Mailing List Archive

On Sunday 26 February 2006 22:29, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 02:19:40PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Side note: if the packages in question are fetch restricted, you're
> > screwed, and will not be able to add them to the tree.
>
> Actually, there is a solution for this, and it's reasonable logical.
> Don't use the same name that upstream does for the files.
>
> Simply tell the user to download X and place it in $DISTDIR renaming it
> to X-foo-bar, where's you've chosen X-foo-bar to avoid conflicts.

Is there any valid reason that we can't have portage do this
automatically. This particular way is very user-un-friendly.

Paul

--
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:02:57 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Sunday 26 February 2006 22:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > The issue is whether you have the right to leave broken packages in
| > the tree. I don't see any policy document granting you that right.
|
| The general consensus over the years has been that if something
| cannot be fixed due to portage problems, then we do what necessary to
| warn users about it, but keep the package. In this regard also look
| at various dependency cycles, and/or use flag dependencies.

The general consensus has been to implement the best available
workaround, if one is doable, and just remove the thing where it's not.

--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat)
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:05:00 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Is there any valid reason that we can't have portage do this
| automatically. This particular way is very user-un-friendly.

There's exactly one set of packages affected, and they're closed source
and non-repackagable. I doubt it's high priority...

--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat)
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:02:57 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | On Sunday 26 February 2006 22:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > The issue is whether you have the right to leave broken packages in
> | > the tree. I don't see any policy document granting you that right.
> |
> | The general consensus over the years has been that if something
> | cannot be fixed due to portage problems, then we do what necessary to
> | warn users about it, but keep the package. In this regard also look
> | at various dependency cycles, and/or use flag dependencies.
>
> The general consensus has been to implement the best available
> workaround, if one is doable, and just remove the thing where it's not.

Where is this general consensus documented (other than an email sent out
a few days ago). I'd have to go with Paul on this assumption. I don't
see the problem with keeping a package such as stu's in portage as long
as it doesn't affect other users. Do you honesty expect that we will get
a sterile tree out of this? Please focus your QA efforts are more
important and visible issues. Going on a witch hunt to fix one problem
compared to the bigger issues we know we have is simply silly. This is
really starting to look like a power issue rather than a QA issue.

--
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:46:23 -0600 Lance Albertson
<ramereth@gentoo.org> wrote:
| Where is this general consensus documented (other than an email sent
| out a few days ago). I'd have to go with Paul on this assumption. I
| don't see the problem with keeping a package such as stu's in portage
| as long as it doesn't affect other users. Do you honesty expect that
| we will get a sterile tree out of this? Please focus your QA efforts
| are more important and visible issues. Going on a witch hunt to fix
| one problem compared to the bigger issues we know we have is simply
| silly. This is really starting to look like a power issue rather than
| a QA issue.

You know, funnily enough, QA has filed a whole heap of bugs on the
conflicting digest issue. With every other maintainer for bugs we've
filed, the developer in question has worked with us to fix the issue,
and thanked us for pointing out the problem. The only reason this one
has gone so far is because of Stuart repeatedly closing the bug off and
refusing to discuss alternatives.

--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat)
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 04:34:00PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:05:00 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | Is there any valid reason that we can't have portage do this
> | automatically. This particular way is very user-un-friendly.
> There's exactly one set of packages affected, and they're closed source
> and non-repackagable. I doubt it's high priority...
There's more than one set of packages with this.

There is only one set in the tree that don't use a workaround of some
sort (the NX stuff).

A quick hacked up grepping indicates that the following packages use the
trick of having the user rename the file after downloading it.
dev-java/ibm-jdk-bin
dev-java/ibm-jre-bin
dev-java/jdbc2-oracle
dev-java/jdbc3-oracle
sci-chemistry/platon
There might be others, but I'm not looking too hard at the moment.

And I know I've used it in the past when upstream has been unreliable in
naming distfiles (eg they did thank me and add the major version portion
to the filename, but not the minor version, and still changed the
download once a week).

--
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Sunday 26 February 2006 22:29, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>
>>On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 02:19:40PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>
>>>Side note: if the packages in question are fetch restricted, you're
>>>screwed, and will not be able to add them to the tree.
>>
>>Actually, there is a solution for this, and it's reasonable logical.
>>Don't use the same name that upstream does for the files.
>>
>>Simply tell the user to download X and place it in $DISTDIR renaming it
>>to X-foo-bar, where's you've chosen X-foo-bar to avoid conflicts.
>
>
> Is there any valid reason that we can't have portage do this
> automatically. This particular way is very user-un-friendly.

Check your mail archives for the old discussions about distfile name
mangling (short version: a lot of stuff relies on distfile-name ==
basename(src_uri), also if at all this would only be a long term
solution due to compat issues involved).

Marius
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:16, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Check your mail archives for the old discussions about distfile name
> mangling (short version: a lot of stuff relies on distfile-name ==
> basename(src_uri), also if at all this would only be a long term
> solution due to compat issues involved).

For this reason a package might just specify a DIST_PREFIX. This would
indicate a subdirectory in DISTDIR where the package is stored. When the
package is merged, the files are copied from this directory instead of
the DISTDIR directory. As the copy is already made, this behaviour should
not be problematic. This does however solve 99% of the file name
problems. The DIST_PREFIX value could be anything, with empty being the
feature disabled, allowing for the much-wanted sharing of files between
packages.

Even better is that this will even work with portage versions that do not
support this feature. They will just store everything in DIST_PREFIX as
it is now.

Paul

--
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net