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 10-01-2010, 06:02 PM
Diego Elio Pettenò
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 18.42 +0300, Eray Aslan ha scritto:
>
> Why not push for stabilization of 2.1.9 and then do the news item? Am
> I
> missing something?

Yah, the bickering of some people at having .la files disappear under
their feet, probably because they are affectionate to them, or force
them to consider dong a bit more cleanup work.

But since the suggestions are already useful, I guess it would be a
decent time to tell users about them; I have suggested doing so for a
very long time already; it worked for all the people whom I know have
been using it, it worked for me; heck it even avoided the tinderbox to
stop when automagic dependencies over selinux where passing down.

But it's trying to solve a problem that is at least three years old;
it's a suggestion I made more over an year ago; and that people shot
down many many times.

Sincerely, the naysayers on the .la matter have already broken enough
systems by not allowing .la files to die earlier, and now they are
pretending that there is no problem in waiting another X years in
"planning" a conversion that for what they are concerned is never going
to happen.

So basically, this is my token: we can tell users to do it this way and
they won't feel pain at all; or we can't tell them, and when maintainers
get pissed off by .la files enough they delete them, leaving users to
Google their solution.

I, sincerely, have poured enough effort in trying to solve the issue,
discussing it, documenting it, showing how to deal with new packages,
showing how to identify pointless .la files that only increase the
number of them installed and cause false positives… and I'm still told
that a) I haven't done _enough_, as I had to prepare a master plan of it
and b) I'm too negative about stuff.

--
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/
 
Old 10-01-2010, 07:12 PM
Nirbheek Chauhan
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@gmail.com> wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 20.43 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto:
>>
>> Does lafilefixer fix binpkgs now? As well as the vdb manifests for the
>> files? If it doesn't, I strongly object to having it as an official
>> recommendation. A surprisingly large no. of people (at least on
>> bugzilla) have FEATURES=buildpkg .
>
> And usually (even if not always) have one system where they build and
> one system where they install. The one where they install only, and not
> build, will do nothing with .la files, so fixed or not doesn't make any
> difference.
>

Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly
get build failures again. And that confuses them since it's
unexpected. This is in general a bad experience for stable users who
want to get work done, not baby-sit their system.

> The other, if they install back a built package might require another
> run of it,

Of course, that's the easiest solution. But I can't help but wonder
what kind of an impression it leaves on the users of our distro, who
use stable expecting it to not break unless absolutely required, and
with prior notice (or by accident, which is understandable).

Having said that, I was informed off-list that this is not meant to be
*the* solution for la file removal breakage, but merely an informative
notice to raise awareness for the (oft-useful) hammer that is
lafilefixer.

If the shortcomings of the tool (i.e. it doesn't fix vdb, binpkgs,
etc) are made clear in the news item, and devs do not start taking
this news item as license to unleash la file removal on stable, I have
no problems with it. Infact, I would say it's an injustice to users
not to get this news out to them ASAP.

So In short, (aiui) this news item is (or should be) "Some breakage
slipped in, if you face it and want a quick solution, do this: <blah>.
Note that it has the following problems: <list>. To minimize such
breakages in future, a feature called "fixpackages" (enabled by
default) has been added to ~arch portage, which will soon go stable
and will be accompanied by another news item"

Hmm, in retrospect that isn't short at all.

> I don't think it makes much difference though to them —
> beside making you feel righteous at dragging your feet. Nice try.
>

I'm sorry, but I do not understand your hostility. Could you rephrase
your objections with what I said in a way I can understand so that I
can address them?

Thanks

--
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
 
Old 10-01-2010, 07:22 PM
Enrico Weigelt
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

* Diego Elio Petten <flameeyes@gmail.com> schrieb:

Hi folks,

<big_snip />

I didn't follow the whole thread, just a quick note on .la files:

Why not just introducing a FEAUTURE or USE flag which causes
them not to be installed at all ?

la-files have a long, long history of causing headaches, and I
actually don't see the use of them. (there're much better
solutions, eg. pkg-config).



cu
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/

phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weigelt@metux.de
mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Old 10-01-2010, 07:38 PM
Zac Medico
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

On 10/01/2010 12:12 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Diego Elio Petten <flameeyes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 20.43 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto:
>>>
>>> Does lafilefixer fix binpkgs now? As well as the vdb manifests for the
>>> files? If it doesn't, I strongly object to having it as an official
>>> recommendation. A surprisingly large no. of people (at least on
>>> bugzilla) have FEATURES=buildpkg .
>>
>> And usually (even if not always) have one system where they build and
>> one system where they install. The one where they install only, and not
>> build, will do nothing with .la files, so fixed or not doesn't make any
>> difference.
>>
>
> Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly
> get build failures again. And that confuses them since it's
> unexpected. This is in general a bad experience for stable users who
> want to get work done, not baby-sit their system.

Maybe advise them to use post_pkg_preinst instead of post_src_install,
so it works even for binary packages.
--
Thanks,
Zac
 
Old 10-01-2010, 09:10 PM
Nirbheek Chauhan
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 10/01/2010 12:12 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly
>> get build failures again. And that confuses them since it's
>> unexpected. This is in general a bad experience for stable users who
>> want to get work done, not baby-sit their system.
>
> Maybe advise them to use post_pkg_preinst instead of post_src_install,
> so it works even for binary packages.
>

If that won't cause problems with portage-2.1.9 (mtime/checksum
messiness, for example; you're the best judge for this), then we
should do it.

