[gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: app-pda/libopensync and reverse dependencies
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 07:40:53 +0200 Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: On 02/10/2011 11:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: I'm not sure if you understand opensync then, there's 3-4 series in tree and mostly not compatible with each other: 0.22, 0.36, 0.39 and latest being live . 0.39 is fixed. 0.36 we'll keep around since very few of the plugins seem to be ported to 0.39 (just looking at the dependencies), but it needs a lot more work than 0.39. I know barry needs 0.22 but I looked at cherry-picking some upstream patches to bring it up to date a few months ago. If there are no other users then I think we should stabilize 0.36 once it's resolved and drop 0.22. I'm not interested in maintaining the live ebuild but I can get it up to date at least. -- fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime @ gentoo.orgEFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: app-pda/libopensync and reverse dependencies
Il giorno gio, 10/02/2011 alle 18.00 +0100, Andreas K. Huettel ha scritto: Guys you have a communication problem. Even though you are QA and can do whatever you want it would probably help your public image if you just add to the original e-mail acked by peper / acked by maintainer... Sorry but it really matters very little whether maintainer acks at all, *if the package fails to build*. We're not talking about a single problem with a single package. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: app-pda/libopensync and reverse dependencies
Sorry but it really matters very little whether maintainer acks at all, *if the package fails to build*. We're not talking about a single problem with a single package. Yes, you are completely right regarding the ebuilds. I do not dispute at all that masking them is a correct way of action. However we are talking about interaction of human beings here. What I was trying to say: _If_ you have coordinated this with the maintainer, it should be worth the effort to add two words to the email just to mention this. It would even strengthen your argumentative position! In general, we have had the discussion a few times here already whether briefness/conciseness or politeness/additional information is more important. I agree that this may be a cultural thing. But then, normally the consensus is to rather err on the side of caution... Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer - kde, sci, arm, tex dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: app-pda/libopensync and reverse dependencies
On 02/10/11 19:02, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: Sorry but it really matters very little whether maintainer acks at all, *if the package fails to build*. I don't agree with that - QA doesn't give anyone a silver bullet for killing whatever you want (or whatever you think should die). Maintainer must be *always* notified/pinged/mailed/im'ed/phoned/poked when his package is going to be masked removed, if he's responsive then getting his ACK on the matter shouldn't be a problem, if not... at least you've tried. We're not talking about a single problem with a single package. Yes, you are completely right regarding the ebuilds. I do not dispute at all that masking them is a correct way of action. However we are talking about interaction of human beings here. What I was trying to say: _If_ you have coordinated this with the maintainer, it should be worth the effort to add two words to the email just to mention this. It would even strengthen your argumentative position! In general, we have had the discussion a few times here already whether briefness/conciseness or politeness/additional information is more important. I agree that this may be a cultural thing. But then, normally the consensus is to rather err on the side of caution... It's usually better to be overly verbose in such cases, so yes: if maintainer said it's ok then please mention that in mask message - it's just few keystrokes more. -- Krzysztof Pawlik nelchael at gentoo.org key id: 0xF6A80E46 desktop-misc, java, vim, kernel, python, apache... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: app-pda/libopensync and reverse dependencies
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:23:08 +0200 Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: # Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (10 Feb 2011) # Unmaintained and completely broken wrt bugs # 185475, 211262, 247268, 276220, 287751, 293501, 298109, # 301729, 308801, 311763, 311765, 328691, 340605, 348483, # 352506, 237366, 250054 # Removal in 30 days app-pda/barry app-pda/libopensync app-pda/libopensync-plugin-evolution2 app-pda/libopensync-plugin-file app-pda/libopensync-plugin-gnokii app-pda/libopensync-plugin-google-calendar app-pda/libopensync-plugin-gpe app-pda/libopensync-plugin-irmc app-pda/libopensync-plugin-palm app-pda/libopensync-plugin-python app-pda/libopensync-plugin-sunbird app-pda/libopensync-plugin-syncml app-pda/libopensync-plugin-vformat app-pda/msynctool app-pda/multisync-gui app-pda/osynctool I've been working with barry and it works perfectly fine without libopensync (guess what the opensync USE flag does). So don't touch it. Hey, here's an idea. Before you go making big masks like this for packages several people depend on, maybe try looking for a maintainer. I would have looked at this long ago if someone had simply said Hey, opensync needs some lovin. At least half of the listed bugs are either five-minute fixes or not grounds for removal (seriously, there's three duplicates, a svn ebuild, and maintainer-wanted bug). -- fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime @ gentoo.orgEFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: app-pda/libopensync and reverse dependencies
