FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Pacman Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-06-2008, 01:40 AM
"Dan McGee"
 
Default Thoughts of a 3.1.2 release

Here is the current git shortlog since the last release:

$ git shortlog v3.1.1..maint
Alex Merry (1):
updatesync: incorrect package deletion logic

Chantry Xavier (9):
workaround for a gettext string starting with --.
two string fixes.
makepkg : improve determination of svn revision.
Clarify the "cancel current operation" message.
repo-remove: print an error in case of an empty db
Clarify the "failed to add target" errors.
add 'force' to PKGINFO, have repo-add respect it.
Add new ChangeLog.proto file.
Don't follow symlinks with -Qo.

Dan McGee (7):
makepkg: add check to ensure we have non-URL files in build dir
Remove frontend translation of "debug:" message
doc/makepkg.8: add missing '-' to manpage option
makepkg: ensure binaries in /opt/* are stripped
Add deprecation warnings to gensync and updatesync
doc/makepkg: document --log, address locale issues
pacman/util.c: add mdirname function

Roman Kyrylych (1):
Remove /bin/true from install.proto

Given this list of changes, I think it would be prudent to think about
a 3.1.2 release soon, although it is not something we need to rush out
as there is nothing pressing like the provides logic prior to 3.1.1.

Here are some issues I think we should address before prepping for release:
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9362 - Any opinions here? Put them in
the bug report.
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9242 - Still not completely sure if
this is easily solvable
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9230 - Deals with makepkg/versionpkg
stuff, should be an easy fix

Please add any (constructive) comments you may have, and quote the
relevant parts of this email. *Please* keep it limited to things that
would make it into 3.1.2- if it is clearly something that can't fit in
a maint release, I won't even bother responding.

A second email will follow this one with some things that Xavier has
brought up he thinks need addressing. Some of these are relevant for
3.1.2, others may be a bit further in the future.

-Dan

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 02-08-2008, 01:38 AM
"Dan McGee"
 
Default Thoughts of a 3.1.2 release

Seriously guys? No replies?

On Feb 5, 2008 8:40 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is the current git shortlog since the last release:
> ...
> Given this list of changes, I think it would be prudent to think about
> a 3.1.2 release soon, although it is not something we need to rush out
> as there is nothing pressing like the provides logic prior to 3.1.1.
>
> Here are some issues I think we should address before prepping for release:
> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9362 - Any opinions here? Put them in
> the bug report.
I'm leaning towards "Won't fix" here.

> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9242 - Still not completely sure if
> this is easily solvable
Not sure here. Doesn't seem like a release blocker though.

> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9230 - Deals with makepkg/versionpkg
> stuff, should be an easy fix
Fixed and checked in.

FS#9235 was also fixed as well tonight- thanks Xavier.

> Please add any (constructive) comments you may have, and quote the
> relevant parts of this email. *Please* keep it limited to things that
> would make it into 3.1.2- if it is clearly something that can't fit in
> a maint release, I won't even bother responding.
>
> A second email will follow this one with some things that Xavier has
> brought up he thinks need addressing. Some of these are relevant for
> 3.1.2, others may be a bit further in the future.

Above comments still apply here. Please get all things under
consideration for 3.1.2 into this thread.

String freeze is coming soon, so be ready translators. Feel free to
get a head start as well. Hopefully Giovanni can manage this for me
once again once we are ready.

-Dan

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 02-08-2008, 03:53 AM
Allan McRae
 
Default Thoughts of a 3.1.2 release

Dan McGee wrote:
>
>> Here are some issues I think we should address before prepping for release:
>> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9362 - Any opinions here? Put them in
>> the bug report.
>>
> I'm leaning towards "Won't fix" here.
>
>
>> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9242 - Still not completely sure if
>> this is easily solvable
>>
> Not sure here. Doesn't seem like a release blocker though.
>
>
I think these are really the same issue. makepkg extracts files with
the system umask, which if not sane can cause problems if file are then
installed poorly. I've added a comment in FS#9242 showing that I think
the opera install.sh uses "cp" to install files.

The only justification I can think of to fix this is if for some reason
extracting with such permissions causes a package not to actually build.
Then we should probably set the umask earlier. Can this happen other
than with a really stupid umask? Otherwise, a check of the current
umask could be added and a warning printed if not 0022.

Allan

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 02-08-2008, 09:01 PM
Xavier
 
Default Thoughts of a 3.1.2 release

Allan McRae wrote:

I think these are really the same issue. makepkg extracts files with
the system umask, which if not sane can cause problems if file are then
installed poorly. I've added a comment in FS#9242 showing that I think
the opera install.sh uses "cp" to install files.

The only justification I can think of to fix this is if for some reason
extracting with such permissions causes a package not to actually build.
Then we should probably set the umask earlier. Can this happen other
than with a really stupid umask? Otherwise, a check of the current
umask could be added and a warning printed if not 0022.



Ah yes, indeed, that's it. I couldn't figure that out alone
Well, attaching a patch to set the umask earlier.
That seems to work fine.
_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:07 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org