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 10-29-2010, 08:12 AM
Peter Volkov
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild

В Птн, 29/10/2010 в 06:03 +0000, Jeroen Roovers (jer) пишет:
> jer 10/10/29 06:03:08
>
> Modified: ChangeLog
> Added: tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild
> Log:
> Beta version bump, fixes buffer overflow (bug #336605).

Please, hard mask beta versions. To fix this bug it's not hard to
backport patch (patch referenced in bug) and this will give us good
version to stabilize. Really don't abuse beta versions.

--
Peter.
 
Old 10-29-2010, 03:51 PM
Diego Elio Pettenò
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild

Il giorno ven, 29/10/2010 alle 12.12 +0400, Peter Volkov ha scritto:
>
> Please, hard mask beta versions. To fix this bug it's not hard to
> backport patch (patch referenced in bug) and this will give us good
> version to stabilize. Really don't abuse beta versions.
>
It vastly depends how "beta" the beta version is, so it's up to the
maintainer deciding that. Sometimes .0 versions are just as bugged as
_beta for others.

--
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 10-29-2010, 04:09 PM
Jeroen Roovers
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:12:38 +0400
Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:

> В Птн, 29/10/2010 в 06:03 +0000, Jeroen Roovers (jer) пишет:
> > jer 10/10/29 06:03:08
> >
> > Modified: ChangeLog
> > Added: tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild
> > Log:
> > Beta version bump, fixes buffer overflow (bug #336605).
>
> Please, hard mask beta versions. To fix this bug it's not hard to
> backport patch (patch referenced in bug) and this will give us good
> version to stabilize. Really don't abuse beta versions.

I see you've done that already.


jer
 
Old 10-29-2010, 05:29 PM
Michał Górny
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:12:38 +0400
Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Please, hard mask beta versions.

I personally don't see a reason why he needed to do that.
If a particular package was a popular one and/or the beta version
changed a lot which might imply a lot of users getting trouble due to
it, then I would agree.

Please notice that 'beta' is not the same for each upstream. There are
indeed packages which are in 'beta' state for the time being -- would
you like all of them to be hard masked? Or maybe you're fine with them
because they don't put 'beta' in their PV?

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
 
Old 10-30-2010, 12:17 AM
William Hubbs
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 07:29:07PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:12:38 +0400
> Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > Please, hard mask beta versions.
>
> I personally don't see a reason why he needed to do that.
> If a particular package was a popular one and/or the beta version
> changed a lot which might imply a lot of users getting trouble due to
> it, then I would agree.

I don't know or use this package, but I agree. Just because something
is beta doesn't mean it should be automatically hard masked. That
decision should be left to the maintainer.

William
 
Old 10-30-2010, 05:40 AM
Peter Volkov
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild

В Птн, 29/10/2010 в 19:29 +0200, Michał Górny пишет:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:12:38 +0400
> Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > Please, hard mask beta versions.
>
> I personally don't see a reason why he needed to do that.
> If a particular package was a popular one and/or the beta version
> changed a lot which might imply a lot of users getting trouble due to
> it, then I would agree.

If the package is not popular there is even more reasons to rely on the
upstream's judgment and hard mask betas.

> Please notice that 'beta' is not the same for each upstream. There are
> indeed packages which are in 'beta' state for the time being -- would
> you like all of them to be hard masked?

Until you have explicit "go for it" from upstream or there is no real
pressure to use betas, please, hard mask them.

> Or maybe you're fine with them because they don't put 'beta' in their PV?

I'm fine in case upstream released package for general usage and we use
them. I'm not fine in case package name suggests that package is for
testing but we push it on users. Beta is beta.

And for the sake of discussion I already had not so nice talks with
upstream about Gentoo and beta versions we push on users... So this
request is not out of the air.

--
Peter.
 
Old 10-30-2010, 05:44 AM
Peter Volkov
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild

В Птн, 29/10/2010 в 17:51 +0200, Diego Elio Pettenò пишет:
> Il giorno ven, 29/10/2010 alle 12.12 +0400, Peter Volkov ha scritto:
> >
> > Please, hard mask beta versions. To fix this bug it's not hard to
> > backport patch (patch referenced in bug) and this will give us good
> > version to stabilize. Really don't abuse beta versions.
> >
> It vastly depends how "beta" the beta version is, so it's up to the
> maintainer deciding that.

Yup. But then, please, tell what were the reasons for this decision (in
ChangeLog or inside ebuild). If there are no reasons - hard mask it.

Also speaking about this specific package: I've maintained this package
quite long time and I'm following upstream mailing list and I've never
heard from upstream it's safe to push betas on all users.

--
Peter.
 
Old 10-30-2010, 05:40 PM
Jeroen Roovers
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 09:44:42 +0400
Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Also speaking about this specific package: I've maintained this
> package quite long time and I'm following upstream mailing list and
> I've never heard from upstream it's safe to push betas on all users.

I didn't push it on all users. Maybe ~arch users, but they get to keep
the pieces when they break their systems, if I recall correctly.


jer
 
Old 10-30-2010, 06:11 PM
Duncan
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild

Jeroen Roovers posted on Sat, 30 Oct 2010 19:40:45 +0200 as excerpted:

> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 09:44:42 +0400
> Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Also speaking about this specific package: I've maintained this package
>> quite long time and I'm following upstream mailing list and I've never
>> heard from upstream it's safe to push betas on all users.
>
> I didn't push it on all users. Maybe ~arch users, but they get to keep
> the pieces when they break their systems, if I recall correctly.

To some extent, yes.

However, Gentoo policy has always been that even ~arch is only upstream-
stable packages, the ~arch keyword denoting Gentoo package testing
(basically, the ebuild script and dependencies), /not/ upstream testing.
In with certain exceptions, in particular for packages where Gentoo itself
is upstream, if it's not a package that could at least in theory be Gentoo-
stable if no bugs appear during the 30-day standard stabilizing period,
it's not supposed to be ~arch keyworded either.

That's an important distinction to make.

--
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 10-31-2010, 04:36 PM
Jeroen Roovers
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 18:11:32 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:

> Jeroen Roovers posted on Sat, 30 Oct 2010 19:40:45 +0200 as excerpted:
>
> > On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 09:44:42 +0400
> > Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Also speaking about this specific package: I've maintained this
> >> package quite long time and I'm following upstream mailing list
> >> and I've never heard from upstream it's safe to push betas on all
> >> users.
> >
> > I didn't push it on all users. Maybe ~arch users, but they get to
> > keep the pieces when they break their systems, if I recall
> > correctly.
>
> To some extent, yes.

No, to the full extent. I didn't push it on all users. Read that bit
again and don't try to hijack the thread for another one of your
explanatory fits. Thank you.

pva has a point in that I could have package.masked it. Maybe I should
have. I felt I didn't need to, and some others responded. pva and I are
both in netmon so we can heartily disagree as long as we ultimately get
along and get the job done.

> However, Gentoo policy has always been that even ~arch is only
> upstream- stable packages, the ~arch keyword denoting Gentoo package
> testing (basically, the ebuild script and dependencies), /not/
> upstream testing. In with certain exceptions, in particular for
> packages where Gentoo itself is upstream, if it's not a package that
> could at least in theory be Gentoo- stable if no bugs appear during
> the 30-day standard stabilizing period, it's not supposed to be ~arch
> keyworded either.

This doesn't even make sense.

> That's an important distinction to make.

What is? No, don't answer that one.


jer
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:50 AM.

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