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


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-01-2008, 12:31 PM
"Daenyth Blank"
 
Default

On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 22:27, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As part of the TU meetings it was decided to post the proposal for
> restricting packages entering [community] here for discussion before voting.

My primary issue with the current proposal is that I feel 10 votes is
slightly high for a first step. I'd *much* rather see 3-5 as a
minimum, and I think others would as well.
 
Old 12-01-2008, 12:52 PM
"Ronald van Haren"
 
Default

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Daenyth Blank <daenyth+arch@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 22:27, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As part of the TU meetings it was decided to post the proposal for
>> restricting packages entering [community] here for discussion before voting.
>
> My primary issue with the current proposal is that I feel 10 votes is
> slightly high for a first step. I'd *much* rather see 3-5 as a
> minimum, and I think others would as well.
>

I'm not convinced we should lower the vote number that much. IMO we
should also consider to keep the community package list as stable as
possible. What I mean is we should try not to delete too many packages
when one TU decides to leave. This would only be possible if the
packages he/she maintained are reasonably popular.

Ronald
 
Old 12-01-2008, 12:54 PM
Allan McRae
 
Default

Daenyth Blank wrote:

On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 22:27, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:


Hi all,

As part of the TU meetings it was decided to post the proposal for
restricting packages entering [community] here for discussion before voting.



My primary issue with the current proposal is that I feel 10 votes is
slightly high for a first step. I'd *much* rather see 3-5 as a
minimum, and I think others would as well.



89/97 packages with 0% usage on package stats have 5 votes or less. So
this would achieve a net result of nothing.


Allan
 
Old 12-01-2008, 01:06 PM
Daniel J Griffiths
 
Default

Allan McRae wrote:
Daenyth
Blank wrote:


On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 22:27, Allan McRae
<allan@archlinux.org> wrote:


*
Hi all,




As part of the TU meetings it was decided to post the proposal for


restricting packages entering [community] here for discussion before
voting.


***


My primary issue with the current proposal is that I feel 10 votes is


slightly high for a first step. I'd *much* rather see 3-5 as a


minimum, and I think others would as well.


*


89/97 packages with 0% usage on package stats have 5 votes or less.* So
this would achieve a net result of nothing.

Allan













I don't see why 10 votes on new packages is a bad thing, if
there's a specific package that a TU wants to add to [community] with
less than 10 votes (and not a dependency/i18n/etc) it doesn't seem like
it would be too much trouble to post it to the ml and discuss with the
rest of us first.



Dan Griffiths

--
Your Fortune...
---------------
He who laughs last didn't get the joke.
 
Old 12-01-2008, 01:28 PM
"Daenyth Blank"
 
Default

> 89/97 packages with 0% usage on package stats have 5 votes or less. So this
> would achieve a net result of nothing.
> Allan
>
I didn't realize that was the case. I retract my point then.
 
Old 12-01-2008, 02:25 PM
Firmicus
 
Default

Allan McRae a écrit :

Firmicus wrote:


I basically agree that we need some form of control.

However I have some reservations and comments.

First, I would like to understand the usefulness of discussing and
voting on this proposal first, before tackling the (IMO probably more
serious issue) of having too many packages with very low popularity /
usefulness in our community repo. Perhaps the former issue is easier
to deal with? Or could serve as a basis for dealing with the latter one?




Paving the way... Basically stop the problem getting any worse
first. Then do the real fixing. This is probably also the least
controversial of the two.




OK. Still, cleaning our repo should remain a relatively short-term priority.


Now to the specific points of the proposal:
* Only "popular" packages may enter the repo, as defined by 1% usage
from pkgstats or 10 votes on the AUR.


Allan, can you develop a bit more what is your criterion for the
figures 1% or 10 votes. Why not 5% or 3 votes? (which in my humble
opinion would seem to make more sense...)




I just liked the minimum of 1% for community. Ten votes comes from
looking at the number of votes best at discriminating packages with
more or less than 1% of usage. In fact any number between 10 and 20
does quite well but people told me 20 was really too many...


Thinking about it again I agree. I mistakenly took these figures to be
relevant to the question of removing packages currently in community
(which may have less votes if they were not in unsupported before).


