASSIGNED were
replaced by CONFIRMED and IN_PROGRESS. (We also had status REOPENED
which was removed with the same change.) Unfortunately, I cannot find
the old discussion, but [1] suggests that the change took place in 2011
or before.

The Bugzilla Guide [2] still has the old wording:

| • UNCONFIRMED - You're generally not going to see this too often.
|   This means that a bug reporter has opened a bug using the advanced
|   method and is uncertain their bug is an actual bug.
| • NEW - Bugs that are first opened are considered new.

Tracing the history of that text, it was the same in 2005 [3], and seems
to originate from [4].

A previous discussion about this topic (started by you :) can be found
in [5], BTW.

Ulrich

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/391203#c1
[2] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Bugzilla/Guide#Working_with_a_bug
[3] 
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/archive/proj/gentoo.git/commit/xml/htdocs/doc/en/bugzilla-howto.xml?id=6947795f3817a6779a81d768e9a5a07380d56aa4
[4] https://bugs.gentoo.org/97274
[5] 
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/b24ea134d3555cd25560090cf4a87657

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:42 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 03/12/2022 08.09, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bug
> > states with a simple NEW state.  Why?
> > 
> > 1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
> > in a meaningful way.
> > 
> > 2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
> > UNCONFIRMED for a long time.
> 
> While I do not strictly oppose that change, I like the UNCONFIRMED / 
> CONFIRMED states.
> 
> I don't know how 1. is an argument for removing it. Quite the contrary, 
> the statement itself says that the feature is used. Furthermore, it is 
> not my observation that only a handful of developers use it. Most open 
> bugs are in the CONF state [1], so I would conclude that most use the 
> feature. Of course, that depends on your definition of "used in a 
> meaningful way". For me, CONFIRMED was always about someone, usually a 
> -dev, acknowledging that the bug reports a valid issue that needs to be 
> addressed (either by Gentoo or upstream). Is that using it in a 
> meaningful way?

Does that imply that bugs that are UNCONFIRMED are not worth our effort?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

On 03/12/2022 08.09, Michał Górny wrote:

Hi,

I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bug
states with a simple NEW state. Why?

1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
in a meaningful way.

2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
UNCONFIRMED for a long time.

While I do not strictly oppose that change, I like the UNCONFIRMED /
CONFIRMED states.

I don't know how 1. is an argument for removing it. Quite the contrary,
the statement itself says that the feature is used. Furthermore, it is
not my observation that only a handful of developers use it. Most open
bugs are in the CONF state [1], so I would conclude that most use the
feature. Of course, that depends on your definition of "used in a
meaningful way". For me, CONFIRMED was always about someone, usually a
-dev, acknowledging that the bug reports a valid issue that needs to be
addressed (either by Gentoo or upstream). Is that using it in a
meaningful way?

And 2. doesn't appear to be a solution but helps disguise the underlying
issue. We should instead educate users that Gentoo, like most
volunteer-driven FOSS projects, is short on the workforce. Therefore
users can only expect that some bugs will be handled immediately, while
others may lay dormant for an extended period (for different reasons).

Ultimately, the central angle to tackle this issue is e to empower users
to fix the problems themselves or at least provide minimal reproducers
and debugging information. We already put in much effort (and we are
IMHO quite good at it already), but it requires continuous effort…

- Flow

1:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?component=Current%20packages_id=6623145=Gentoo%20Linux=---

OpenPGP_0x8CAC2A9678548E35.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[gentoo-dev] Last-rites: dev-util/boost-build

2022-12-03 Thread Andreas Sturmlechner

# Andreas Sturmlechner  (2022-12-03)
# No purpose anymore after 

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

2022-12-03 Thread Toralf Förster


On 12/3/22 10:53, Michał Górny wrote:

On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 09:39 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:

Then rename UNCONFIRMED to NEW-WITH-SUGAR-ON-TOP-WE-ARE-A-HAPPY-
COMMUNITY,


Done.



I do search for bugs using pybugz  and gre3p for CONFIRMED and do wonder 
if/when I shall grep for NEW too ?


--
Toralf
PGP 23217DA7 9B888F45



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 09:39 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 03 Dec 2022, Michał Górny wrote:
> 
> > I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED
> > bug states with a simple NEW state. Why?
> 
> > 1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
> > in a meaningful way.
> 
> > 2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
> > UNCONFIRMED for a long time.
> 
> Then rename UNCONFIRMED to NEW-WITH-SUGAR-ON-TOP-WE-ARE-A-HAPPY-
> COMMUNITY,

Done.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: x11-themes/mate-themes-meta

> On Sat, 03 Dec 2022, Sam James wrote:

> # Oz Tiram  (2022-12-03)
> # Mate-desktop no longer supports gtk+:2, so there is
> # no need for this package. Removal on 2023-01-03.
> x11-themes/mate-themes-meta

Is x11-themes/mate-themes obsolete then? mate-base/mate[themes] no
longer depends on it after removal of this intermediate metapackage.

