Re: [gentoo-dev] new profiles.desc header documenting profile/keyword policy
On 01/22/2014 06:58 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Monday 20 January 2014 12:26:13 William Hubbs wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:23:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> this has all been fairly ad-hoc in the past, so formalize it in the one >>> place that impacts everyone -- profiles.desc. >> >> If it is policy, shouldn't it go in the dev manual rather than in this >> file? > > maybe. devmanual doesn't talk about this file at all atm. > > or maybe i still have it in my head that devmanual.g.o is the ad-hoc > documentation and not a policy manual -- policy lives in the Gentoo Developer > Handbook. The handbook has not been updated for a good number of years therefore I am moving bits from it to devmanual whenever I have the time. -- Regards, Markos Chandras
Re: [gentoo-dev] new profiles.desc header documenting profile/keyword policy
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 01:58:04 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Monday 20 January 2014 12:26:13 William Hubbs wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:23:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > this has all been fairly ad-hoc in the past, so formalize it in > > > the one place that impacts everyone -- profiles.desc. > > > > If it is policy, shouldn't it go in the dev manual rather than in > > this file? > > maybe. devmanual doesn't talk about this file at all atm. > > or maybe i still have it in my head that devmanual.g.o is the ad-hoc > documentation and not a policy manual -- policy lives in the Gentoo > Developer Handbook. Parts of the policies at the end of the Gentoo Developer Handbook have migrated to the development manual over the last week. Those whom maintain it regard it as policy (qa@g.o, devmanual@g.o) as far as I know, I have in the past also regarded it as such; to some extent documentation should be based on policy, thus as a result I think you can trust the documentation to be policy to a good extent. The real policy is where the decisions are made, but as that's spread across the council summaries and the mailing lists; that is what harder to find I guess, with the ebuild policy now merging into the development manual I think we really should see the development manual as policy. The policy at the back of the Gentoo Developer Handbook was incomplete, slightly outdated (CVS part, maybe some other unnoticed differences), rarely came up in discussions (people often refer to devmanual instead), ... thus I think its migration to the devmanual is progress. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] new profiles.desc header documenting profile/keyword policy
On Monday 20 January 2014 13:18:46 Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 20/01/14 18:26, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:23:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> this has all been fairly ad-hoc in the past, so formalize it in > >> the one place that impacts everyone -- profiles.desc. > > > > If it is policy, shouldn't it go in the dev manual rather than in > > this file? > > profiles.desc is installed on a user's system. Users don't read the > dev manual. users don't care. this file concerns developers only. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] new profiles.desc header documenting profile/keyword policy
On Monday 20 January 2014 12:26:13 William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:23:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > this has all been fairly ad-hoc in the past, so formalize it in the one > > place that impacts everyone -- profiles.desc. > > If it is policy, shouldn't it go in the dev manual rather than in this > file? maybe. devmanual doesn't talk about this file at all atm. or maybe i still have it in my head that devmanual.g.o is the ad-hoc documentation and not a policy manual -- policy lives in the Gentoo Developer Handbook. > There are several situations in profiles.desk where one profile is dev > but some profiles that inherit it are exp, for example, the arm > profiles. > > Which rule applies in this scenario? both. when you run `repoman`, it isn't just checking for $ARCH and ~$ARCH consistency. it is doing that for every single profile (one of the reasons repoman is slow -- every time we add a profile, that's another dependency tree repoman needs to