On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 05:05:11PM +0400, Peter Volkov wrote:
> Ð’ Ð¡Ñ€Ð´, 04/08/2010 Ð² 09:42 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto Ð¿Ð¸ÑˆÐµÑ‚:
> > There are already a few bugs that can be attributed to this.
> Ok, let's say that this depends on upstream. And for Gentoo this means
> that the decision how to set version for the package depends on
> maintainer. Lot's of packages do not have dedicated release tests
> upstream (even build tests) and for this packages I don't see difference
> between stable branch and release. In such case our version just
> indicates that our package is base on tarbal of that version and nothing
The core thing people are ignoring in this discussion is that when you
do the following in your python consuming code-
python -c 'import sys.version;print sys.version_info'
(2, 6, 5, 'final', 0)
You know what version of python you're running- not even version as
much as what the api is. Code relies on this.
When a 2.6.5 is actually a 2.6.6rc* in API but still exporting
sys.version == 2.6.5, you screw up consuming code's ability to detect
the version and adjust itself accordingly.
That right there is a serious problem. Combine that with gentoo's
longstanding history of patching things to make it work, but not going
insanely beyond that and you've got a pretty strong qa/policy
conflict. If you doubt this history, why not look through the python
projects previous patch-
The point people miss in this discussion is that python isn't some
standalone pkg- a lot of code consume's it's api's. As such silently
pulling in api changes that will land in 2.6.6 starts becoming
_extremely_ problematic, and it's contrary to longstanding gentoo
> > This is unfortunately the main issue here. You may work on a specific
> > package on Gentoo, but when that package is essential for the system
> > use / stability, it stops being just "your" package. This latest
> > example has lead users to a point where their PM stopped working.
> > Breaking the PM is not a small "oops"
> That's completely different topic... I'm not talking about stability at
> all. Of course, python is special package and should be treated/tested
> by maintainers as such! Probably for such core packages ~arch is not
> enough and we need different process... But that a different topic.
> Bug I mentioned pretends that we have policy how to set version for
> packages that use backported upstream patches. My point is that there is
> no such policy and line between _p or -rN is very fuzzy to set such
> policy. Thus bug itself is INVALID...
This is essentially lawyering; it's not bad until someone creates
a rule saying it's bad, even if historical precedent proceeds it.
Trying to legislate every possible scenario of common sense/sane
maintenance practices leads to insanity. Godel had something to say
Gentoo generally speaking, is fixed versions of upstream released. We
do have integration done, but we don't monkey patch the hell out of
their releases- notice also I said 'fixed'.
Trying to make 2.6.5 a 2.6.6 isn't exactly "fixing it"- yes there are
fixes that should be pulled from the maintenance branch, but there is
a very real difference between selective cherry picking and full scale
importation as was occuring.