Ulrich

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

> On Sat, 03 Dec 2022, Michał Górny wrote:

> I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED
> bug states with a simple NEW state. Why?

> 1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
> in a meaningful way.

> 2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
> UNCONFIRMED for a long time.

Then rename UNCONFIRMED to NEW-WITH-SUGAR-ON-TOP-WE-ARE-A-HAPPY-COMMUNITY,
and leave CONFIRMED alone? :)

However, I suspect that the real problem isn't the status label, but
when there's no action on the bug (sometimes for months or years).

Ulrich

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] app-alternatives.eclass: New eclass to streamline app-alternatives/*

On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 09:19 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 03 Dec 2022, Michał Górny wrote:
> 
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/eclass/app-alternatives.eclass
> > @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
> > +# Copyright 2022 Gentoo Authors
> > +# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
> > +
> > +# @ECLASS: app-alternatives.eclass
> > +# @MAINTAINER:
> > +# Michał Górny 
> > +# @AUTHOR:
> > +# Michał Górny 
> > +# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 8
> > +# @BLURB: Common logic for app-alternatives/*
> > +# @DESCRIPTION:
> > +# This eclass provides common logic shared by app-alternatives/*
> > +# ebuilds.  A global ALTERNATIVES variable needs to be declared
> > +# that lists available options and their respective dependencies.
> > +# HOMEPAGE, S, LICENSE, SLOT, IUSE, REQUIRED_USE and RDEPEND are
> > set.
> > +# A get_alternative() function is provided that prints the
> > determines
> 
> Grammar?

Nope, ^w error.

> 
> > +# the selected alternative and prints its respective flag name.
> > +
> > +case ${EAPI} in
> > +   8) ;;
> > +   *) die "${ECLASS}: EAPI ${EAPI} unsupported."
> 
> ${EAPI:-0} here?

Sure.

> 
> > +esac
> > +
> > +if [[ ! ${_APP_ALTERNATIVES_ECLASS} ]]; then
> > +_APP_ALTERNATIVES_ECLASS=1
> > +
> > +# @ECLASS_VARIABLE: ALTERNATIVES
> > +# @PRE_INHERIT
> > +# @REQUIRED
> > +# @DESCRIPTION:
> > +# Array of "flag:dependency" pairs specifying the available
> > +# alternatives.  The default provider must be listed first.
> > +
> > +# @FUNCTION: _app-alternatives_set_globals
> > +# @INTERNAL
> > +# @DESCRIPTION:
> > +# Set ebuild metadata variables.
> > +_app-alternatives_set_globals() {
> > +   debug-print-function ${FUNCNAME} "${@}"
> > +
> > +   if [[ $(declare -p ALTERNATIVES) != "declare -a"* ]]; then
> 
> The more modern (and presumably, more reliable) check would be:
> 
>   if [[ ${ALTERNATIVES@a} != *a* ]]; then
> 
> Since the eclass supports EAPI 8 only, bash-5.0 is guaranteed, so the
> feature will be available.

Ok.

> 
> > +   die 'ALTERNATIVES must be an array.'
> > +   elif [[ ${#ALTERNATIVES[@]} -eq 0 ]]; then
> > +   die 'ALTERNATIVES must not be empty.'
> > +   fi
> > +
> > +   HOMEPAGE="
> > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Base/Alternatives;
> > +   S=${WORKDIR}
> > +
> > +   LICENSE="CC0-1.0"
> > +   SLOT="0"
> > +
> > +   # yep, that's a cheap hack adding '+' to the first flag
> > +   IUSE="+${ALTERNATIVES[*]%%:*}"
> > +   REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( ${ALTERNATIVES[*]%%:*} )"
> > +   RDEPEND=""
> > +
> > +   local flag dep
> > +   for flag in "${ALTERNATIVES[@]}"; do
> > +   [[ ${flag} != *:* ]] && die "Invalid ALTERNATIVES
> > item: ${flag}"
> > +   dep=${flag#*:}
> > +   flag=${flag%%:*}
> > +   RDEPEND+="
> > +   ${flag}? ( ${dep} )
> > +   "
> 
> Why two newlines? A single space should be enough.

What's the difference?  It will be normalized by the PM anyway.

> 
> > +   done
> > +}
> > +_app-alternatives_set_globals
> > +
> > +# @FUNCTION: get_alternative
> > +# @DESCRIPTION:
> > +# Get the flag name for the selected alterantive (i.e. the USE flag
> > set).
> 
> Typo.

Sam already spotted this one.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] app-alternatives.eclass: New eclass to streamline app-alternatives/*