check). when people say "the dependency tree for $ARCH is broken", there's a qualifier in there that people rarely include. the dep tree *for a specific profile* is broken. usually breakage covers them all, but since things like use.mask and package.use.mask and package.mask are done on a per- profile basis, it's not that uncommon for the breakage to hit a subset of profiles. that means package maintainers are allowed to break exp profiles. they should avoid breaking dev profiles, but they can fall back to filing bugs for the profile maintainers (which usually means the $ARCH maintainer). the quick rule of thumb in terms of "what do package maintainers need to care about for $ARCH", then look at it in terms of "what is the best profile available for $ARCH". > Also, from a maintainer's pov, what is the difference between stable and > dev profiles? for package maintainers, you get smacked if you break "stable" profiles because that's what the majority of users have selected. if you break a "dev" profile, that's not a huge deal as people know things are "in progress". -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] new profiles.desc header documenting profile/keyword policy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:40:09 + Markos Chandras wrote: > Discussing this in gentoo-dev makes no sense. Whoever wants the > profiles.desc to be part of the devmanual document, please submit a > patch. This confuses me, as vapier is trying to formalize it we are discussing whether this is policy; see WilliamH questioning it as well as asking further questions about it, so, I think further discussion is necessary. - -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS3o3ZAAoJEJWyH81tNOV9cPcH+gNyvuDSNDu8wkRS0incRIW1 fdgtguAPTbJc7XQzyz9pERqrwVyarNoX0i1ToJWtC+8KY41J7SAd0gKy3VfPQRQN MpkWqqWKKS9dQ2vMsj7FvAlylLVHXe/tiM0HCb6CsLr2uUBD6NpAH85qOCZgY8wN m0LPh1Brgb1A9LR8ISeOkJGGsLGTu6oXiyjHWV3HbmI6tFJ2oSp+RqCMXCEj48jp DEedsrpqrC7KE29ylrff4+audTyc4a/TMGnARal3nuhnt4PG15n6QcFKJNbuSUoT X4AHJpUqnfmq4mSo/uelVS6Jvu+WzUUAU2JUEuTKZQldz4NnG7bo0nThu0aZi5U= =dPK8 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] new profiles.desc header documenting profile/keyword policy
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:26:13 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: > If it is policy, shouldn't it go in the dev manual rather than in this > file? From a QA perspective, it would be nice to have the policy documentation available in both locations; but as duplication would create out of date copies, I suggest at the very least that we perhaps add a link that refers to the devmanual page in the profiles.desc header. Maybe we can make this more common practice in the future if people like the idea... -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] new profiles.desc header documenting profile/keyword policy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 01/20/2014 06:54 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 07:18:46PM +0100, Alexander Berntsen > wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 20/01/14 18:26, William Hubbs wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:23:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger >>> wrote: this has all been fairly ad-hoc in the past, so formalize it in the one place that impacts everyone -- profiles.desc. >>> If it is policy, shouldn't it go in the dev manual rather than >>> in this file? >> profiles.desc is installed on a user's system. Users don't read >> the dev manual. > > All policies are being documented in the dev manual, so I was just > saying that I think this should go there if it is going to be > official. > > Whether or not it is in a local file (on the users' system) isn't > relevant, developers should be familiar with the dev manual. > > William > There is no profiles.desc documentation in devmanual http://devmanual.gentoo.org/profiles/profiles.desc/index.html Discussing this in gentoo-dev makes no sense. Whoever wants the profiles.desc to be part of the devmanual document, please submit a patch. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJS3XuZXxSAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQzNTVDNDczOUYzRjJEMTRGNDRGMzU2RkMw OUJGNEY1NEMyQkE3RjNDAAoJEAm/T1TCun88kzUP/iWTI2ee92duV80WfQh3O9Lj Mkl4jFuTNmWqrMQfcO5Z3k+cSwTcxP5BI3IkmeD38obeGK+08hHBO16X/+6YQfWi MDgmx3LOJPxxPo9Bi/LJ7DnBI2dLF8TbSWNTa/xuvHjfFC554BlesgY/tbsulVT+ cKMujknXvt4WbkyWSkddHeCcgsVYS9iR+zp7JkKLuJyx+D4Kj3xIXkaaVt+V0fS9 5FsRI+dWRCTAtyUU7hJ2T7R0o8opcO850xai/921lwIwSmD+uN9vVovKBKUPtiqH SOEZkcpnCl9mLtdrmlUjsJFtosLHLAHDA9CADcnmCDxPFx4HEhSFWP35qGu17evk YPyE5hQXKIFsgXPJm8GCVKWJfw5IgZH9WCF+Go+nHgxcnNEGQJKp81N5g3JAVeFu Q2OjxEjqjy/LKdBDUUmOhiUs7yGL2YYVIzRnDy9O92Zb77PJqmlner+AWwHS9Oso w0+1S8Q9n0SmJ641Md6FboqSfhQbm1IUB7GoGm9iuF5KDzglpZdiB6jhr82ApOKt 61opKYQSBeaSeognYt7pK45Nwp1C3UUmgEDQtoxukegV+OlB/ocCFN8nLWgLj0Dw X/Me1iLUFXR/KF7TG+KQLSxJt6ftsAXmCXWQYKdfTEIEUmLsMpEjQWLhPYmZEMm4 6YdOvzo2V4Br8oo82pOQ =UwDV -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] new profiles.desc header documenting profile/keyword policy
