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 10-02-2010, 05:40 AM
Duncan
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 03:06:56 +0200 as excerpted:

> 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?

Frequently enough for it to be a consideration. Among other things, it's
a fast way to roll-back to a working version when a new version goes
haywire, for whatever reason.

I strongly recommend that users enable FEATURES=buildpkg for a host of
reasons, and having it break or cause additional complications for them is
not a good thing. Of course I also strongly recommend lafilefixer (based
on your blog, BTW), too, but yeah, people /do/ sometimes reinstall from
binpkgs on a build system. Having binpkgs around for my build system has
saved my behind a number of times!

You can't simply ignore potential issues because they don't happen to fit
your usage case.

But is there anything wrong with Zac's suggestion to use post_pkg_preinst
instead? (Better to reply to that under his post, just mentioning that
there's a suggested solution.)

[context reinserted]

>>> 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?
>
> I'm pretty sure I did that before

But even if that "before" included him, it is not yet part of the public
record of this discussion. Perhaps a simple link to that previous
discussion, for the public record in this one?

The jab /was/ rather unnecessary and uncalled for, and would have been
better not posted. Even if the subject had been dealt with before, the
question raised was a legitimate one to be raised here as part of the
public record of /this/ discussion (where it had yet to be raised), which
is, after all, part of the reason for the policy to post such things to
this (public) list before simply adding them to the tree.

And, it would seem, Zac has a suggestion to help, again part of the reason
for the policy, the end product ends up better for it. =:^)

I realize there's a reason for your nick, but that doesn't mean you have
to live up to it. =:^)

Meanwhile, thanks for pushing the news item. The whole lafilefixer thing
has been needed for some time, and now that it's available and quite well
tested, getting the news out is a /good/ thing! =:^)

--
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
 
Old 10-02-2010, 12:00 PM
Dale
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

Duncan wrote:

Diego Elio Petten posted on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 03:06:56 +0200 as excerpted:



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?


Frequently enough for it to be a consideration. Among other things, it's
a fast way to roll-back to a working version when a new version goes
haywire, for whatever reason.

I strongly recommend that users enable FEATURES=buildpkg for a host of
reasons, and having it break or cause additional complications for them is
not a good thing. Of course I also strongly recommend lafilefixer (based
on your blog, BTW), too, but yeah, people /do/ sometimes reinstall from
binpkgs on a build system. Having binpkgs around for my build system has
saved my behind a number of times!




Same here. That has saved me a lot of time and frustration in the past
as well. I have had buildpkg set in make.conf for ages. I use it
regularly and would not want to have that messed up. I recently used it
when a KDE upgrade went bust. Without being able to go back to the old
binaries, I would have had almost a day of compiling and no GUI at all.
With it, just a hour or so for it to unpack and put it back.


Some people may not have it set or use it but there are people that do.

Dale

:-) :-)
 
Old 10-02-2010, 12:21 PM
Peter Volkov
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

В Птн, 01/10/2010 в 12:38 -0700, Zac Medico пишет:
> Maybe advise them to use post_pkg_preinst instead of post_src_install,
> so it works even for binary packages.

Is it possible for portage-2.1.8.x to depend on lafilefixer and add run
lafilefixer (if installed) from base profile bashrc?

--
Peter.
 
Old 10-02-2010, 01:07 PM
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

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

On 02-10-2010 03:01, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 10:20 Sat 02 Oct , Alistair Bush wrote:
>> 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.

You're correct. The weekly stages are built from the latest stable
revisions of packages in the tree.

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMpy6tAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEP20MQAJpCm+GfPv g/K2JEyXLvPkHu
7lRDM6rojOtH2nSxFW+WElGM0ly6CWj6xvm5vfPRD7dIisihrV PxDStOUI5hM3uV
I1+IBecRyNlc7DPDBCOtMDbrzFpVlFTKM0p20eIIL5inimtfoV O6Iowps97KoW3M
zmO0gTKdqWbBKmDzsAb/8seAWDNm0oKGURDL1gaYjQGUO3vckk7Ft2JBsQVg8Qy3
XLfjv9ft12TKUo/DFwowIf0IsFQooHWbrN77jDM9BjlzyTtrVFi3anZF5SdkLMYR
I7VpKxhKEWaCJcyjyRZzo1QbvcvLAunPTbXZ2gwImisCzxp5gf Rod3RwQpT8QGVb
QlQeNo6PfaLlipA3EB17ZFVD5pU33YCGrbgLAOOe5a5bTWy1LK 4NDdPmbW7cUL5d
9XpiADNlXP6gD1tDcqMHwo0zZa7F5YW/dwKGo/F3A296gD6l0zqIxp+AL6Rk7Awy
W18YxFNPly6pFgktaJLicE1nPOKfbqvI7Dwcu534untfZUWSS1 XQBCkRRW8Gtq+i
jX41YWatE0cltKd7uBEyuc6fVAR3rAtHzpXHgNrh+04dVFrkJc UeJun+JiIAE1WU
j+mN/NMD4ylqvzgQyS/YTMOBSVQW3EvFnq+p7H8OxHoH7XzQNSQkLsrAOBFcnPn6
3c6pxdEd9ZCzDi4y9fuj
=hm//
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 10-02-2010, 03:30 PM
Peter Volkov
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

