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 07-09-2010, 10:22 PM
Matti Bickel
 
Default RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others

Hi,

yet another patch from Ole in a bid to rid the php eclasses from some
long forgotten code. The patches should be self-explanatory - just rip
out everything related to dev-php4

Comments welcome.

All the work will go into our overlay (slotting branch:
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/php.git;a=tree;h=refs/heads/slotting;hb=slotting)
before migration to the tree.
 
Old 07-10-2010, 06:30 AM
Petteri Räty
 
Default RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others

On 07/10/2010 01:22 AM, Matti Bickel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> yet another patch from Ole in a bid to rid the php eclasses from some
> long forgotten code. The patches should be self-explanatory - just rip
> out everything related to dev-php4
>
> Comments welcome.
>

The standing policy is still not to remove any public functionality from
eclasses. If we decide to start removing functionality the council
should set common rules for it.
 
Old 07-10-2010, 08:34 AM
Brian Harring
 
Default RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others

On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 09:30:42AM +0300, Petteri RRRty wrote:
> On 07/10/2010 01:22 AM, Matti Bickel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > yet another patch from Ole in a bid to rid the php eclasses from some
> > long forgotten code. The patches should be self-explanatory - just rip
> > out everything related to dev-php4
> >
> > Comments welcome.
> >
>
> The standing policy is still not to remove any public functionality from
> eclasses. If we decide to start removing functionality the council
> should set common rules for it.

Just adding a note on this one- the original technical reason for
this policy (portage inability to run from just the saved env dump)
is no longer an issue.

If people want to allow eclasses to have fluid APIs (specifically
removal of functionality), that's a discussion that needs to start on
the dev level.

Anyone got strong opinions on this one?
~brian
 
Old 07-11-2010, 03:02 AM
Ryan Hill
 
Default RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 01:34:37 -0700
Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 09:30:42AM +0300, Petteri RRRty wrote:
> > The standing policy is still not to remove any public functionality from
> > eclasses. If we decide to start removing functionality the council
> > should set common rules for it.
>
> Just adding a note on this one- the original technical reason for
> this policy (portage inability to run from just the saved env dump)
> is no longer an issue.
>
> If people want to allow eclasses to have fluid APIs (specifically
> removal of functionality), that's a discussion that needs to start on
> the dev level.
>
> Anyone got strong opinions on this one?

I don't believe there ever was such a policy, except for pkg_{pre,post}rm
because of the mentioned technical limitations (which were fixed in portage
2-3 years ago now). If there is such a policy then I've violated it on
several occasions . In fact, isn't the generally accepted method of
deprecating an eclass to remove all functionality and replace it with a
message in global scope and a "# @DEAD" tag?

I don't see the advantage of keeping unmaintained broken code no one should
use around in eclasses. You can argue that removing eclass functionality can
potentially break ebuilds in overlays, but if you follow that line of
reasoning then really we should never remove any package from the tree
because it may be a dependency of something, somewhere.

So I'd like to see a policy that treats public functions in eclasses the same
as the last rites policies for package removal: minimum 30 day deprecation
period, mail to dev-announce, etc.


--
fonts, gcc-porting, and it's all by design
toolchain, wxwidgets to keep us from losing our minds
@ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
 
Old 07-11-2010, 05:02 AM
Doug Goldstein
 
Default RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others

On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 01:34:37 -0700
> Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 09:30:42AM +0300, Petteri RRRty wrote:
>> > The standing policy is still not to remove any public functionality from
>> > eclasses. If we decide to start removing functionality the council
>> > should set common rules for it.
>>
>> Just adding a note on this one- the original technical reason for
>> this policy (portage inability to run from just the saved env dump)
>> is no longer an issue.
>>
>> If people want to allow eclasses to have fluid APIs (specifically
>> removal of functionality), that's a discussion that needs to start on
>> the dev level.
>>
>> Anyone got strong opinions on this one?
>
> I don't believe there ever was such a policy, except for pkg_{pre,post}rm
> because of the mentioned technical limitations (which were fixed in portage
> 2-3 years ago now). *If there is such a policy then I've violated it on
> several occasions . *In fact, isn't the generally accepted method of
> deprecating an eclass to remove all functionality and replace it with a
> message in global scope and a "# @DEAD" tag?
>
> I don't see the advantage of keeping unmaintained broken code no one should
> use around in eclasses. *You can argue that removing eclass functionality can
> potentially break ebuilds in overlays, but if you follow that line of
> reasoning then really we should never remove any package from the tree
> because it may be a dependency of something, somewhere.
>
> So I'd like to see a policy that treats public functions in eclasses the same
> as the last rites policies for package removal: *minimum 30 day deprecation
> period, mail to dev-announce, etc.
>
>
> --
> fonts, gcc-porting, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * and it's all by design
> toolchain, wxwidgets * * * * * * * * * * * *to keep us from losing our minds
> @ gentoo.org * * * * * * * *EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
>

To be honest, the MythTV eclasses have been an ever evolving set of
eclasses for ages now. Ever since it was declared that its now safe to
remove eclasses from the tree since Portage saves eclasses and its
env, therefore it wouldn't cause a problem.

