Re: [gentoo-dev] Switching order of packages in virtual/pkgconfig
On 01/03/2013 02:58 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: On 02/01/13 15:29, Luca Barbato wrote: last I checked prefix didn't have issues with the pkg-config bootstrap either. there is no circular deps either. check glib deps iirc some non-glibc platforms have few problems with it. not if you enable USE=internal-glib. i've added the USE flag on request from vapier mostly, so we could punt pkg-config-lite from Portage. it should not depend on any of the stuff embedded (uclibc) has problems with anymore. as for anything other than uclibc, glibc, i'd like to see an bug, there isn't one Doesn't that violate our policy on bundled libraries? I would like to see us switch after Diego is happy with tinderbox testing. That would put us in a position to eliminate glib from many non-GNOME systems, provided that we kill the glib dependency in udev/eudev. That is something worth exploring. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Switching order of packages in virtual/pkgconfig
On 01/04/2013 05:31 AM, Richard Yao wrote: On 01/03/2013 02:58 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: On 02/01/13 15:29, Luca Barbato wrote: last I checked prefix didn't have issues with the pkg-config bootstrap either. there is no circular deps either. check glib deps iirc some non-glibc platforms have few problems with it. not if you enable USE=internal-glib. i've added the USE flag on request from vapier mostly, so we could punt pkg-config-lite from Portage. it should not depend on any of the stuff embedded (uclibc) has problems with anymore. as for anything other than uclibc, glibc, i'd like to see an bug, there isn't one Doesn't that violate our policy on bundled libraries? I would like to see us switch after Diego is happy with tinderbox testing. That would put us in a position to eliminate glib from many non-GNOME systems, provided that we kill the glib dependency in udev/eudev. That is something worth exploring. Scratch that. The glib dependency in udev/eudev is purely optional. The only dependency is in pkg-config. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Switching order of packages in virtual/pkgconfig
On 02/01/13 17:28, Matt Turner wrote: On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: i'd say never. there is no benefit in switching. pkg-config is the default implementation from freedesktop.org. pkg-config is now lighter and has less dependencies than before as the switch from bundled glib1 to glib2 allowed dropping of the popt library. As a data point: pkgconfig and glib:2 are built during stage3 and removed during --depclean. Switching to pkgconf avoids glib:2 entirely and saves some stage3 building time. so it's really an non-issue. and if someone finds this really an important issue: catalyst could be fixed to enable USE=internal-glib during stage building, heck, I think we could wrap that functionality to USE=build ?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Switching order of packages in virtual/pkgconfig
On 01/01/13 23:01, Jeff Horelick wrote: I would like to propose a switch of the order of DEPENDs in virtual/pkgconfig to make dev-util/pkgconf[pkg-config] the default choice for new installations. dev-util/pkgconf has less external dependencies, is lighter and is faster than dev-util/pkgconfig while being now 100% compatible This switch has already been made by Funtoo, Alpine Linux and FreeBSD with very little in the way of ill effects recently from any of those 3 camps. There are no more pending bugs against pkgconf (and Diego did a tinderbox run with it a while back) in Gentoo. pkgconf also has a upstream that is more than happy to work with us specifically (or anyone for that matter) and I (a Gentoo developer) am one of the upstream developers. If this is approved, I will make the change in ~2 weeks. I'm not planning on making a news item because users should notice little difference. Thanks Jeff i'd say never. there is no benefit in switching. pkg-config is the default implementation from freedesktop.org. pkg-config is now lighter and has less dependencies than before as the switch from bundled glib1 to glib2 allowed dropping of the popt library. and since pkgconf upstream doesn't properly follow pkg-config upstream git and do necessary changes, like for bug 445796 it would mean pkg-config related bugs would have to be reported to double upstream and thus, not be maintainable last I checked prefix didn't have issues with the pkg-config bootstrap either. there is no circular deps either. lose-lose situation for the switch, so over my commit access ;-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Switching order of packages in virtual/pkgconfig
On 02/01/13 13:11, Samuli Suominen wrote: On 01/01/13 23:01, Jeff Horelick wrote: I would like to propose a switch of the order of DEPENDs in virtual/pkgconfig to make dev-util/pkgconf[pkg-config] the default choice for new installations. dev-util/pkgconf has less external dependencies, is lighter and is faster than dev-util/pkgconfig while being now 100% compatible This switch has already been made by Funtoo, Alpine Linux and FreeBSD with very little in the way of ill effects recently from any of those 3 camps. There are no more pending bugs against pkgconf (and Diego did a tinderbox run with it a while back) in Gentoo. pkgconf also has a upstream that is more than happy to work with us specifically (or anyone for that matter) and I (a Gentoo developer) am one of the upstream developers. If this is approved, I will make the change in ~2 weeks. I'm not planning on making a news item because users should notice little difference. Thanks Jeff i'd say never. there is no benefit in switching. pkg-config is the default implementation from freedesktop.org. And has its share of issues. pkg-config is now lighter and has less dependencies than before as the switch from bundled glib1 to glib2 allowed dropping of the popt library. As if glib-2 is any lighter... and since pkgconf upstream doesn't properly follow pkg-config upstream git and do necessary changes, like for bug 445796 it would mean pkg-config related bugs would have to be reported to double upstream and thus, not be maintainable Non sequitur at best. My interaction with both upstreams had been decent though. last I checked prefix didn't have issues with the pkg-config bootstrap either. there is no circular deps either. check glib deps iirc some non-glibc platforms have few problems with it. lu
