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 Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-08-2007, 12:49 PM
"Alon Bar-Lev"
 
Default gnupg-2 stable plans

Hello,

I want to make gnupg-2 stable.

The problem is that gnupg-1.9 was slotted as slot "1.9" and made stable.

So now we have two slots, slot "0" and slot "1.9".

gnupg-2 is drop-in replacement of gnupg-1, so eventually no slotting
should be used.

As far as I see, there are two migration pathes I can use:

1. Mark gnupg-2 stable, as it blocks older versions, this results in
forcing users to manually unmerge the gnugp-1.9 series, this is the
quickest and simplest migration path.

2. Perform slot-move of slot "0" and slot "1.9" into slot "2", so
migration will be smooth. The problem is that I need all archs to work
with me in timely manner so that this will be possible. I have
bug#194113 waiting for arm, mips, s390, sh, and this only for the
dependencies.

Any thoughts?

Best Regards,
Alon Bar-Lev.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 12-09-2007, 06:21 AM
Donnie Berkholz
 
Default gnupg-2 stable plans

On 15:49 Sat 08 Dec , Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I want to make gnupg-2 stable.
>
> The problem is that gnupg-1.9 was slotted as slot "1.9" and made stable.
>
> So now we have two slots, slot "0" and slot "1.9".
>
> gnupg-2 is drop-in replacement of gnupg-1, so eventually no slotting
> should be used.
>
> As far as I see, there are two migration pathes I can use:
>
> 1. Mark gnupg-2 stable, as it blocks older versions, this results in
> forcing users to manually unmerge the gnugp-1.9 series, this is the
> quickest and simplest migration path.

Seems reasonable. Any particular reason to slot gnupg-2 as SLOT 0 rather
than SLOT 1.9?

> 2. Perform slot-move of slot "0" and slot "1.9" into slot "2", so
> migration will be smooth. The problem is that I need all archs to work
> with me in timely manner so that this will be possible. I have
> bug#194113 waiting for arm, mips, s390, sh, and this only for the
> dependencies.

I can imagine this resulting in very weird issues, when you have two of
the same package installed in the same slot.

Thanks,
Donnie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 12-11-2007, 07:49 PM
"Alon Bar-Lev"
 
Default gnupg-2 stable plans

On Dec 9, 2007 9:21 AM, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 15:49 Sat 08 Dec , Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I want to make gnupg-2 stable.
> >
> > The problem is that gnupg-1.9 was slotted as slot "1.9" and made stable.
> >
> > So now we have two slots, slot "0" and slot "1.9".
> >
> > gnupg-2 is drop-in replacement of gnupg-1, so eventually no slotting
> > should be used.
> >
> > As far as I see, there are two migration pathes I can use:
> >
> > 1. Mark gnupg-2 stable, as it blocks older versions, this results in
> > forcing users to manually unmerge the gnugp-1.9 series, this is the
> > quickest and simplest migration path.
>
> Seems reasonable. Any particular reason to slot gnupg-2 as SLOT 0 rather
> than SLOT 1.9?

he end result would be one slot... If I need to chose 1.9 or 0, I prefer the
standard is to have slot 0.

> > 2. Perform slot-move of slot "0" and slot "1.9" into slot "2", so
> > migration will be smooth. The problem is that I need all archs to work
> > with me in timely manner so that this will be possible. I have
> > bug#194113 waiting for arm, mips, s390, sh, and this only for the
> > dependencies.
>
> I can imagine this resulting in very weird issues, when you have two of
> the same package installed in the same slot.

What?
These are two versions....

If nobody else address this, I will chose the easy way -> option#0.

Best Regards,
Alon Bar-Lev.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 12-11-2007, 10:14 PM
Donnie Berkholz
 
Default gnupg-2 stable plans

On 22:49 Tue 11 Dec , Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2007 9:21 AM, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On 15:49 Sat 08 Dec , Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > Seems reasonable. Any particular reason to slot gnupg-2 as SLOT 0 rather
> > than SLOT 1.9?
>
> he end result would be one slot... If I need to chose 1.9 or 0, I prefer the
> standard is to have slot 0.

What happens to people who only have slot 1.9 installed and not slot 0,
or vice versa? You might want to test a few different upgrade scenarios
to see what portage does.

> > > 2. Perform slot-move of slot "0" and slot "1.9" into slot "2", so
> > > migration will be smooth. The problem is that I need all archs to work
> > > with me in timely manner so that this will be possible. I have
> > > bug#194113 waiting for arm, mips, s390, sh, and this only for the
> > > dependencies.
> >
> > I can imagine this resulting in very weird issues, when you have two of
> > the same package installed in the same slot.
>
> What?
> These are two versions....

Right, but two versions are never supposed to be installed into the same
slot. They are during upgrade/downgrade, but that's short-term. Some
package managers could respond oddly. If you were going to go this
route, it would again be worth testing in advance.

Thanks,
Donnie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 12-12-2007, 03:37 AM
"William L. Thomson Jr."
 
Default gnupg-2 stable plans

On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 15:49 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>
> gnupg-2 is drop-in replacement of gnupg-1, so eventually no slotting
> should be used.

Drop in according to YOU, which I have taken issue with since 1/1/07.

Per last upstream release, and every one since 2.x was release, just as
I have quoted and stated many times before.

http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-announce/2007q3/000259.html

"GnuPG-2 has a different architecture than GnuPG-1 (e.g. 1.4.6) in that
it splits up functionality into several modules. However, both
versions may be installed alongside without any conflict. In fact,
the gpg version from GnuPG-1 is able to make use of the gpg-agent as
included in GnuPG-2 and allows for seamless passphrase caching. The
advantage of GnuPG-1 is its smaller size and the lack of dependency on
other modules at run and build time. We will keep maintaining GnuPG-1
versions because they are very useful for small systems and for server
based applications requiring only OpenPGP support."

