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 > Gentoo > Gentoo Catalyst

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-26-2011, 03:44 PM
Matt Turner
 
Default Migrating man page to asciidoc?

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Sebastian Pipping <sping@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> * Now we need to have a build time dependency, at least for the live
>> ebuild, which pulls in about 34mb of downloads just to build the man
>> page.
>>
>> Since we are just talking about a man page, imho this is a lot of bloat
>> for very little gain.
>
> I disagree on bloat and on little gain.
>
> If you insist on changing status quo I would like to call in a vote.

Well, in fairness, the asciidoc dependency was just added a day or so ago.

But, I really don't think it's as big a problem as this long email
thread warrants. We simply want to avoid asciidoc, and specifically
it's dependencies, for catalyst snapshots. For the live ebuild, I
don't see the dependencies as a problem.

Can't we simply get the timestamp of the last commit to the git
branch/tag that we're making an archive from and apply it to the
generated content? Doing this would allow us to reproduce an identical
tarball, and avoids a lot of other problems discussed in this thread.

Thanks,
Matt
 
Old 06-26-2011, 04:48 PM
Sebastian Pipping
 
Default Migrating man page to asciidoc?

On 06/26/2011 04:02 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> I get this when trying to do `EGIT_BRANCH="catalyst_2" emerge
> =catalyst-9999` I suppose because asciidoc isn't listed as a
> dependency.

Asciidoc dependency now added to live ebuild (revision 1.13).



Sebastian
 
Old 06-26-2011, 05:04 PM
Peter Stuge
 
Default Migrating man page to asciidoc?

Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Asciidoc dependency now added to live ebuild (revision 1.13).

Cool. Thanks!

Now, if someone feels strongly about asciidoc dependencies, maybe
they can improve the asciidoc ebuild with more USE flags, so that
it becomes a much more lightweight dependency not only for catalyst,
but for *all* packages which use it.


//Peter
 
Old 06-26-2011, 05:33 PM
William Hubbs
 
Default Migrating man page to asciidoc?

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:44:55AM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Sebastian Pipping <sping@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> * Now we need to have a build time dependency, at least for the live
> >> ebuild, which pulls in about 34mb of downloads just to build the man
> >> page.
> >>
> >> Since we are just talking about a man page, imho this is a lot of bloat
> >> for very little gain.
> >
> > I disagree on bloat and on little gain.
> >
> > If you insist on changing status quo I would like to call in a vote.
>
> Well, in fairness, the asciidoc dependency was just added a day or so ago.

Yes, it was added a couple of days ago, without giving a reasonable
amount of time for discussion.

I'll post the links to the rfc [1], the approval message [2] and the
message where the change was checked in [3] below. Notice that this all
happened within a period less than 24 hours.

For a significant change like this, I
think we should give 24-48 hours and make the patch visible somewhere so
that others can look at the change and comment on it before it gets
checked in. Remember that we have people here in multiple time zones,
and we don't necessarily check these lists every day.

Based on this as well as my previous objections I would like to see this
change reverted.

William

[1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-catalyst/msg_78cd6eae401bfa7a499418bc6cbc225e.xml
[2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-catalyst/msg_65f2fce710454e481973d0e2c6cc5265.xml
[3] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-catalyst/msg_f2eb026c4c4af90650952ca81a5fd6b6.xml
 
Old 06-26-2011, 05:55 PM
Peter Stuge
 
Default Migrating man page to asciidoc?

William Hubbs wrote:
> Yes, it was added a couple of days ago, without giving a reasonable
> amount of time for discussion.

You know just as well as I do that this thread is the most discussion
that this mailing list has seen in a very long time. Sebastian wants
to make some progress. I see no problem.


> For a significant change like this,

"significant" is so subjective though.


> I think we should give 24-48 hours and make the patch visible
> somewhere

It is clear that you are displeased because you think you did not
have a chance to oppose the change before it was made. I can
understand, but in reality I doubt the one opposing voice would
have made a difference.


> Remember that we have people here in multiple time zones,

This is a given for all project. Not sure why you think anyone needs
to be reminded of this.


> and we don't necessarily check these lists every day.

I would set some kind of notification up, so that response does not
depend on me checking something.


> Based on this as well as my previous objections I would like to see
> this change reverted.

I disagree and hope that most others do as well, so that development
will continue instead of being stuck on senseless arguing with you.

What about my suggestion to fix the actual problem, asciidoc
dependencies, did you bother looking into that yet? (I haven't
because I don't feel at all strongly.)

Thanks!


//Peter
 
Old 06-26-2011, 05:55 PM
Matt Turner
 
Default Migrating man page to asciidoc?