Re: [gentoo-dev] Switching order of packages in virtual/pkgconfig
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: On 01/01/13 23:01, Jeff Horelick wrote: I would like to propose a switch of the order of DEPENDs in virtual/pkgconfig to make dev-util/pkgconf[pkg-config] the default choice for new installations. dev-util/pkgconf has less external dependencies, is lighter and is faster than dev-util/pkgconfig while being now 100% compatible This switch has already been made by Funtoo, Alpine Linux and FreeBSD with very little in the way of ill effects recently from any of those 3 camps. There are no more pending bugs against pkgconf (and Diego did a tinderbox run with it a while back) in Gentoo. pkgconf also has a upstream that is more than happy to work with us specifically (or anyone for that matter) and I (a Gentoo developer) am one of the upstream developers. If this is approved, I will make the change in ~2 weeks. I'm not planning on making a news item because users should notice little difference. Thanks Jeff i'd say never. there is no benefit in switching. pkg-config is the default implementation from freedesktop.org. pkg-config is now lighter and has less dependencies than before as the switch from bundled glib1 to glib2 allowed dropping of the popt library. and since pkgconf upstream doesn't properly follow pkg-config upstream git and do necessary changes, like for bug 445796 it would mean pkg-config related bugs would have to be reported to double upstream and thus, not be maintainable last I checked prefix didn't have issues with the pkg-config bootstrap either. there is no circular deps either. lose-lose situation for the switch, so over my commit access ;-) I agree with you. The original implementation should be our default. People interested in get rid of the glib dependency should be able to replace pkg-config with pkgconf manually. No need to make an unofficial implementation the default. Regards, -- Rafael Goncalves Martins Gentoo Linux developer http://rafaelmartins.eng.br/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Switching order of packages in virtual/pkgconfig
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: i'd say never. there is no benefit in switching. pkg-config is the default implementation from freedesktop.org. pkg-config is now lighter and has less dependencies than before as the switch from bundled glib1 to glib2 allowed dropping of the popt library. As a data point: pkgconfig and glib:2 are built during stage3 and removed during --depclean. Switching to pkgconf avoids glib:2 entirely and saves some stage3 building time.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Switching order of packages in virtual/pkgconfig
Samuli Suominen wrote: i'd say never. there is no benefit in switching. pkg-config is the default implementation from freedesktop.org. That's one awful double standard. :\ dev-libs/libusb is the default implementation from libusb.org, yet you are astonishingly eager to *avoid* that it is the default in virtual/libusb-1, even if ~keywords make it apply only to ~ systems. and since pkgconf upstream doesn't properly follow pkg-config upstream git and do necessary changes, like for bug 445796 it would mean pkg-config related bugs would have to be reported to double upstream and thus, not be maintainable In the case of libusb and libusbx, libusbx have consistently communicated that they are eager to *break* the API, and they have indeed made at least one release with an outright change of existing API, which broke things for library users. They released another version with that change reverted a day or so later, but still. I even asked you if you would consider swapping the default, but no. lose-lose situation for the switch Funny that you should write that. I think it applies also when you prefer libusbx over the default implementation from libusb.org. Kind regards //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Switching order of packages in virtual/pkgconfig
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Samuli Suominen wrote: i'd say never. there is no benefit in switching. pkg-config is the default implementation from freedesktop.org. That's one awful double standard. :\ Double-standards aside, I don't think the original implementation is what matters, so much as what works best for our users (and ourselves) in practice. Others have pointed out that we don't have enough data to safely switch the default, and I think that alone is sufficient reason to hold off for now, but once that data is collected if it makes sense to switch we should do so. We don't use XFree86 or LILO, and quite a few are eager to drop udev. The important thing is to offer users meaningful choices, and make the default whatever makes the most sense at the time we set it. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Switching order of packages in virtual/pkgconfig
Rich Freeman wrote: i'd say never. there is no benefit in switching. pkg-config is the default implementation from freedesktop.org. That's one awful double standard. :\ Double-standards aside, I don't think the original implementation is what matters, so much as what works best for our users (and ourselves) in practice. Sure thing! I agree with that, that is a pragmatic approach. Others have pointed out that we don't have enough data to safely switch the default A good point. once that data is collected if it makes sense to switch we should do so. I think that is fair, along with.. We don't use XFree86 or LILO, and quite a few are eager to drop udev. The important thing is to offer users meaningful choices, and make the default whatever makes the most sense at the time we set it. ..always being open to re-evaluate and change the default again, if that makes the most sense at a later time. //Peter PS. I for one would actually prefer LILO to be the Gentoo default. :)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Switching order of packages in virtual/pkgconfig