If I really need to go to the council with every change, considering
it must be debated on the ML for at least X number of days prior to
going to the council, I'd more likely just remove MythTV from the tree
and maintain it in an overlay. I don't invest a lot of time in the
MythTV ebuilds, but they work for a large majority of people. And when
a new version comes out it requires some retooling and it just works
for everyone.

So basically, you guys decide.. am I pulling them out of the tree or
am I leaving them in?

--
Doug Goldstein
 
Old 07-11-2010, 12:49 PM
Petteri Räty
 
Default RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others

On 07/11/2010 08:02 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote:

> If I really need to go to the council with every change, considering
> it must be debated on the ML for at least X number of days prior to
> going to the council, I'd more likely just remove MythTV from the tree
> and maintain it in an overlay. I don't invest a lot of time in the
> MythTV ebuilds, but they work for a large majority of people. And when
> a new version comes out it requires some retooling and it just works
> for everyone.
>

When someone proposes this I'll let you know. What's under discussion is
allowing removals to the public API of eclasses by following a
documented process (that doesn't involve council approval).

> So basically, you guys decide.. am I pulling them out of the tree or
> am I leaving them in?
>

If you decided to drop maintenance of MythTV in main tree, wouldn't it
be a better service to users to try and find a new maintainer (who would
possibly merge stuff from your overlay)?

Regards,
Petteri
 
Old 07-11-2010, 04:03 PM
Doug Goldstein
 
Default RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others

On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 07/11/2010 08:02 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>
>> If I really need to go to the council with every change, considering
>> it must be debated on the ML for at least X number of days prior to
>> going to the council, I'd more likely just remove MythTV from the tree
>> and maintain it in an overlay. I don't invest a lot of time in the
>> MythTV ebuilds, but they work for a large majority of people. And when
>> a new version comes out it requires some retooling and it just works
>> for everyone.
>>
>
> When someone proposes this I'll let you know. What's under discussion is
> allowing removals to the public API of eclasses by following a
> documented process (that doesn't involve council approval).
>
>> So basically, you guys decide.. am I pulling them out of the tree or
>> am I leaving them in?
>>
>
> If you decided to drop maintenance of MythTV in main tree, wouldn't it
> be a better service to users to try and find a new maintainer (who would
> possibly merge stuff from your overlay)?
>
> Regards,
> Petteri
>
>

Simply put, the council's purpose is not to say "oh we have to stop
development and have a 4 week debate about everything minor". The
council's purpose is to help decide between different technical
solutions and encourage people to move forward on one unified path.
The council's purpose is not to HINDER development as your responses
clearly suggest you would like to hinder eclass development but
instead to promote positive development.

Someone along the years the council lost its way and has felt that it
needs to stick its fingers into places that it really doesn't belong.
Its really become like the upper management at a large company that
slows its developers down, instead of helping make them more
efficient.

--
Doug Goldstein
 
Old 07-11-2010, 04:37 PM
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
 
Default RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Doug.

On 11-07-2010 16:03, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 07/11/2010 08:02 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>
>>> If I really need to go to the council with every change, considering
>>> it must be debated on the ML for at least X number of days prior to
>>> going to the council, I'd more likely just remove MythTV from the tree
>>> and maintain it in an overlay. I don't invest a lot of time in the
>>> MythTV ebuilds, but they work for a large majority of people. And when
>>> a new version comes out it requires some retooling and it just works
>>> for everyone.
>>>
>>
>> When someone proposes this I'll let you know. What's under discussion is
>> allowing removals to the public API of eclasses by following a
>> documented process (that doesn't involve council approval).
>>
>>> So basically, you guys decide.. am I pulling them out of the tree or
>>> am I leaving them in?
>>>
>>
>> If you decided to drop maintenance of MythTV in main tree, wouldn't it
>> be a better service to users to try and find a new maintainer (who would
>> possibly merge stuff from your overlay)?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Petteri
>>
>>
>
> Simply put, the council's purpose is not to say "oh we have to stop
> development and have a 4 week debate about everything minor". The
> council's purpose is to help decide between different technical
> solutions and encourage people to move forward on one unified path.
> The council's purpose is not to HINDER development as your responses
> clearly suggest you would like to hinder eclass development but
> instead to promote positive development.

There seems to be some misunderstanding going on as we (Gentoo) haven't
approved (in prior councils terms or in the current one which hopes to
have its first meeting in the coming week or the following) any rules
about eclass changes having to be discussed or approved by the council.

> Someone along the years the council lost its way and has felt that it
> needs to stick its fingers into places that it really doesn't belong.
> Its really become like the upper management at a large company that
> slows its developers down, instead of helping make them more
> efficient.

