Mailing List Archive

On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 17:25 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote:
> >> 5) Do you have a rough estimate (month, 3 weeks, 5 weeks, what?) on when
> >> the first arches might be stabilizing 2.x?
> >
> > No.
> > If the RC's prove stable and no serious regressions are reported for a
> > month then we'll probably release a final 2.0.0 and get arch teams to
> > mark stable a week later, or right away if no last minute changes have
> > been made.
>
> What'd really be nice is if it goes stable for all arches (or at least
> all of the ones that matter, subjectively) either in time or after the
> next release. Otherwise, there's going to be some more complications
> from users who install from media containing old baselayout-1.x and have
> to deal with the new 2.x right away. I guess we'll see. /me pokes
> wolf31o2. ;)

We'll definitely want the same version stable across the board. I'll be
sure to work with Roy and you to ensure we come to an agreement on what
to use and that we're all on the same page.

--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:30 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> We'll definitely want the same version stable across the board. I'll be
> sure to work with Roy and you to ensure we come to an agreement on what
> to use and that we're all on the same page.

Fair enough.

Should I open a bug (when the time comes) just requesting the blessing
of the arch teams or just unmask it anyway?

Note that the following arch's have been tested by people other than me
amd64
arm
ppc
ppc64
sparc (fbsd only i think so far)
x86

I did compile test it on a s390 a few months ago, but I seem to have
lost my account there now.

Thanks

Roy

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Monday 23 July 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:30 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > We'll definitely want the same version stable across the board. I'll be
> > sure to work with Roy and you to ensure we come to an agreement on what
> > to use and that we're all on the same page.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> Should I open a bug (when the time comes) just requesting the blessing
> of the arch teams or just unmask it anyway?

open a bug, package.mask it, and let arch teams test it by filling out
KEYWORDS ... once everyone is on board, unmask it

> I did compile test it on a s390 a few months ago, but I seem to have
> lost my account there now.

that's cause you smell like poop. oh and we formatted those boxes.
-mike

On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 22:24 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:30 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > We'll definitely want the same version stable across the board. I'll be
> > sure to work with Roy and you to ensure we come to an agreement on what
> > to use and that we're all on the same page.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> Should I open a bug (when the time comes) just requesting the blessing
> of the arch teams or just unmask it anyway?

Well, the "best" for us is if it is already stable in the tree before we
snapshot, as that means it was tested and stabilized prior to our
snapshot and likely has more QA done on it before we even start the
release. If we can do that, then Release Engineering will be set and
we'll love you long time.

--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

Roy Marples escribió:
> On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:30 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> We'll definitely want the same version stable across the board. I'll be
>> sure to work with Roy and you to ensure we come to an agreement on what
>> to use and that we're all on the same page.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> Should I open a bug (when the time comes) just requesting the blessing
> of the arch teams or just unmask it anyway?
>
> Note that the following arch's have been tested by people other than me
> amd64
> arm
> ppc
> ppc64
> sparc (fbsd only i think so far)
> x86
>

In alpha is under testing by Tobias Klausman (B|ackbird) but, a part
from the net.eth0 lost link issue, seems to be sane AFAIK. We will be
ready very soon.

Thanks.

--
Jose Luis Rivero <yoswink@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/Doc Gentoo/Alpha
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org>:

> Well, the "best" for us is if it is already stable in the tree before
> we snapshot, as that means it was tested and stabilized prior to our
> snapshot and likely has more QA done on it before we even start the
> release. If we can do that, then Release Engineering will be set and
> we'll love you long time.

x86 will do some extensive testing, too. So we should be ready soon.

V-Li

--
http://www.gentoo.org/
http://www.faulhammer.org/
http://www.gnupg.org/

On 7/21/07, Roy Marples <uberlord@gentoo.org> wrote:
> This is just a heads up for getting baselayout-2 stable. Next week I
> plan to put baselayout-2.0.0_rc1 into the tree without any keywords and
> it will be removed from package.mask (keeping the current alphas masked
> though). Arch teams will then be pinged on a bug to keyword
> baselayout-2.

Hi!
Just an issue I thought a long while ago...
What about adding USE flags for all optional networking components...
So that they installed without manually merging them one by one?

Best Regards,
Alon Bar-Lev.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 21:31 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> Just an issue I thought a long while ago...
> What about adding USE flags for all optional networking components...
> So that they installed without manually merging them one by one?

Too many use flags - simply install the package.
In the future, once the API for out network scripts doesn't change then
we will punt the scripts to the packages.

