Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
On 6/2/11 5:20 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: I'd like to remove net-print/foo2zjs-. Non-live versions are severely outdated (2008) and unusable (upstream changes tarballs in-place, digest verification is broken). I went ahead and committed the change. I might try to provide some non-live ebuild in the future, and of course help is welcome. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:09:53 +0200 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote: On 6/2/11 5:20 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: I'd like to remove net-print/foo2zjs-. Non-live versions are severely outdated (2008) and unusable (upstream changes tarballs in-place, digest verification is broken). I went ahead and committed the change. I might try to provide some non-live ebuild in the future, and of course help is welcome. BTW if you'd like to create an eclass for that kind of live packages (which fetch packages from upstream), I could add smart rebuild possibility to start-live-rebuild [1]. This way, foo2zjs users would be able to upgrade their package whenever upstream tarball changes. [1]:https://github.com/mgorny/smart-live-rebuild -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
On 6/8/11 4:17 PM, Michał Górny wrote: BTW if you'd like to create an eclass for that kind of live packages (which fetch packages from upstream), I could add smart rebuild possibility to start-live-rebuild [1]. This way, foo2zjs users would be able to upgrade their package whenever upstream tarball changes. [1]:https://github.com/mgorny/smart-live-rebuild Interesting, sounds like that could be useful. But I have no idea how such an eclass would look like (rather trivial), and there are not many packages that would use it (currently just one). How about PROPERTIES=live? We could add live to possible values of PROPERTIES... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 18:14:49 +0200 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote: On 6/8/11 4:17 PM, Michał Górny wrote: BTW if you'd like to create an eclass for that kind of live packages (which fetch packages from upstream), I could add smart rebuild possibility to start-live-rebuild [1]. This way, foo2zjs users would be able to upgrade their package whenever upstream tarball changes. [1]:https://github.com/mgorny/smart-live-rebuild Interesting, sounds like that could be useful. But I have no idea how such an eclass would look like (rather trivial), and there are not many packages that would use it (currently just one). How about PROPERTIES=live? We could add live to possible values of PROPERTIES... That won't be enough. s-l-r has to get somehow the method of checking and the URL list. Right now, it is constructed in such a way that the method is based on VCS eclass being inherited, and then it grabs appropriate ebuild vars from environment.bz2. Such an eclass would have to take tarball URIs in some kind of envvar and export some kind of 'download timestamp'. Then the Python module in s-l-r would HEAD those URIs to get the current timestamp and compare that to the value exported in environment.bz2. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
On 6/8/11 6:25 PM, Michał Górny wrote: Such an eclass would have to take tarball URIs in some kind of envvar and export some kind of 'download timestamp'. Then the Python module in s-l-r would HEAD those URIs to get the current timestamp and compare that to the value exported in environment.bz2. Feel free to suggest such an eclass and/or file an enhancement bug for the package, but for now I probably won't be able to work on that. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
On 6/3/11 9:18 AM, dev-ran...@mail.ru wrote: On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 08:40:26AM +0200, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: ... We can't have a tarball, most of the files from the package are non-redistributable. ... Then why do ebuilds contain line LICENSE=GPL-2? Good catch. Well, the situation here is really unclear. Most of the package obviously is under GPL-2. Files downloaded by getweb script are copyrighted, but they have no clear license. I'm not a maintainer of the package, I'm just trying to make it work a bit better and remove the brokenness. ;-) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
On 6/2/11 6:04 PM, Gökdeniz Karadağ wrote: I use the foo2zjs package, and because other versions are broken, have moved to the live version. But I think expecting a stable version in the tree is not too much for a user. A tarball snapshot in a ~dev space would solve the issue I presume. We can't have a tarball, most of the files from the package are non-redistributable. Further problems with the current live ebuild are as follows. It seems that I have forgotten to file bugs about these issues previously. * Does not install PPD files (bug #369819) * Does not use FOO2ZJS_DEVICES from previous versions, thus downloads lots of tar files multiple times. (bug #369821) I replied on those bugs. Thank you for reporting. Existance of previous ebuilds *currently*; allows for comparison, detection, and hopefully fixing of these issues. They'll always be in the CVS history. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 08:40:26AM +0200, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: ... We can't have a tarball, most of the files from the package are non-redistributable. ... Then why do ebuilds contain line LICENSE=GPL-2?