> As far as I see, there are two migration pathes I can use:

There is a third you have refused for almost a year now.

1.x should remain slot 0, 2.x should be slot 2.

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=159623

I also mentioned that if left unaddressed I would challenge this issue
when it came time for stabilization. Which gnupg2 was release over a
year ago now. Main reason that held it back so long was refusal to slot
2.x versions, in any slot other than 0. Just as 1.9 was slotted.

Even if all technical issues with gnupg 2.x have been worked out. It is
NOT a drop in replacement for 1.x. The two are different and DESIGNED to
work together. We will effectively rob users of the choice of 1.x for
what ever reasons and force 2.x on them. Which deviates from all other
distros.

Not to mention we symlink gpg -> gpg2, and gpg2 does not implement all
features of gpg, command line args. By default upstream spits out the
binaries on build with different names, same thing with .so's and etc.
So there isn't any conflict/collision problems. In fact just the
opposite if one hits gpg expecting a gpg command feature set, and
instead getting a gpg2 one.

I have wasted weeks on this posting on comments on bugs. Brought up the
issue here before. We have lost a year wrt to gnupg 2. I am all for
moving forward and dropping legacy versions of packages from the tree.
But this is not one IMHO.

Last post on this topic, ever for me. It's WAY stupid at this point. The
horse has been beaten to death, exhumed, killed again, re-exhumed,
mummified, put on exhibit, taken down, killed again, and re-buried

--
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/Java
 
Old 12-12-2007, 04:07 AM
"Alon Bar-Lev"
 
Default gnupg-2 stable plans

On 12/12/07, William L. Thomson Jr. <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 15:49 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> >
> > gnupg-2 is drop-in replacement of gnupg-1, so eventually no slotting
> > should be used.
>
> Drop in according to YOU, which I have taken issue with since 1/1/07.
> Per last upstream release, and every one since 2.x was release, just as
> I have quoted and stated many times before.
>
> http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-announce/2007q3/000259.html
>
> "GnuPG-2 has a different architecture than GnuPG-1 (e.g. 1.4.6) in that
> it splits up functionality into several modules. However, both
> versions may be installed alongside without any conflict. In fact,
> the gpg version from GnuPG-1 is able to make use of the gpg-agent as
> included in GnuPG-2 and allows for seamless passphrase caching. The
> advantage of GnuPG-1 is its smaller size and the lack of dependency on
> other modules at run and build time. We will keep maintaining GnuPG-1
> versions because they are very useful for small systems and for server
> based applications requiring only OpenPGP support."

As I told you before, I wont slot these two.

Best Regards,
Alon Bar-Lev.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 12-12-2007, 04:10 AM
"Alon Bar-Lev"
 
Default gnupg-2 stable plans

On 12/12/07, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 22:49 Tue 11 Dec , Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 2007 9:21 AM, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > On 15:49 Sat 08 Dec , Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > > Seems reasonable. Any particular reason to slot gnupg-2 as SLOT 0 rather
> > > than SLOT 1.9?
> >
> > he end result would be one slot... If I need to chose 1.9 or 0, I prefer the
> > standard is to have slot 0.
>
> What happens to people who only have slot 1.9 installed and not slot 0,
> or vice versa? You might want to test a few different upgrade scenarios
> to see what portage does.

OK, I will try this.

> > > > 2. Perform slot-move of slot "0" and slot "1.9" into slot "2", so
> > > > migration will be smooth. The problem is that I need all archs to work
> > > > with me in timely manner so that this will be possible. I have
> > > > bug#194113 waiting for arm, mips, s390, sh, and this only for the
> > > > dependencies.
> > >
> > > I can imagine this resulting in very weird issues, when you have two of
> > > the same package installed in the same slot.
> >
> > What?
> > These are two versions....
>
> Right, but two versions are never supposed to be installed into the same
> slot. They are during upgrade/downgrade, but that's short-term. Some
> package managers could respond oddly. If you were going to go this
> route, it would again be worth testing in advance.

I don't understand... It works quite some time for many people.

Alon.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 12-12-2007, 08:10 AM
Jan Kundrát
 
Default gnupg-2 stable plans

Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> As I told you before, I wont slot these two.

Could you provide a link to reasons that lead you to this decision so
that interested readers can make their own opinion?

Cheers,
-jkt

--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
 
Old 12-12-2007, 09:15 AM
Mart Raudsepp
 
Default gnupg-2 stable plans

On K, 2007-12-12 at 07:07 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On 12/12/07, William L. Thomson Jr. <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> ...We will keep maintaining GnuPG-1
> > versions because they are very useful for small systems and for server
> > based applications requiring only OpenPGP support."
>
> As I told you before, I wont slot these two.

I would like to have the option to have a smaller gnupg version in the
shape of a well maintained upstream GnuPG-1 for any embedded or handheld
devices I might acquire in the future, as I would only need OpenPGP
support on such a limited disk and resource device. Please state a
reason for not providing me, and many other users and developers alike,
from such a choice.
With no slotting I can bet on GnuPG-1 going away shortly after all
architectures have stabled GnuPG-2, or is that not so and such users can
mask >=GnuPG-1.9 and keep using a smaller version that perfectly fits
their needs? If yes, why not slot it as is designed?


Regards,
Mart Raudsepp

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 12-12-2007, 11:26 AM
"Alon Bar-Lev"
 
Default gnupg-2 stable plans

On 12/12/07, Jan Kundrát <jkt@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > As I told you before, I wont slot these two.
>
> Could you provide a link to reasons that lead you to this decision so
> that interested readers can make their own opinion?

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=159623

Best Regards,
Alon Bar-Lev.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14 AM.

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