--
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
 
Old 10-01-2010, 09:20 PM
Alistair Bush
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

> Hi lads,
> due to recent situation about .la files status we would like to inform
> users about this situation. See attached file that we propose to be
> included as news item.
>

Would it not be a better solution to have this information documented
"properly" under Upgrade Guides or Gentoo System Documentation and then have
this news item linked to it.

What i'm concerned about is that this is not really a news item. From what I
understand this issue could be with us for a rather long time (years even)
so...

How is this news item going to help ppl in a month from now (till the issue is
solved in its entirety).
Can we reasonably expect a new user to be aware of this. Do we expect users
to read old ( and this could potentially become very old) news items.

This is potentually a different situation from someone updating dbus (for
example) from <y.y.y to >=y.y.y and having a once off (fire and forget)
migration task. It is for this reason that I think this should be documented.

Alistair.

> Step 2 will be finding global policy how to get rid of them as fast as
> possible without too much more hassle for our users
>
> --------
> Tomáš Chvátal
> Gentoo Linux Developer [Clustering/Council/KDE/QA/Sci/X11]
> E-Mail : scarabeus@gentoo.org
> GnuPG FP : 94A4 5CCD 85D3 DE24 FE99 F924 1C1E 9CDE 0341 4587
> GnuPG ID : 03414587
 
Old 10-01-2010, 09:32 PM
Zac Medico
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

On 10/01/2010 02:10 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 10/01/2010 12:12 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>>> Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly
>>> get build failures again. And that confuses them since it's
>>> unexpected. This is in general a bad experience for stable users who
>>> want to get work done, not baby-sit their system.
>>
>> Maybe advise them to use post_pkg_preinst instead of post_src_install,
>> so it works even for binary packages.
>>
>
> If that won't cause problems with portage-2.1.9 (mtime/checksum
> messiness, for example; you're the best judge for this), then we
> should do it.

It won't cause problems because the mtime/checksum stuff is all done
after preinst, immediately as the files are being merged.
--
Thanks,
Zac
 
Old 10-02-2010, 01:02 AM
Diego Elio Pettenò
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

Il giorno ven, 01/10/2010 alle 21.22 +0200, Enrico Weigelt ha scritto:
>
> Why not just introducing a FEAUTURE or USE flag which causes
> them not to be installed at all ?
>
Because don't ask obvious questions unless you read the original
references.

Libtool archive files are used by ImageMagick, mpg123, libltdl itself,
and a few more packages. Just removing all of them is not going to help.

Plus at least one package install plugin files with .la extension even
if they are not libtool archives.

So please, we're not just avoiding the quick path out of spite, but
because _it's not an accessible path at all_.

--
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/
 
Old 10-02-2010, 01:06 AM
Diego Elio Pettenò
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

Il giorno sab, 02/10/2010 alle 00.42 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto:
> Right, so a few weeks later when they re-merge a binpkg, they suddenly
> get build failures again. And that confuses them since it's
> unexpected. This is in general a bad experience for stable users who
> want to get work done, not baby-sit their system.

Seriously, how many times do you re-install packages out of binpkgs on a
_build_ system? I'll be honest: for me it's never. I reinstall them
often on a _production_ system, but there, I mostly have INSTALL_MASK
on .la files because _I don't build on those_. And in that situation,
there is no breakage to begin with.

> Having said that, I was informed off-list that this is not meant to be
> *the* solution for la file removal breakage, but merely an informative
> notice to raise awareness for the (oft-useful) hammer that is
> lafilefixer.

Which is going to cover their bases. *The* solution is to keep removing
(in ~arch) everything else, and get it merged back into stable with
time, which means that anything introduced _now_ should be stabled not
before Portage 2.1.9.x is stabled, or can be a security stable; in that
case users with lafilefixer set up will not even see it happening.

> I'm sorry, but I do not understand your hostility. Could you rephrase
> your objections with what I said in a way I can understand so that I
> can address them?

I'm pretty sure I did that before, otherwise you might ask Remi, as he
probably have more patience than me on the matter and is up-to-date with
the situation last I knew.



--
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/
 
Old 10-02-2010, 03:01 AM
Donnie Berkholz
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

On 10:20 Sat 02 Oct , Alistair Bush wrote:
> Would it not be a better solution to have this information documented
> "properly" under Upgrade Guides or Gentoo System Documentation and
> then have this news item linked to it.

This is a good point if it turns out that this isn't temporary. See
below...

> How is this news item going to help ppl in a month from now (till the
> issue is solved in its entirety). Can we reasonably expect a new user
> to be aware of this. Do we expect users to read old ( and this could
> potentially become very old) news items.

As soon as new stages get built with portage 2.1.9 (i.e., as soon as it
goes stable, as I understand the autobuild process), it should no longer
be a problem for fresh installations.

It will of course remain a problem for people who wait forever to update
their systems, but it will come in as a news item whenever they do
update.

It almost makes you wonder whether portage-2.1.9 should run lafilefixer
itself in postinst, just to ensure everything's fixed on the system
before it starts fixing individual new packages.

--
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:38 AM.

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