Michał Górny posted on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:41:43 +0200 as excerpted:
> Wouldn't it be better to officially support moving unmaintained packages
> directly into Sunrise?
++
I've thought something like that was needed for awhile, tho I'm not sure
it fits the sunrise theme too well. But if not there, surely somewhere,
and I see no reason to fragment overlays just for that, so sunrise is
good. =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
06-13-2010, 12:07 PM
Markos Chandras
Moving unmaintained packages to Sunrise
If you start moving maintainer-needed package on Sunrise then Sunrise will end up as a garbage collector overlay having many many ebuilds that nobody will actually maintain. If you care about maintainer-needed package then step up and proxy maintain it. The delay ( which is not that big if you cooperate with an active developer/herd ) might be a drawback but still... I don't want sunrise to become a place where abandoned ebuilds will end up.Â*
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
Michał Górny posted on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:41:43 +0200 as excerpted:
> Wouldn't it be better to officially support moving unmaintained packages
> directly into Sunrise?
++
I've thought something like that was needed for awhile, tho I'm not sure
it fits the sunrise theme too well. Â*But if not there, surely somewhere,
and I see no reason to fragment overlays just for that, so sunrise is
good. =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. Â* No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Â*Richard Stallman
06-13-2010, 02:26 PM
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
Moving unmaintained packages to Sunrise
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 13-06-2010 08:41, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There are some packages which were 'readded' to the Sunrise overlay
> after lying unmaintained in the tree for a long time and finally being
> removed. One example could be net-im/ekg2 for removal of which I've been
> personally waiting.
>
> Although such a workflow 'works' indeed, for most of the users packages
> are just removed. Even if they use Sunrise, the delay of few days
> required in order to get the new ebuild rewritten and reviewed causes
> them to remove and forget about the package. And in fact, gx86 states
> it was 'removed'.
>
> Currently, the Sunrise policy states that there could be added only
> packages which are maintainer-wanted and thus not in gx86. For
> maintainer-needed, there is a proxy-commit mechanism but it's a little
> awkward, especially if the new ebuild is supposed to be written from
> scratch (like ekg2 one was).
>
> Wouldn't it be better to officially support moving unmaintained
> packages directly into Sunrise? In this case by 'unmaintained' I mean
> those which have open bugs assigned to 'maintainer-needed' for a long
> time, and are potentially a candidates for the treecleaning (not
> necessarily being in the removal queue yet).
I think you might not have been around at that time, but when the
sunrise overlay was created, there was a proposal to create a sunset
overlay, like the java team used and now kde uses as well.
The purpose of this overlay would be to keep the packages that are
removed from the tree because they have no maintainers.
As was discussed back then, the people wishing to work on sunrise are
likely not interested in having all the removed packages dumped in their
shoulders. Besides, sunrise is about packages that have an interested
user submitting and hopefully maintaining ebuilds for new packages,
while sunset is likely to become a dumping ground for stuff that we
can't find anyone to take care of.
If we want to find a way to not drop the maintainer-needed packages, I'd
prefer we move them to sunset and not to sunrise. As this overlay is
likely to become large, probably "huge", and as it will host security
vulnerable packages, we should evaluate whether we really want to host
it and, if so, what measures to take to protect "distracted users". I
think package masking all the packages put there with links to relevant
bugs might be a first step.
> The particular Sunrise user wanting to maintain the package suggests
> moving it to Sunrise (to whom?). If developers agree on that, he is
> allowed to prepare the Sunrise ebuild and even commit it to the
> 'sunrise' (non-public) tree.
>
> When Sunrise dev does the final review, after which the package would
> be moved to 'reviewed' (public) tree, he/she also masks the original
> package in gx86 stating that the package is now maintained in Sunrise.
> After 30 (or more) days, the masked gx86 packages are removed as usual.
>
> The advantage of such a workflow is quite obvious -- instead of seeing
> 'removed' packages which they need to either copy to their own overlay
> or abandon, users are advised to add 'sunrise' to their repository list
> and use the user-maintained ebuild. And then the move is almost
> transparent to current Sunrise users.
The problem with the above is exposing users to potentially "dangerous"
applications - from a security perspective.
- --
Regards,
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
Le 13/06/2010 14:07, Markos Chandras a écrit :
> If you start moving maintainer-needed package on Sunrise then Sunrise
> will end up as a garbage collector overlay having many many ebuilds that
> nobody will actually maintain. If you care about maintainer-needed
> package then step up and proxy maintain it. The delay ( which is not
> that big if you cooperate with an active developer/herd ) might be a
> drawback but still... I don't want sunrise to become a place where
> abandoned ebuilds will end up.
+1, unmaintained ebuilds should just go away. We have to stop pretending
to maintain an ebuild when no one does.
Besides, everything we have is either in CVS or subversion, so nothing
is lost.
If anything, we should be advertising where deleted ebuilds are and how
users can revive them if they want them.
Cheers,
Rémi
06-13-2010, 04:35 PM
Michał Górny
Moving unmaintained packages to Sunrise
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:07:12 +0300
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> If you start moving maintainer-needed package on Sunrise then Sunrise
> will end up as a garbage collector overlay having many many ebuilds
> that nobody will actually maintain. If you care about
> maintainer-needed package then step up and proxy maintain it. The
> delay ( which is not that big if you cooperate with an active
> developer/herd ) might be a drawback but still... I don't want
> sunrise to become a place where abandoned ebuilds will end up.
But who's talking here about moving abandoned ebuilds just to keep
them? I'd wanted just to make it simpler to switch the 'maintainership'
from Gentoo devs to Sunrise users, when the second are ready to
maintain the ebuild well.
You may take a look at Sunrise net-im/ekg2 ebuild as an example. It has
probably almost nothing in common with the original ebuild. It even uses
an alternate build system, allows to fine-tune the build like not many
packages do. Do you consider that an 'abandoned ebuild'?