В Птн, 01/10/2010 в 20:02 +0200, Diego Elio Pettenò пишет:
> 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, I guess that you were "told that..." is due to the way you've
tried to reach developer's community. Actually I failed to find any
mails on '.la files removal' subject in gentoo-dev-announce or
gentoo-dev mailing lists. Now I assume that by efforts you mean blog
posts and bug reports. Both of this medias are targeted on small
subgroup of Gentoo developers: blogs contain only personal opinion and
no Gentoo developer supposed to read blogs (btw, I'm not reading all
blog entries); bug reports are really better but again only small
fraction of developers is informed (only 10 bugs is currently opened).
Yea, there were some discussions on -dev mailing list: first discussion
I found was "Removing .la files..." where we discussed _problems_ such
removal may cause with no clear resolution. After that 'la file'
substring matches thread about libpng (again problems) and some even
shorter threads. So every developer knew that we should remove .la files
but also we knew that inconsistent removal (like currently happened
again) causes problems for users and nobody ever announced any
distro-wide guidelines. It is obvious that to avoid useless rebuild we
should have been started from most popular leaf packages like
gnome/xfce/X11 and only then move on dependent libraries but nobody
told: please, start now from here and here. Currently it'll be great if
you could point on relevant information so we could continue to
remove .la files without mess (e.g. altering stable packages). But looks
like before such plan could be announced we really need to discuss how
we handle stable packages (heh, again). So I'll end with bottom line:
please, post really important distribution wide things to appropriate
media (gentoo-dev-announce mailing list)!

--
Peter.
 
Old 10-02-2010, 03:51 PM
Luca Barbato
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

On 10/01/2010 09:12 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:

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?


During the past discussions you were somehow overly conservative, taking
issue of corner cases and overall on the aggressive stance.


I know that you had a rough week but others do as well, Diego among them.

lu

--

Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
 
Old 10-02-2010, 04:26 PM
Nirbheek Chauhan
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 10/01/2010 09:12 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>>>
>>> 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?
>
> During the past discussions you were somehow overly conservative, taking
> issue of corner cases and overall on the aggressive stance.
>

My opinions haven't changed one bit in the past week. I don't see how
not breaking the stable tree can be called being "overly
conservative".



--
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
 
Old 10-02-2010, 05:43 PM
Zac Medico
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

On 10/02/2010 05:21 AM, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Птн, 01/10/2010 в 12:38 -0700, Zac Medico пишет:
>> Maybe advise them to use post_pkg_preinst instead of post_src_install,
>> so it works even for binary packages.
>
> Is it possible for portage-2.1.8.x to depend on lafilefixer and add run
> lafilefixer (if installed) from base profile bashrc?

The profile bashrc may not be a very good place for this since it's
executed by all versions of portage, and thus would be redundant for
>=portage-2.1.9.

We can do a portage-2.1.8.4 version bump with support for running
lafilefixer, but this is a questionable move given that this version
bump will be eligible for stabilization at about the same time as
portage-2.1.9.13.
--
Thanks,
Zac
 
Old 10-02-2010, 07:31 PM
Peter Volkov
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

В Сбт, 02/10/2010 в 10:43 -0700, Zac Medico пишет:
> On 10/02/2010 05:21 AM, Peter Volkov wrote:
> > Is it possible for portage-2.1.8.x to depend on lafilefixer and add run
> > lafilefixer (if installed) from base profile bashrc?

> We can do a portage-2.1.8.4 version bump with support for running
> lafilefixer, but this is a questionable move given that this version
> bump will be eligible for stabilization at about the same time as
> portage-2.1.9.13.

This looks like the good case for fast stabilization so I'd better went
this way. Any objections?

--
Peter.
 
Old 10-03-2010, 02:11 PM
Luca Barbato
 
Default .la files removal news item (GLEP 42)

On 10/02/2010 06:26 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:

My opinions haven't changed one bit in the past week. I don't see how
not breaking the stable tree can be called being "overly
conservative".


you have a quite broad definition of "breaking".

- clean slate emerge works before and after.
- adding a suggestion to use either the .la fixer scripts or
revdep-rebuild should be enough to have the system in a working state.
- the rough solution of removing all the .la files in the system works
for most use cases (that's my local solution)


So it isn't an earth shattering change like a nonfunctional libc in the
stable tree or a broken version of coreutils, please keep a bit of
perspective.


lu

--

Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:06 PM.

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