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 1:33 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:44:55AM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Sebastian Pipping <sping@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> >> * Now we need to have a build time dependency, at least for the live
>> >> ebuild, which pulls in about 34mb of downloads just to build the man
>> >> page.
>> >>
>> >> Since we are just talking about a man page, imho this is a lot of bloat
>> >> for very little gain.
>> >
>> > I disagree on bloat and on little gain.
>> >
>> > If you insist on changing status quo I would like to call in a vote.
>>
>> Well, in fairness, the asciidoc dependency was just added a day or so ago.
>
> Yes, it was added a couple of days ago, without giving a reasonable
> amount of time for discussion.

He got a single response from a Gentoo developer which is infinitely
more discussion than a large number of posts on this list receive.

Even there, the post said

> For me if man page was not touched since 2005 means that it's completely
> unmaintained and thus since you are interested in maintaining - just go
> ahead!

This really is applicable to catalyst too. It'd been almost entirely
unmaintained, less trivial changes, for quite sometime.

> I'll post the links to the rfc [1], the approval message [2] and the
> message where the change was checked in [3] below. Notice that this all
> happened within a period less than 24 hours.
>
> For a significant change like this, I
> think we should give 24-48 hours and make the patch visible somewhere so
> that others can look at the change and comment on it before it gets
> checked in. Remember that we have people here in multiple time zones,
> and we don't necessarily check these lists every day.
>
> Based on this as well as my previous objections I would like to see this
> change reverted.
>
> William
>
> [1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-catalyst/msg_78cd6eae401bfa7a499418bc6cbc225e.xml
> [2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-catalyst/msg_65f2fce710454e481973d0e2c6cc5265.xml
> [3] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-catalyst/msg_f2eb026c4c4af90650952ca81a5fd6b6.xml

Let's not go down this route. This seems like much ado about nothing.

I claim that
(1) app-text/asciidoc and its dependencies are not unreasonable for
catalyst-9999
(2) app-text/asciidoc and its dependencies should be avoided for
catalyst snapshots/releases
(3) we can simply modify the timestamp of the generated files to be
that of the most recent commit that `git archive` has access to,
thereby allowing us to reproduce identical tarballs
(4) checking in generated content into git is dirty. We should not do this

Do you disagree with any of these points, and if so, which?

Matt
 
Old 06-26-2011, 06:02 PM
Matt Turner
 
Default Migrating man page to asciidoc?

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
> What about my suggestion to fix the actual problem, asciidoc
> dependencies, did you bother looking into that yet? (I haven't
> because I don't feel at all strongly.)

I asked wired on #gentoo-dev but haven't received a response yet.

I've looked at the source, and it's not clear to me that it's possible.

Matt
 
Old 06-26-2011, 06:08 PM
Peter Stuge
 
Default Migrating man page to asciidoc?

Matt Turner wrote:
> > What about my suggestion to fix the actual problem, asciidoc
> > dependencies,
>
> I've looked at the source, and it's not clear to me that it's possible.

Someone feeling strongly would add the possibility upstream.


//Peter
 
Old 06-26-2011, 06:17 PM
Sebastian Pipping
 
Default Migrating man page to asciidoc?

On 06/26/2011 07:55 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> I claim that
> (1) app-text/asciidoc and its dependencies are not unreasonable for
> catalyst-9999
> (2) app-text/asciidoc and its dependencies should be avoided for
> catalyst snapshots/releases
> (3) we can simply modify the timestamp of the generated files to be
> that of the most recent commit that `git archive` has access to,
> thereby allowing us to reproduce identical tarballs

I played with this in the Makefile now. The only easy solution that
really gives stable checksums is setting time including modification
time to the time of the related commit. So that means loss of real
modification times. If you want to go that route the command

touch --date=$(git log --pretty=%ci -1) foo

could be handy. I guess git archive looks at timestamps from the git
store only to avoid that. Using git archive and pulling generated files
in after may work, but it#s more research than I would like to do myself.


> (4) checking in generated content into git is dirty. We should not do this
>
> Do you disagree with any of these points, and if so, which?
>
> Matt
>
 
Old 06-26-2011, 07:25 PM
William Hubbs
 
Default Migrating man page to asciidoc?

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 08:17:25PM +0200, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> I played with this in the Makefile now. The only easy solution that
> really gives stable checksums is setting time including modification
> time to the time of the related commit. So that means loss of real
> modification times. If you want to go that route the command
>
> touch --date=$(git log --pretty=%ci -1) foo
>
> could be handy. I guess git archive looks at timestamps from the git
> store only to avoid that. Using git archive and pulling generated files
> in after may work, but it#s more research than I would like to do myself.

I'll take a look at this and post a patch if I come up with something.

William
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:03 PM.

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