Mailing List Archive

On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 03:11:38PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Neaaaarrlllly there now... Changes:
>
> * Due to overwhelming demand (it's the thing in this GLEP that has
> generated least contention!), spaces are not allowed in repository
> names.

+1 on this revision, although I demand a pony.

~harring

Brian Harring wrote:
>
> +1 on this revision, although I demand a pony.
>

+1, w/out pony.

lu

--

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Developer Gentoo/PPC Operational Leader
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Thursday 05 January 2006 10:11, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> I might end up being offline over the weekend (and possibly for a while
> after that too...), but I'll get around to any feedback as soon as I
> can...

While it is entirely nitpicking at this point as I understand what you meant:

Under Client Side you clearly identify ${repoid} as a variable when used for
example in the context of ``news-${repoid}.unread``. However in the following
section, News Item Clients, you refer to ``news-repoid.unread`` and
``news-repoid.read``, I'd just throw repoid in those cases into a ${} for
people reading it that weren't involed in the implementaiton so that know
that unless the repo is actually named 'repoid' no such file will exist.

Thanks and +1,

--
Daniel Ostrow
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel}
dostrow@gentoo.org

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> * Removed --ask message, apparently it's superfluous.

Why? I haven't found any conclusion about that in the last thread. It
doesn't make sense to show the message in both `emerge -p foo` and
`emerge foo`, but not in `emerge -a foo`, IMHO.

WKR,
-jkt

--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth

Duncan wrote:
> My thinking too, until I saw the portage dev (JStubbs?) mention it wasn't
> needed.
>
> I believe the thinking is that emerge --ask is basically emerge --pretend
> with an opportunity to continue stuck on the end, thus eliminating running
> the same command only without the --pretend again, therefore eliminating
> running portage's dep calculation step twice, once for the pretend, then
> again for the run.

Okay, but I'd say that Portage internals like if the the same code gets
used by --ask and --pretend are not relevant for this GLEP. Why don't
add a note specifying the correct behavior?

Cheers,
-jkt

--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth

Duncan wrote:
> Because that code will be implemented in portage, and the portage dev
> likely to implement it said it was a superfluous reference. =8^)
>
> Still, I'd prefer it referenced just for definition's sake, but when the
> portage dev says it isn't a superfluous reference, and that particular
> section is specifying portage implementation...

Nope, that particular section is specifying methods of interaction
between Portage and user.

Cheers,
-jkt

--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth

On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 01:18:20PM +0100, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Duncan wrote:
> > Because that code will be implemented in portage, and the portage dev
> > likely to implement it said it was a superfluous reference. =8^)
> >
> > Still, I'd prefer it referenced just for definition's sake, but when the
> > portage dev says it isn't a superfluous reference, and that particular
> > section is specifying portage implementation...
>
> Nope, that particular section is specifying methods of interaction
> between Portage and user.

It's not an issue.

So... no complaints, this means this *is* on the schedule for council,
yes?
~harring

On 1/8/06, Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 01:18:20PM +0100, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> > Duncan wrote:
> > > Because that code will be implemented in portage, and the portage dev
> > > likely to implement it said it was a superfluous reference. =8^)
> > >
> > > Still, I'd prefer it referenced just for definition's sake, but when
> the
> > > portage dev says it isn't a superfluous reference, and
> that particular
> > > section is specifying portage implementation...
> >
> > Nope, that particular section is specifying methods of interaction
> > between Portage and user.
>
> It's not an issue.
>
> So... no complaints, this means this *is* on the schedule for council,
> yes?
> ~harring
>
>
> What happened to the central repository, I think that a central repository
for upcoming events critical to gentoo usage ought to be centrally
available. The GWN hasn't been up yet and I olnly read about the apache
upgrade in 2 of them. This GLEP makes sense as a LAST RESORT, I would
rathwer have one updatesd website in my rotation to get news of version and
package revisions that require configuration changes. How this is set-up is
up to infra, IMHO the home page stinks at getting information out for new
users eager to get into the nitty gritty. The Doc project home page doesn't
get updated very often as I can tell and the projects page doesn't even have
PHP or amd64 listed. There ought to be a "main" package category listing on
a news page somewhere that ids upcoming changes and general goals around the
packagin and configuration as needed to help alert users ahead of time.
Frankly, if I was a server administrator, I would rather be forced to
install the newer apache specifiaclly in a SLOT and get updates to the old
style. Telling me at the point of pre-installation only makes my job
harder.

Brian Harring wrote:
> It's not an issue.

Okay, if it will just somehow show up when using the --ask option, I'll
be happy :).