About the issue in discussion, Petteri was recalling that contrary to
what anyone new to Gentoo might conclude from the current discussion,
the issue of eclass deprecation has been subject to at least 2 separate
discussions in the past 2 or 3 years and that in the last round there
was a proposal for setting minimal deprecation time frames.

- --
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/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMOfNWAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPsuQP/ApDmnJ8hNybSBzSOack2HIu
0IpIPgRV43s6SGLQuZH8sh2Svuzxlx7nMEb5/i+NkFrqnBp0p843onQorN2iO0a4
95k6CE23GRIaJKaOuNduAhI6Okme6/dVAaDhHzXRCwke+Sbbeohn8gnvZyu/fb3/
M/YTCXsz9Iur6ucs3pGNbE5aakJMwM6Su/h6QB4FjA+J0D9K9oHLf6aC70CKyH+e
Tw71UnGsb84lvd7kGsbRNn+RNEkRjvGQNA87y8Pau/q8YEmzH660zyg6tiMwLRnq
B1DaHYisVI6v9WAV7pRj6uAHYe52raeAZvFg025JNyo25tRbLp L9x+65lRF+yVVk
kc93rCMZsfgCsZoNWDK2QZWSrqYLTUHdbin66eNzxciqWBfoK3 plBMp+CDg9iJb3
dSKBz2Ixsv5GWm6IcZM9wEzX34Wk+SJlj4ZPiD8iHOFT1kU4G3 FmOcrI00ijXM/p
dAPMfz82uWFlaRwOMrfMJzq2Uy8SvU+8s68D7LKFUQP2e0xPsb Bi6WF9lDPXys80
x073GzXDq+MfyQYxn1VLRwXHAhJNKbyGvy0Unm8scKr3+HzTZY 8+G4Uvt/OAfg+4
YLorgdiRsGm4ecr4Y2DCydMk6TumS/915lmtePmNDdZ+s2lVTGem2cKVc8EJI42z
91KjRH4dYEj968oOenST
=G61A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 07-11-2010, 04:47 PM
Petteri Räty
 
Default RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others

On 07/11/2010 07:37 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:

>
>> Simply put, the council's purpose is not to say "oh we have to stop
>> development and have a 4 week debate about everything minor". The
>> council's purpose is to help decide between different technical
>> solutions and encourage people to move forward on one unified path.
>> The council's purpose is not to HINDER development as your responses
>> clearly suggest you would like to hinder eclass development but
>> instead to promote positive development.
>

Original rules (as they were when I joined 2005):

You are only allowed to add to the public API of an eclass.

Eclass removal addition:

Since then council has approved the ability to fully remove eclasses:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20090528-summary.txt

Under discussion:

Extend the rules to allow developers to remove functions from the API of
an eclass. To me this seem exactly like: "The council's purpose is to
help decide between different technical solutions and encourage people
to move forward on one unified path."

>
> About the issue in discussion, Petteri was recalling that contrary to
> what anyone new to Gentoo might conclude from the current discussion,
> the issue of eclass deprecation has been subject to at least 2 separate
> discussions in the past 2 or 3 years and that in the last round there
> was a proposal for setting minimal deprecation time frames.
>

There's already an approved process for eclass removal (see link above).
If we allow removal of functions I think there should a similar set of
rules as for eclass and package removal.

Regards,
Petteri
 
Old 07-11-2010, 09:33 PM
Brian Harring
 
Default RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others

On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 07:47:24PM +0300, Petteri RRRty wrote:
> On 07/11/2010 07:37 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>
> >
> >> Simply put, the council's purpose is not to say "oh we have to stop
> >> development and have a 4 week debate about everything minor". The
> >> council's purpose is to help decide between different technical
> >> solutions and encourage people to move forward on one unified path.
> >> The council's purpose is not to HINDER development as your responses
> >> clearly suggest you would like to hinder eclass development but
> >> instead to promote positive development.
> >
>
> Original rules (as they were when I joined 2005):
>
> You are only allowed to add to the public API of an eclass.
>
> Eclass removal addition:
>
> Since then council has approved the ability to fully remove eclasses:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20090528-summary.txt
>
> Under discussion:
>
> Extend the rules to allow developers to remove functions from the API of
> an eclass. To me this seem exactly like: "The council's purpose is to
> help decide between different technical solutions and encourage people
> to move forward on one unified path."

From my stance, I firmly believe the council doesn't really need to be
involved here. This is QA's domain- specifically to decide tree
policy.

The only question here is essentially "at what point do we stop
caring about older portage versions". portage 2.1.4.4 went stable
(carrying that support) 06/01/08. Frankly I'd argue the council's
original decision while bound to eclasses, should've been bound to the
2.1.4.4 release- specifically "you can't remove eclasses/functionality
until 2 years after 2.1.4.4".

So... I firmly view this as QA's domain (they set the rules for most
other tree policies). Leave it to them to decide. I realize from
the standpoint of following the rules, this will require the council
to state "yeah, we're backing out of this, it's now QA's domain", but
this is my view on what should be done.

~harring
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:30 AM.

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