By the way, in order to preach by example I just moved 54 of my perl
packages from community to unsupported. They all had low usage and were
not dependencies. I had to keep some others with few votes because they
are needed by pkgs maintained by sergej


To make the cleanup operation easier I wrote this little script:

#--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#!/bin/bash
#
# Usage: community2unsupported <pkgname> (in the parent directory of the
pkg in your cvs tree)

# For instance for pkg foo in category system,
# cd to $CVSCOMMUNITY/system and run the script with argument foo.
# Requires package aurup from AUR
# !!! USE THIS CAREFULLY !!!

if [ ! -d $1 ]; then
echo "dir $1 not found!"
exit 1
fi

extrafiles=`source $1/PKGBUILD && for p in ${source[@]}; do echo $p |
sed '/:///d' ; done`


echo "Creating a tarball backup of package $1"
tar cf $1.tar $1/PKGBUILD
test -f *.install && tar rf $1.tar $1/*.install
for x in $extrafiles; do
tar rf $1.tar $1/$x
done
gzip $1.tar

echo "Removing $1 from community"
cd $1 || exit 1
cvs tag -dl CURRENT PKGBUILD || exit 1
cvs tag -dl CURRENT-64 PKGBUILD || exit 1
cvs rm -fl || exit 1
cvs commit || exit 1

cd ..
echo "Uploading $1 to AUR/unsupported"
category=$(basename `pwd`) || exit 1
aurup $1.tar.gz $category

echo "---Done---"
#--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




* Any additions not covered by the above criteria must first be
proposed on the aur-general mailing list, explaining the reason for
the exemption (e.g. renamed package, new package) at which point a
general consensus from the TUs will be reached. TUs with large
numbers of "non-popular" packages are more likely to be rejected.


What should a "general consensus" look like? If 5 TUs are for and 3
are against and the remaining ones do not reply, do we say yes or no?
Can we be more specific on the above point without burdening the
procedure with bureaucratic rules?




That is the main thing that needs defined before I call for a vote. I
really want others ideas on this. Perhaps agreement of 3 other TUs.


Yes, that seems reasonable.

F
 
Old 12-01-2008, 02:28 PM
Steve Conklin
 
Default

On the notebook fujitsu amilo l1310g, based on ATI chipset with xpress
200m video card, a few seconds after the splash screen, the fan stops
and the cpu overheats.

These patches resolve the problem.

Zhao Yakui (3):
UBUNTU: ACPI: Add DMI check to disable power state check in power
transition
UBUNTU: ACPI: Add "acpi.power_nocheck=1" to disable power state check
in power transition
UBUNTU: ACPI: Attach the ACPI device to the ACPI handle as early as
possible

Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | 8 ++++++
drivers/acpi/bus.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
drivers/acpi/power.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
drivers/acpi/scan.c | 12 ++++++++-
include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h | 1 +
5 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)


--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 12-01-2008, 04:36 PM
Loui Chang
 
Default

On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 11:54:20PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> Daenyth Blank wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 22:27, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> As part of the TU meetings it was decided to post the proposal for
> >> restricting packages entering [community] here for discussion before
> >> voting.
> >>
> >
> > My primary issue with the current proposal is that I feel 10 votes is
> > slightly high for a first step. I'd *much* rather see 3-5 as a
> > minimum, and I think others would as well.
> >
>
> 89/97 packages with 0% usage on package stats have 5 votes or less. So this
> would achieve a net result of nothing.

How does that achieve a net result of nothing?
If these rules were already in place it could have meant a net result
of more than 500 less packages in community that we need to deal with.
 
Old 12-01-2008, 06:15 PM
"Daenyth Blank"
 
Default

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:25, Firmicus <Firmicus@gmx.net> wrote:
> By the way, in order to preach by example I just moved 54 of my perl
> packages from community to unsupported. They all had low usage and were not
> dependencies. I had to keep some others with few votes because they are
> needed by pkgs maintained by sergej
>
> To make the cleanup operation easier I wrote this little script:

I'd just like to remind people that moving from community erases all
package metadata entirely -- there's no real move operation. If your
package has a lot of important votes/comments, I would consider
waiting until we come to some backend changes which allow easier
moving. Louipc is working on this at the moment, so hopefully it
shouldn't be too long.
 
Old 12-01-2008, 07:10 PM
"Aaron Griffin"
 
Default

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 11:54:20PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
>> Daenyth Blank wrote:
>> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 22:27, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> As part of the TU meetings it was decided to post the proposal for
>> >> restricting packages entering [community] here for discussion before
>> >> voting.
>> >>
>> >
>> > My primary issue with the current proposal is that I feel 10 votes is
>> > slightly high for a first step. I'd *much* rather see 3-5 as a
>> > minimum, and I think others would as well.
>> >
>>
>> 89/97 packages with 0% usage on package stats have 5 votes or less. So this
>> would achieve a net result of nothing.
>
> How does that achieve a net result of nothing?
> If these rules were already in place it could have meant a net result
> of more than 500 less packages in community that we need to deal with.

He's saying that lowering the voting requirements to 5 votes will give
us nothing because there are a lot of crap/unused packages with 5
votes.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:20 AM.

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