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://mgorny.alt.pl>
<xmpp:mgorny@jabber.ru>
06-13-2010, 04:39 PM
Markos Chandras
Moving unmaintained packages to Sunrise
We ( as treecleaners ) can't move the packages to sunrise. If there are users out there who want to maintain them either move the ebuilds on sunrise themselves or proxy maintain them.Â*
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Michał Górny <gentoo@mgorny.alt.pl> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:07:12 +0300
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> If you start moving maintainer-needed package on Sunrise then Sunrise
> will end up as a garbage collector overlay having many many ebuilds
> that nobody will actually maintain. If you care about
> maintainer-needed package then step up and proxy maintain it. The
> delay ( which is not that big if you cooperate with an active
> developer/herd ) might be a drawback but still... I don't want
> sunrise to become a place where abandoned ebuilds will end up.
But who's talking here about moving abandoned ebuilds just to keep
them? I'd wanted just to make it simpler to switch the 'maintainership'
from Gentoo devs to Sunrise users, when the second are ready to
maintain the ebuild well.
You may take a look at Sunrise net-im/ekg2 ebuild as an example. It has
probably almost nothing in common with the original ebuild. It even uses
an alternate build system, allows to fine-tune the build like not many
packages do. Do you consider that an 'abandoned ebuild'?
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://mgorny.alt.pl>
<xmpp:mgorny@jabber.ru>
06-13-2010, 04:56 PM
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
Moving unmaintained packages to Sunrise
On 6/13/10 6:35 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> But who's talking here about moving abandoned ebuilds just to keep
> them? I'd wanted just to make it simpler to switch the 'maintainership'
> from Gentoo devs to Sunrise users, when the second are ready to
> maintain the ebuild well.
Can you suggest a specific plan or process how to do that?
Please don't go into discussion "no, the devs should do that" vs "no,
the users should do that".
Currently it seems the users can take the "last-rited" ebuilds and get
them into sunrise. They can step up as proxy maintainers and prevent the
package from getting tree-cleaned.
There are many options, which can be used right now and have existed for
months.
Paweł
06-13-2010, 08:36 PM
Duncan
Moving unmaintained packages to Sunrise
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto posted on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:26:26 +0000 as
excerpted:
> there was a proposal to create a sunset overlay, like the java team used
> and now kde uses as well. The purpose of this overlay would be to keep
> the packages that are removed from the tree because they have no
> maintainers. As was discussed back then, the people wishing to work on
> sunrise are likely not interested in having all the removed packages
> dumped in their shoulders. Besides, sunrise is about packages that have
> an interested user submitting and hopefully maintaining ebuilds for new
> packages, while sunset is likely to become a dumping ground for stuff
> that we can't find anyone to take care of. If we want to find a way to
> not drop the maintainer-needed packages, I'd prefer we move them to
> sunset and not to sunrise. As this overlay is likely to become large,
> probably "huge", and as it will host security vulnerable packages, we
> should evaluate whether we really want to host it and, if so, what
> measures to take to protect "distracted users". I think package masking
> all the packages put there with links to relevant bugs might be a first
> step.
You obviously read the proposal differently than I did. MG can pop in and
say what he intended, but as I read it, and why I said "++", is...
We change the policy of sunrise, not to be a dumping ground for /all/ tree-
cleaned packages, but to allow interested users who see that a package
they're interested in is unmaintained, to add it to (the unpublic part of)
sunrise before the package is removed and potentially before it's even
masked for removal, such that it can be approved and ready to "go public"
in sunrise at the same time it's removed (or even when masked for removal)
from the main tree.
So packages wouldn't be dumped there without a maintainer. The only ones
that would qualify would be those where a user actively proposes to
maintain them in sunrise, the idea being that in some instances (as with
the posted example), they can be maintained better there than they can be
proxy-maintained in-tree.
Apparently, sunrise has been around long enough, now, that there has been
at least one package that started in sunrise, was added to the tree, then
the person who added it lost interest or retired... and now it's rotting
in the tree, and the same user that put it in sunrise before is still
interested in it and has updated ebuilds, etc, but can't easily get
proxies to commit the new ebuilds to the tree. From my read, that was
apparently what sparked the post and whole proposed change.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
06-13-2010, 09:19 PM
Petteri Räty
Moving unmaintained packages to Sunrise
On 06/13/2010 05:26 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't it be better to officially support moving unmaintained
>> packages directly into Sunrise? In this case by 'unmaintained' I mean
>> those which have open bugs assigned to 'maintainer-needed' for a long
>> time, and are potentially a candidates for the treecleaning (not
>> necessarily being in the removal queue yet).
>
> I think you might not have been around at that time, but when the
> sunrise overlay was created, there was a proposal to create a sunset
> overlay, like the java team used and now kde uses as well.
We (java) still use it and call it junkyard. That's an adequate
description for the quality of the overlay.
Regards,
Petteri
06-13-2010, 11:48 PM
Sebastian Pipping
Moving unmaintained packages to Sunrise
On 06/13/10 16:26, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> If we want to find a way to not drop the maintainer-needed packages, I'd
> prefer we move them to sunset and not to sunrise.
Agreed.
If there is a user-maintainer move to sunrise, if there isn't move to
sunset.
> As this overlay is
> likely to become large, probably "huge", and as it will host security
> vulnerable packages, we should evaluate whether we really want to host
> it and, if so, what measures to take to protect "distracted users". I
> think package masking all the packages put there with links to relevant
> bugs might be a first step.
We introduced a "graveyard" quality level to layman recently that allows
for marking such repositories (and a split tree in the future).
Quoting the current repositories.dtd:
Moving unmaintained packages to Sunrise