I don't want baselayout to rival PHP in terms of USE flags - heh.

Thanks

Roy



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

> Regarding init scripts.
> Init scripts should now be strictly bourne or POSIX shell. ie, no
> bashisms. bash init scripts will work, but ONLY if /bin/sh is bash.
> Shells as /bin/sh that I've tested and found to be working are
> bash
> dash
> busybox
> zsh
> FreeBSD sh
>
> Also, as there's no bashisms, that also means no bash arrays.


I presume that this is hitting the /etc/init.d/util-vserver startup scripts

/usr/lib/util-vserver/functions: line 778: `pkgmgmt.guessStyle': not a
valid identifier

Where to log a bug? What's the simplest way to temporarily workaround this?

Cheers

Ed W
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 13:33 +0100, Ed W wrote:
> > Regarding init scripts.
> > Init scripts should now be strictly bourne or POSIX shell. ie, no
> > bashisms. bash init scripts will work, but ONLY if /bin/sh is bash.
> > Shells as /bin/sh that I've tested and found to be working are
> > bash
> > dash
> > busybox
> > zsh
> > FreeBSD sh
> >
> > Also, as there's no bashisms, that also means no bash arrays.
>
>
> I presume that this is hitting the /etc/init.d/util-vserver startup scripts
>
> /usr/lib/util-vserver/functions: line 778: `pkgmgmt.guessStyle': not a
> valid identifier
>
> Where to log a bug? What's the simplest way to temporarily workaround this?

Log a bug at http://bugs.gentoo.org
The easiest fix is to change the . to _ in the function names.

Thanks

Roy

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 14:17 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 13:33 +0100, Ed W wrote:
> > > Regarding init scripts.
> > > Init scripts should now be strictly bourne or POSIX shell. ie, no
> > > bashisms. bash init scripts will work, but ONLY if /bin/sh is bash.
> > > Shells as /bin/sh that I've tested and found to be working are
> > > bash
> > > dash
> > > busybox
> > > zsh
> > > FreeBSD sh
> > >
> > > Also, as there's no bashisms, that also means no bash arrays.
> >
> >
> > I presume that this is hitting the /etc/init.d/util-vserver startup scripts
> >
> > /usr/lib/util-vserver/functions: line 778: `pkgmgmt.guessStyle': not a
> > valid identifier
> >
> > Where to log a bug? What's the simplest way to temporarily workaround this?
>
> Log a bug at http://bugs.gentoo.org
> The easiest fix is to change the . to _ in the function names.

The util-vserver scripts are very bashish using arrays and every
function is declared as:

function funcname()
{
...
}

Those needs to be redeclared as:

funcname() {
...
}

I mentioned to the vserver list that i was interested to convert the
scripts to POSIX. First he said that he was not against it until he
realized he could no longer use arrays.

http://www.paul.sladen.org/vserver/archives/200708/0025.html

Does anyone have any suggestion to do dynamic variables cleanly without
using arrays?

Natanael Copa

>
> Thanks
>
> Roy
>



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 00:33 +0200, Natanael Copa wrote:
> I mentioned to the vserver list that i was interested to convert the
> scripts to POSIX. First he said that he was not against it until he
> realized he could no longer use arrays.
>
> http://www.paul.sladen.org/vserver/archives/200708/0025.html
>
> Does anyone have any suggestion to do dynamic variables cleanly without
> using arrays?

Well, you can still use arrays provided that /bin/sh is still bash. Of course, this does mean Linux only systems and also rules out embedded.

net.lo ships with this function

# Credit to David Leverton for this function which handily maps a bash
# array structure to positional parameters so existing configs work :)
# We'll deprecate arrays at some point though.
_get_array() {
if [ -n "${BASH}" ] ; then
case "$(declare -p "$1" 2>/dev/null)" in
"declare -a "*)
echo "set -- \"\${$1[@]}\""
return
;;
esac
fi

echo "eval set -- \"\$$1\""
}


Which means you can then do this
eval "$(_get_array "config_${IFVAR}")"

With IFVAR as eth0 that will convert the bash array config_eth0 to positional parameters
Here's how both can now be defined. The former is bash only, the latter is all shells.

config_eth0=( "1.2.3.4/24" "5.6.7.8 netmask 255.255.255.0" )
config_eth0="'1.2.3.4/24' '5.6.7.8 netmask 255.255.255.0'"

If you pay attention to the quoting, you'll have no issues.
Thanks

Roy

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Friday 24 August 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> case "$(declare -p "$1" 2>/dev/null)" in

/me stabs excessive quoting
-mike