x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug
 

In the aim of improving binpkgs status, I filed a bunch of bugs against all the libX* available in tree that contain wrong RDEPEND bits pointing to x11-proto/* stuff.
To x11, just don't get angry (eheh), let's discuss concerns here (actually I don't see any and I am willing to fix all the ebuilds and close all my bugs if you ack).

List of Gentoo bugs:
298616
298618
298620
298621
298623
298624
298626
298627
298629
298631
298633
298634
298636
298638
298640
298642
298644
298645
298646
298648
298649
298653
298654
298656
298657
298658
298659

--
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.gentoo.org
http://www.sabayon.org

x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug
 

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 3:10 AM, <lxnay@gentoo.org> wrote:
> In the aim of improving binpkgs status, I filed a bunch of bugs against all
> the libX* available in tree that contain wrong RDEPEND bits pointing to
> x11-proto/* stuff.
> To x11, just don't get angry (eheh), let's discuss concerns here (actually I
> don't see any and I am willing to fix all the ebuilds and close all my bugs
> if you ack).

Why not provide some actual meat and potatoes here instead of a
useless e-mail with bug numbers and some stupid attempt at humor at
the expense of the x11 herd?

x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug
 

On 12/28/2009 11:10 AM, lxnay@gentoo.org wrote:

> To x11, just don't get angry (eheh), let's discuss concerns here
> (actually I don't see any and I am willing to fix all the ebuilds and
> close all my bugs if you ack).
>

Filing bugs first and then opening discussion here doesn't make sense.
It should be the other way around.

Regards,
Petteri

x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug
 

I discussed this a few weeks ago with some devs on IRC and the general
answer was, file bugs.
I filed bugs. About the rest, I decline any comment. Have fun.

--
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.sabayon.org
http://www.gentoo.org

x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug
 

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:10:48 +0100 (CET)
lxnay@gentoo.org wrote:

> let's discuss concerns here (actually I don't see any and I am
> willing to fix all the ebuilds and close all my bugs if you ack).

If they are genuine bugs, then there isn't anything to discuss.

> List of Gentoo bugs:

Tracker bug is #298759[1]


Regards,
jer


[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=298759

x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug
 

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:10:48 +0100 (CET)
> lxnay@gentoo.org wrote:
>
>> let's discuss concerns here (actually I don't see any and I am
>> willing to fix all the ebuilds and close all my bugs if you ack).
>
> If they are genuine bugs, then there isn't anything to discuss.

Thanks, I will also create a tracker bug next time.

>
>> List of Gentoo bugs:
>
> Tracker bug is #298759[1]
>
>
> Regards,
> * * jer
>
>
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=298759
>
>
>



--
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.sabayon.org
http://www.gentoo.org

x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug
 

On 12/28/2009 11:10 AM, lxnay@gentoo.org wrote:
> In the aim of improving binpkgs status, I filed a bunch of bugs against
> all the libX* available in tree that contain wrong RDEPEND bits pointing
> to x11-proto/* stuff.
> To x11, just don't get angry (eheh), let's discuss concerns here
> (actually I don't see any and I am willing to fix all the ebuilds and
> close all my bugs if you ack).

Xdbe.h is part of libXext:

Xdbe.h:#include <X11/extensions/dbe.h>

x11-libs/libXext (/usr/include/X11/extensions/Xdbe.h)

Where dbe.h is coming from xextproto:

x11-proto/xextproto (/usr/include/X11/extensions/dbe.h)

As such, xextproto should be a RDEPEND of libXext or otherwise
you'd be breaking everything that's using libXext's Xdbe.h as
a build depend because having xextproto only in DEPEND would allow
--depclean to remove the required header from system

.... my 1 or 2 cents

x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug
 

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> [...snip...]

Samuli I know, but actually Zac told me that as of now RDEPENDs are
not considered that way. I knew that you were going to comment here
(hence why I posted), maybe it's a good time to clear out our mind and
eventually decide how to deal with those. Because most of the ebuilds
don't seem to follow your logic.

--
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.sabayon.org
http://www.gentoo.org

x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug
 

On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Xdbe.h is part of libXext:
>
> Xdbe.h:#include <X11/extensions/dbe.h>
>
> x11-libs/libXext (/usr/include/X11/extensions/Xdbe.h)
>
> Where dbe.h is coming from xextproto:
>
> x11-proto/xextproto (/usr/include/X11/extensions/dbe.h)
>
> As such, xextproto should be a RDEPEND of libXext or otherwise
> you'd be breaking everything that's using libXext's Xdbe.h as
> a build depend because having xextproto only in DEPEND would allow
> --depclean to remove the required header from system
>

It won't do that unless you do --with-bdeps=y ; plus removing headers
from the system won't cause the packages to stop working, and if
someone removes the headers, they'll be pulled back on upgrade.


--
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

x11-libs/lib*: wrong RDEPENDs bug
 

Le 28/12/2009 10:10, lxnay@gentoo.org a écrit :
> List of Gentoo bugs:
> 298616
> 298618
> 298620
> 298621
> 298623
> 298624
> 298626
> 298627
> 298629
> 298631
> 298633
> 298634
> 298636
> 298638
> 298640
> 298642
> 298644
> 298645
> 298646
> 298648
> 298649
> 298653
> 298654
> 298656
> 298657
> 298658
> 298659

RESOLVED -> WONTFIX

Others and myself have spent considerable time making those deps the way
they are because :

1) upstream packaging is a bit uncommon
2) ebuild deps don't fit with upstream deps
3) a few embedded devs told me they wiped /usr/include when making images

So if you want to fix this properly, a new DEP variable needs to be
cooked up : "add the following deps to ebuilds' DEPEND when those ebuids
DEPEND on this ebuild".

Until such a variable exist, having the protos in both DEPEND and
RDEPEND is the only _valid_ solution.

Thanks

Rémi