Cheers,
-jkt

--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth

Jan Kundrát posted <43BE968C.4090609@gentoo.org>, excerpted below, on
Fri, 06 Jan 2006 17:10:52 +0100:

> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> * Removed --ask message, apparently it's superfluous.
>
> Why? I haven't found any conclusion about that in the last thread. It
> doesn't make sense to show the message in both `emerge -p foo` and
> `emerge foo`, but not in `emerge -a foo`, IMHO.

My thinking too, until I saw the portage dev (JStubbs?) mention it wasn't
needed.

I believe the thinking is that emerge --ask is basically emerge --pretend
with an opportunity to continue stuck on the end, thus eliminating running
the same command only without the --pretend again, therefore eliminating
running portage's dep calculation step twice, once for the pretend, then
again for the run.

Looked at this way, -a automatically gets the same treatment as -p.
Actually, -a might spit out the unread news warning twice, once as part of
the pretend output, then again as part of the regular emerge once the user
has said to continue. In any case, it should spit it out in at least the
first instance, just as --pretend would.

So, yes, it was mentioned in (one of) the previous threads. It was only a
small mention, however, so you might have missed it. I might have myself,
had I not commented on -a functionality myself earlier, and was therefore
watching for discussion of that aspect in particular.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Jan Kundrát posted <43BEA2C1.2050902@gentoo.org>, excerpted below, on
Fri, 06 Jan 2006 18:02:57 +0100:

> Duncan wrote:
>> My thinking too, until I saw the portage dev (JStubbs?) mention it wasn't
>> needed.
>>
>> I believe the thinking is that emerge --ask is basically emerge --pretend
>> with an opportunity to continue stuck on the end, thus eliminating running
>> the same command only without the --pretend again, therefore eliminating
>> running portage's dep calculation step twice, once for the pretend, then
>> again for the run.
>
> Okay, but I'd say that Portage internals like if the the same code gets
> used by --ask and --pretend are not relevant for this GLEP. Why don't
> add a note specifying the correct behavior?

Because that code will be implemented in portage, and the portage dev
likely to implement it said it was a superfluous reference. =8^)

Still, I'd prefer it referenced just for definition's sake, but when the
portage dev says it isn't a superfluous reference, and that particular
section is specifying portage implementation...

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Ciaran McCreesh posted <20060105151138.5baf5700@snowdrop.home>, excerpted
below, on Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:11:38 +0000:

> News Item Quality Control
> -------------------------
>
[snip]
> However, for the sake of clarity, professionalism and avoiding making us
> look like prats, it is important that any language problems be corrected
> before inflicting a news item upon end users.

As the GLEP has matured, it has gotten far more professional and polished
looking. That's a good thing! =8^) However, now that it's looking so
professional and polished, the "prats" phrase is a bit jarring. What
about making that sentence read...

> However, for the sake of clarity and professionalism, it is important
> that any language problems be corrected before inflicting a news item
> upon end users.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Ciaran McCreesh posted <20060105151138.5baf5700@snowdrop.home>, excerpted
below, on Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:11:38 +0000:

> News Item Directories
> ---------------------
>
> Each news item will be represented by a directory whose name is the same
> as the news item's identifier.
>
> The directory will contain a file named
> ``yyyy-mm-dd-short-name.en.txt``, which contains the text of the news
> item, in English, in the format described below.
>
> If a news item is translated, other files named
> ``yyyy-mm-dd-short-name.xx.txt`` (where ``xx`` is the ISO 639
> [#iso-639]_ two letter country code) will also be provided. However,
> only the English version of a news item is authoritative. This
> anglocentricity is justified by precedent [#glep-34]_.

This needs date clarification. For the translation, is the translated
file to retain the date of the original, or get the date of the
translation?

> News Item Headers
> '''''''''''''''''
>
> The following headers describe the purpose and format of the news item:
>
[snip]
>
> ``Posted:``
> Date of posting, in ``yyyy-mm-dd`` format (e.g. 2005-12-18) for
> compatibility with GLEP 45 [#glep-45]_. Mandatory.

Similarly here. Are translated news items to retain the original date
header or change it as appropriate?

I'd suggest an additional "Translated:" date header. The original posted
header could then be retained, with the translated header reflecting the
translation date.

I'm not sure about the filename embedded date. As the original date is
also in the directory name, the translated item filename could be the
translated date. OTOH, if the news item including the date is considered
as a single unit, there could be some confusion if a news-item is referred
to by differing filenames other than the country-code portion,
particularly if the reference doesn't include the directory name (which is
of course the news-item ID, therefore avoiding the potential confusion).

In any case, both of these should be specified one way or the other in the
GLEP, avoiding confusion.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list