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:17:44 +0200 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote: On 6/2/11 7:00 PM, Dane Smith wrote: I'm going to guess you've already tried this, but just in case. Did you try asking him to version things more... sanely? I've had to do that a few times and people are usually surprisingly receptive. Right, that's a good idea. Have you visited http://foo2zjs.rkkda.com/ ? The message on that page is quite hostile towards distros: Sorry, I haven't seen this either. I thought you mean a VCS when you mentioned a 'live' ebuild. Now that I see how the ebuilds look like, I have only one idea. It's simple yet ugly. You could have a 'versioned' ebuild linked to the actual SRC_URI, and bump it whenever you notice the upstream tarball changes. This would allow users to have the package upgraded automatically. I think it would be similar to the situation we had with adobe-flash packages. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
Michał Górny schrieb: You could have a 'versioned' ebuild linked to the actual SRC_URI, and bump it whenever you notice the upstream tarball changes. This would allow users to have the package upgraded automatically. I don't think this will help users much. It will just make the package uninstallable between the time the upstream tarball changes and the package is bumped. A live ebuild is at least honestly telling users what to expect. I think it would be similar to the situation we had with adobe-flash packages. It reminds me more of the (now defunct) live ebuild of chromium-bin Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
On 06/03/11 16:09, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: Michał Górny schrieb: You could have a 'versioned' ebuild linked to the actual SRC_URI, and bump it whenever you notice the upstream tarball changes. This would allow users to have the package upgraded automatically. I don't think this will help users much. It will just make the package uninstallable between the time the upstream tarball changes and the package is bumped. A live ebuild is at least honestly telling users what to expect. Just mirror the darn tarball in a stable location. I've done that for silly and weird upstreams ... I think it would be similar to the situation we had with adobe-flash packages. It reminds me more of the (now defunct) live ebuild of chromium-bin Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn -- Patrick Lauer http://service.gentooexperimental.org Gentoo Council Member and Evangelist Part of Gentoo Benchmarks, Forensics, PostgreSQL, KDE herds
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
Patrick Lauer schrieb: On 06/03/11 16:09, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: Michał Górny schrieb: You could have a 'versioned' ebuild linked to the actual SRC_URI, and bump it whenever you notice the upstream tarball changes. This would allow users to have the package upgraded automatically. I don't think this will help users much. It will just make the package uninstallable between the time the upstream tarball changes and the package is bumped. A live ebuild is at least honestly telling users what to expect. Just mirror the darn tarball in a stable location. I've done that for silly and weird upstreams ... The problem (already mentioned earlier in this thread) is that some parts are not redistributable. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
The problem (already mentioned earlier in this thread) is that some parts are not redistributable. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn I've looked through the website and the tarbell and I've not seen anything that says it's not redistributable. In the readme, there is some warning that things built with JBIG1 may fall under software that is already patentable, but that doesn't say the file can't be distributed. What part of it is causing that problem? Best, Ross Smith
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
On 6/3/11 4:09 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: Michał Górny schrieb: You could have a 'versioned' ebuild linked to the actual SRC_URI, and bump it whenever you notice the upstream tarball changes. This would allow users to have the package upgraded automatically. I don't think this will help users much. It will just make the package uninstallable between the time the upstream tarball changes and the package is bumped. A live ebuild is at least honestly telling users what to expect. Agreed. The 'version' ebuild linked to the tarball changing in place is actually the current state of non-live ebuilds (by the way, do people responding in this thread actually read ebuilds in question?). This thread is about removing those 'versioned' ebuilds, so your response could be interpret as don't remove them. But then they're broken, and if I bump them today a few weeks/months from now they'll be broken again. The live ebuild should be more resilient. I think it would be similar to the situation we had with adobe-flash packages. It reminds me more of the (now defunct) live ebuild of chromium-bin Interesting, I was maintaining chromium-bin and I masked it. Doesn't seem similar to me (did you mean google-chrome-bin or similar hacks?). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. schrieb:
This thread is about removing those 'versioned' ebuilds, so your
response could be interpret as don't remove them. But then they're
broken, and if I bump them today a few weeks/months from now they'll be
broken again.
I'm all for removing the non-live ebuilds.
It reminds me more of the (now defunct) live ebuild of chromium-bin
Interesting, I was maintaining chromium-bin and I masked it. Doesn't
seem similar to me (did you mean google-chrome-bin or similar hacks?)
I meant the chromium-bin-.ebuild which did this:
LV=`curl --silent
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/chromium-rel-linux${arch_path}/LATEST`
elog Installing/updating to version ${LV}
wget -c
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/chromium-rel-linux${arch_path}/${LV}/chrome-linux.zip;
-O ${T}/${PN}-${LV}.zip
76
So essentially a live ebuild which downloads changing stuff from a http URI.
Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
ross smith schrieb: I've looked through the website and the tarbell and I've not seen anything that says it's not redistributable. In the readme, there is some warning that things built with JBIG1 may fall under software that is already patentable, but that doesn't say the file can't be distributed. What part of it is causing that problem? To my knowledge, the firmware files for HP printers are not redistributable. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
[gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
I'd like to remove net-print/foo2zjs-. Non-live versions are severely outdated (2008) and unusable (upstream changes tarballs in-place, digest verification is broken). The upstream doesn't support snapshots of the tarball, and claims the auxiliary files cannot be redistributed. I think the best course of action is to leave just the live ebuild (I'm using it on one system that has a printer that requires it). If there are no objections, I'm going to make the change. My guess is that most people don't care about this abandoned package, and the people who are using it will appreciate removal of the brokenness. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
On 02-06-2011 18:20, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: I'd like to removenet-print/foo2zjs-. Non-live versions are severely outdated (2008) and unusable (upstream changes tarballs in-place, digest verification is broken). The upstream doesn't support snapshots of the tarball, and claims the auxiliary files cannot be redistributed. I think the best course of action is to leave just the live ebuild (I'm using it on one system that has a printer that requires it). If there are no objections, I'm going to make the change. My guess is that most people don't care about this abandoned package, and the people who are using it will appreciate removal of the brokenness. I use the foo2zjs package, and because other versions are broken, have moved to the live version. But I think expecting a stable version in the tree is not too much for a user. A tarball snapshot in a ~dev space would solve the issue I presume. Further problems with the current live ebuild are as follows. It seems that I have forgotten to file bugs about these issues previously. * Does not install PPD files (bug #369819) * Does not use FOO2ZJS_DEVICES from previous versions, thus downloads lots of tar files multiple times. (bug #369821) Existance of previous ebuilds *currently*; allows for comparison, detection, and hopefully fixing of these issues. -- Gökdeniz Karadağ
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:20:41 +0200 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote: The upstream doesn't support snapshots of the tarball, and claims the auxiliary files cannot be redistributed. I think the best course of action is to leave just the live ebuild (I'm using it on one system that has a printer that requires it). I think it may be useful to have a snapshot anyway. If you can't tarball it, maybe a tagged VCS ebuild? I'm not sure if such a thing is supposed to lie unmasked in the tree but it's better than no non-live ebuild. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
On 6/2/11 6:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote: I think it may be useful to have a snapshot anyway. If you can't tarball it, maybe a tagged VCS ebuild? I'm not sure if such a thing is supposed to lie unmasked in the tree but it's better than no non-live ebuild. I know that would be useful, and I'd love to do that. However, as far as I know there is no VCS. The guy just changes the tarballs and updates the webpage. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/02/11 12:56, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: On 6/2/11 6:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote: I think it may be useful to have a snapshot anyway. If you can't tarball it, maybe a tagged VCS ebuild? I'm not sure if such a thing is supposed to lie unmasked in the tree but it's better than no non-live ebuild. I know that would be useful, and I'd love to do that. However, as far as I know there is no VCS. The guy just changes the tarballs and updates the webpage. I'm going to guess you've already tried this, but just in case. Did you try asking him to version things more... sanely? I've had to do that a few times and people are usually surprisingly receptive. Regards, - -- Dane Smith (c1pher) Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86 RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531op=index -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJN58GVAAoJEEsurZwMLhUxmP4P/iYtgunbzAPdx68lmlOJdoWs kFdZ2YgdlzRVTgI2UL2JFEoVmGlapzXr9rzzlvxPQvvYqHDp+V9oHbWBYACVq98U Mghl44M9Eo1Wo8a5uhf/WhL3xstmjJWeuZgHrN4g+4kXL0OAxrKoGPwNDEdDdv8y ubRBgI/0Mnya+xb2ccYCH2Gtakr/LBu98PTLvTVcrvjxz+NVE2uiPYbwJKSGWgBK DgGny1npnbQ7CDBwtm+3L4WsAuvsybB0QyihApQROTfit4AJIyikfA3PzzxjyX1t /x8enShtSjoxPqoQxIyzo1iSEX/nK916VUJF/3xchQcj7obezrBI5bdzyBf+l9nL E82CuycebdOdbzlALwpJj32aIU4xLGGQgp6//X8XHfl2AH/fFD0horKQxLknCTAr HNfoU17Gdo9QGfAjii1CatpqqlpnTu3ryymxlVKg1Aan41oJsLLSZ3PCtXAMGjr0 4mt2vbbsF20V8AhzH/bF8rsb9mDVTQVP6kKfILe5x0nayWItF7DfJzzQOt4+OZiS UwLE9Bnh3o3JbYZKGiDDUBFxE7lM0ORJNi7YIFQNZmnk5T2oaFBLnoyk+Xzrrjxv wjpqNnvlFUFTfiAaUAonEV1ZVtrtyPMhqxENREjK4eC1+CJhiX1I9IxZJe13Bz12 zeawNwQT2QUBUhCHQVFI =lU9a -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
On 6/2/11 7:00 PM, Dane Smith wrote: I'm going to guess you've already tried this, but just in case. Did you try asking him to version things more... sanely? I've had to do that a few times and people are usually surprisingly receptive. Right, that's a good idea. Have you visited http://foo2zjs.rkkda.com/ ? The message on that page is quite hostile towards distros: *** DON'T USE the foo2zjs package from: Ubuntu, SUSE, Mandrake/Manrivia, Debian, RedHat, Fedora, Gentoo, Xandros, EEE PC, Linpus, MacOSX, or BSD! *** Download it here and follow the directions below. Also, someone has asked a similar question: http://foo2zjs.rkkda.com/forum/read.php?29,2802,2802. He got no response. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: removal of net-print/foo2zjs-99999999 (earlier versions are fubar)
On 6/2/11 7:00 PM, Dane Smith wrote: I'm going to guess you've already tried this, but just in case. Did you try asking him to version things more... sanely? I've had to do that a few times and people are usually surprisingly receptive. Ah, and see also http://osdir.com/ml/linux.frugalware.devel/2005-11/msg00022.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