Il giorno gio, 10/02/2011 alle 14.08 -0600, Ryan Hill ha scritto: Hey, here's an idea. Before you go making big masks like this for packages several people depend on, maybe try looking for a maintainer. That is *exactly* what these masks are. And you should know there is *no* five minutes fix. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: app-pda/libopensync and reverse dependencies
On Thursday 10 February 2011 21:49:53 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: Il giorno gio, 10/02/2011 alle 14.08 -0600, Ryan Hill ha scritto: Hey, here's an idea. Before you go making big masks like this for packages several people depend on, maybe try looking for a maintainer. That is *exactly* what these masks are. And you should know there is *no* five minutes fix. Hey come on. If you really wanted to find a maintainer, you'd have given me the time to check back with upstream instead of just refusing a revert. Packages oscillating in and out of package mask (however broken) is also not nice for the user. -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/
[gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: app-pda/libopensync and reverse dependencies
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:49:53 +0100 Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@gmail.com wrote: Il giorno gio, 10/02/2011 alle 14.08 -0600, Ryan Hill ha scritto: Hey, here's an idea. Before you go making big masks like this for packages several people depend on, maybe try looking for a maintainer. That is *exactly* what these masks are. And you should know there is *no* five minutes fix. Seriously? You prefer to let things get so bad it has to be removed before looking for someone to work on it? If you think this is a better way to do QA than an email saying Hey, this package needs some attention. Anyone want to look at it before it gets too bad? then I really don't know what to say. -- fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime @ gentoo.orgEFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: app-pda/libopensync and reverse dependencies
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:49:53 +0100 Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@gmail.com wrote: Il giorno gio, 10/02/2011 alle 14.08 -0600, Ryan Hill ha scritto: Hey, here's an idea. Before you go making big masks like this for packages several people depend on, maybe try looking for a maintainer. That is *exactly* what these masks are. And you should know there is *no* five minutes fix. Seriously? You prefer to let things get so bad it has to be removed before looking for someone to work on it? If you think this is a better way to do QA than an email saying Hey, this package needs some attention. Anyone want to look at it before it gets too bad? then I really don't know what to say. 1) Most of the packages touched in this manner are usually maintainer-wanted / needed or haven't been touched in years. I don't think sending email every week saying 'hey who wants to work on fixing X' is really that effective in getting help. 2) What is effective is masking a package and telling people you are doing to delete it in X days. Audiences who do not read email (or do not subscribe to this list) notice when they can't install something anymore. Is it annoying to folks? Sure. I'm not sure how much more annoying it is than trying to build some package that has been in the tree since 2004 but hasn't been touched since 2007 and doesn't build on a modern system. I would prefer this process not become the perfect bureaucratic storm. -A -- fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime @ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: app-pda/libopensync and reverse dependencies
On 02/10/2011 11:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: On Thursday 10 February 2011 21:49:53 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: Il giorno gio, 10/02/2011 alle 14.08 -0600, Ryan Hill ha scritto: Hey, here's an idea. Before you go making big masks like this for packages several people depend on, maybe try looking for a maintainer. That is *exactly* what these masks are. And you should know there is *no* five minutes fix. Hey come on. If you really wanted to find a maintainer, you'd have given me the time to check back with upstream instead of just refusing a revert. Packages oscillating in and out of package mask (however broken) is also not nice for the user. I'm not sure if you understand opensync then, there's 3-4 series in tree and mostly not compatible with each other: 0.22, 0.36, 0.39 and latest being live . What you suggested about reverting would have exposed all of them to users again. Fixing latest is *not* enough. Instead you should unmask what you *have fixed* per series (version). - Samuli