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 07:18:46PM +0100, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 20/01/14 18:26, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:23:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> this has all been fairly ad-hoc in the past, so formalize it in > >> the one place that impacts everyone -- profiles.desc. > > If it is policy, shouldn't it go in the dev manual rather than in > > this file? > profiles.desc is installed on a user's system. Users don't read the > dev manual. All policies are being documented in the dev manual, so I was just saying that I think this should go there if it is going to be official. Whether or not it is in a local file (on the users' system) isn't relevant, developers should be familiar with the dev manual. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] new profiles.desc header documenting profile/keyword policy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 20/01/14 18:26, William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:23:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> this has all been fairly ad-hoc in the past, so formalize it in >> the one place that impacts everyone -- profiles.desc. > If it is policy, shouldn't it go in the dev manual rather than in > this file? profiles.desc is installed on a user's system. Users don't read the dev manual. - -- Alexander alexan...@plaimi.net http://plaimi.net/~alexander -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlLdaIYACgkQRtClrXBQc7VyeAD/SR7s5Y0wOHUalxN4M/bxpYYA omlg8ds+c5clH9+L/qEA/jvdeYhU+At8LH4vGYm9XmjrqpAuymTDK/kf81Cmpl7x =/DUk -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] new profiles.desc header documenting profile/keyword policy
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:23:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > this has all been fairly ad-hoc in the past, so formalize it in the one place > that impacts everyone -- profiles.desc. > -mike If it is policy, shouldn't it go in the dev manual rather than in this file? Given that, I have questions: There are several situations in profiles.desk where one profile is dev but some profiles that inherit it are exp, for example, the arm profiles. Which rule applies in this scenario? Also, from a maintainer's pov, what is the difference between stable and dev profiles? Thanks, William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[gentoo-dev] new profiles.desc header documenting profile/keyword policy
this has all been fairly ad-hoc in the past, so formalize it in the one place that impacts everyone -- profiles.desc. -mike ### # This is a list of valid profiles for each architecture. This file is used by # repoman when doing a repoman scan or repoman full. # # DO NOT ADD PROFILES WITH A "die" or "exit" IN THEM OR IT KILLS REPOMAN. # # Policy statement; updates should be posted to gentoo-dev mailing list. # # The meaning of the status field: # stable - Fully supported profile; needs dedicated arch team to keep up with #stabilization (if using stable KEYWORDS) and keyword requests. # dev- Ideally on track to becoming "stable"; KEYWORDS breakage should be #kept to a minimum and bug reports are recommended. # exp- Developers may ignore breakage in these profiles. It is up to the #profile maintainer to keep things viable, but it is not a hard #requirement that the deptree stay error free. # Stable keywords may be used with any of these types. If an arch only has exp # profiles, then other developers may ignore that keyword when doing upgrades # and cleaning out old versions (dropping of stable/unstable KEYWORDS). # # Note: Please do not mix tabs & spaces. Look at surrounding lines first. # # File Layout (for exact format, see the portage(5) man page): #arch profile_directory status signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