On 1 January 2013 16:46, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote: On 01/01/2013 22:29, Tony Chainsaw Vroon wrote: That sounds like a clear win. If it has survived the tinderboxing there likely isn't much to hold you back. As non-contentious topics sometimes end up with no replies at all... consider 48 hours of radio silence an implicit yes. It didn't survive. I'm not sure if all the bugs have been fixed now but at some point I had to stop the tinderboxing because it was hitting package failures, and then it was fixed for next version — which was difficult to test. So I would veto this _for the moment_. (I'd be happy to run another test _after_ the glibc-2.17 one.) -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ I was unaware that the tinderbox run hadn't finished. I definetly think it should be fully run through with pkgconf before we fully consider switching the virtual. All the bugs that have been found were fixed, last i checked, only 2 were not verified fixed, but I could not reproduce and after ~2 months of asking people to verify whether the bugs still existed on pkgconf-0.8.9, no one had replied with the results of a test, so i closed them. If you could run it through the tinderbox again Diego, that would be great and we can finish evaluating based on those results.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Switching order of packages in virtual/pkgconfig
Rich Freeman schrieb: Double-standards aside, I don't think the original implementation is what matters, so much as what works best for our users (and ourselves) in practice. I don't think the original matters either. But I wouldn't mind having libusb over libusbx, jpeg over libjpeg-turbo (did you notice any speed increase on your computer?), openoffice(-bin) over libreoffice. Only if one implementation is vastly better than the alternative, then I would expect the distro to make the sane choice. Else it can be choosen randomly during each install for what I care. Others have pointed out that we don't have enough data to safely switch the default, and I think that alone is sufficient reason to hold off for now, but once that data is collected if it makes sense to switch we should do so. We don't use XFree86 or LILO, Using LILO is still documented as an alternative to GRUB: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=10#doc_chap3 Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: [gentoo-dev] Switching order of packages in virtual/pkgconfig
On 02/01/13 15:29, Luca Barbato wrote: last I checked prefix didn't have issues with the pkg-config bootstrap either. there is no circular deps either. check glib deps iirc some non-glibc platforms have few problems with it. not if you enable USE=internal-glib. i've added the USE flag on request from vapier mostly, so we could punt pkg-config-lite from Portage. it should not depend on any of the stuff embedded (uclibc) has problems with anymore. as for anything other than uclibc, glibc, i'd like to see an bug, there isn't one
[gentoo-dev] Switching order of packages in virtual/pkgconfig
I would like to propose a switch of the order of DEPENDs in virtual/pkgconfig to make dev-util/pkgconf[pkg-config] the default choice for new installations. dev-util/pkgconf has less external dependencies, is lighter and is faster than dev-util/pkgconfig while being now 100% compatible This switch has already been made by Funtoo, Alpine Linux and FreeBSD with very little in the way of ill effects recently from any of those 3 camps. There are no more pending bugs against pkgconf (and Diego did a tinderbox run with it a while back) in Gentoo. pkgconf also has a upstream that is more than happy to work with us specifically (or anyone for that matter) and I (a Gentoo developer) am one of the upstream developers. If this is approved, I will make the change in ~2 weeks. I'm not planning on making a news item because users should notice little difference. Thanks Jeff
Re: [gentoo-dev] Switching order of packages in virtual/pkgconfig
On Tue, 2013-01-01 at 16:01 -0500, Jeff Horelick wrote: dev-util/pkgconf has less external dependencies, is lighter and is faster than dev-util/pkgconfig while being now 100% compatible That sounds like a clear win. If it has survived the tinderboxing there likely isn't much to hold you back. As non-contentious topics sometimes end up with no replies at all... consider 48 hours of radio silence an implicit yes. Regards, Tony V.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Switching order of packages in virtual/pkgconfig
On 01/01/2013 22:29, Tony Chainsaw Vroon wrote: That sounds like a clear win. If it has survived the tinderboxing there likely isn't much to hold you back. As non-contentious topics sometimes end up with no replies at all... consider 48 hours of radio silence an implicit yes. It didn't survive. I'm not sure if all the bugs have been fixed now but at some point I had to stop the tinderboxing because it was hitting package failures, and then it was fixed for next version — which was difficult to test. So I would veto this _for the moment_. (I'd be happy to run another test _after_ the glibc-2.17 one.) -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Switching order of packages in virtual/pkgconfig
On Tuesday 01 January 2013 16:46:49 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: On 01/01/2013 22:29, Tony Chainsaw Vroon wrote: That sounds like a clear win. If it has survived the tinderboxing there likely isn't much to hold you back. As non-contentious topics sometimes end up with no replies at all... consider 48 hours of radio silence an implicit yes. It didn't survive. I'm not sure if all the bugs have been fixed now but at some point I had to stop the tinderboxing because it was hitting package failures, and then it was fixed for next version — which was difficult to test. So I would veto this _for the moment_. (I'd be happy to run another test _after_ the glibc-2.17 one.) yes, we need real data first before we can make a proper decision -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
