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 12-01-2010, 12:46 AM
Matt Turner
 
Default Maintainer notes in metadata.xml?

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Diego Elio Petten <flameeyes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I was wondering if we have space already, or if others would feel
>> strongly about making space for, maintainer notes in packages'
>> metadata.xml.
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> What I'm thinking of is having some sort of <maintainernotes> element,
>> but not a passive one that has to be tested for, rather something that
>> repoman would spit out on the terminal when doing a scan/full.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> Why don't we just encourage maintainers to add <!-- --> comments to
> metadata.xml? I'd love to have a new element if the data to be stored
> in that element would need to be parsed/categorized by external
> programs, but otherwise xml comments would work just fine.

And have repoman scan/full print out all <!-- --> comments? I think
that's why Diego is suggesting a new XML tag.

Matt
 
Old 12-01-2010, 12:55 AM
Nirbheek Chauhan
 
Default Maintainer notes in metadata.xml?

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Diego Elio Petten <flameeyes@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I was wondering if we have space already, or if others would feel
>>> strongly about making space for, maintainer notes in packages'
>>> metadata.xml.
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> What I'm thinking of is having some sort of <maintainernotes> element,
>>> but not a passive one that has to be tested for, rather something that
>>> repoman would spit out on the terminal when doing a scan/full.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>
>> Why don't we just encourage maintainers to add <!-- --> comments to
>> metadata.xml? I'd love to have a new element if the data to be stored
>> in that element would need to be parsed/categorized by external
>> programs, but otherwise xml comments would work just fine.
>
> And have repoman scan/full print out all <!-- --> comments? I think
> that's why Diego is suggesting a new XML tag.
>

That's just the DTD not getting validated. We can just change the DTD
and repoman won't complain about the XML being invalid.


--
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
 
Old 12-01-2010, 01:02 PM
Peter Volkov
 
Default Maintainer notes in metadata.xml?

В Срд, 01/12/2010 в 02:00 +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò пишет:
> I was wondering if we have space already, or if others would feel
> strongly about making space for, maintainer notes in packages'
> metadata.xml.

Comments inside are better suited for this task - you see/update notes
as you edit ebuild.

--
Peter.
 
Old 12-01-2010, 01:13 PM
Thilo Bangert
 
Default Maintainer notes in metadata.xml?

Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> said:
> В Срд, 01/12/2010 в 02:00 +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò пишет:
> > I was wondering if we have space already, or if others would feel
> > strongly about making space for, maintainer notes in packages'
> > metadata.xml.
>
> Comments inside are better suited for this task - you see/update notes
> as you edit ebuild.

inside ebuilds you mean? for ebuild specific information, i'd agree.
package specific information should not be duplicated like that -
providing a mechanism in metadata.xml seems like a more appropriate
solution.
 
Old 12-01-2010, 03:34 PM
Diego Elio Pettenò
 
Default Maintainer notes in metadata.xml?

Il giorno mer, 01/12/2010 alle 07.25 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan ha scritto:
>
>
> That's just the DTD not getting validated. We can just change the DTD
> and repoman won't complain about the XML being invalid.
>
What Matt was saying is that I actually asked for something that was
explicitly printed by repoman scan, so that arch maintainers will know
if they have to take particular care about the package.

--
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 12-01-2010, 03:35 PM
Diego Elio Pettenò
 
Default Maintainer notes in metadata.xml?

Il giorno mer, 01/12/2010 alle 17.02 +0300, Peter Volkov ha scritto:
>
> Comments inside are better suited for this task - you see/update notes
> as you edit ebuild.
>
How many ATs/arch maintainers will look _within_ the ebuild when testing
an ebuild for stable?

--
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 12-01-2010, 05:05 PM
Thomas Kahle
 
Default Maintainer notes in metadata.xml?

On 17:35 Wed 01 Dec , Diego Elio Petten wrote:
> > Comments inside are better suited for this task - you see/update notes
> > as you edit ebuild.
> >
> How many ATs/arch maintainers will look _within_ the ebuild when testing
> an ebuild for stable?

I agree, comments within the ebuild are practically invisible to
archteams (at least to me for x86). But also running repoman is usually
the final step, right before committing. The place for comments that
need to be considered during archtesting would be right in the stable
request bug. This is where I usually start.

If I do normal build tests first and then find they have been in vain
when running repoman, then I wasted cycles for the build tests. I'm
unsure if this would apply to your original example, though.

Cheers,
Thomas




--
Thomas Kahle
http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/
 
Old 12-01-2010, 05:16 PM
Diego Elio Pettenò
 
Default Maintainer notes in metadata.xml?

Il giorno mer, 01/12/2010 alle 19.05 +0100, Thomas Kahle ha scritto:
>
>
> I agree, comments within the ebuild are practically invisible to
> archteams (at least to me for x86). But also running repoman is
> usually
> the final step, right before committing. The place for comments that
> need to be considered during archtesting would be right in the stable
> request bug. This is where I usually start.

This is where I usually try to provide them; it's a bit more complex
when users require the stable themselves, or when new developers are
replacing the old ones.

>
> If I do normal build tests first and then find they have been in vain
> when running repoman, then I wasted cycles for the build tests. I'm
> unsure if this would apply to your original example, though.
>
I sincerely expect(ed) a repoman scan of the ebuild to be done after
tweaking keywords to ensure all the deps are stable already, thus why I
asked it to be printed on scan.

--
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 12-01-2010, 07:32 PM
Richard Freeman
 
Default Maintainer notes in metadata.xml?

On 12/01/2010 01:16 PM, Diego Elio Petten wrote:
> Il giorno mer, 01/12/2010 alle 19.05 +0100, Thomas Kahle ha scritto:
>>
>>
>> I agree, comments within the ebuild are practically invisible to
>> archteams (at least to me for x86). But also running repoman is
>> usually
>> the final step, right before committing. The place for comments that
>> need to be considered during archtesting would be right in the stable
>> request bug. This is where I usually start.
>
> This is where I usually try to provide them; it's a bit more complex
> when users require the stable themselves, or when new developers are
> replacing the old ones.

Agreed on all points. Ideal behavior is to provide comments in the bug.
However, if that doesn't happen then this comment will give a warning
to the arch team before they inadvertently shoot themselves in the foot.

>
>>
>> If I do normal build tests first and then find they have been in vain
>> when running repoman, then I wasted cycles for the build tests. I'm
>> unsure if this would apply to your original example, though.
>>
> I sincerely expect(ed) a repoman scan of the ebuild to be done after
> tweaking keywords to ensure all the deps are stable already, thus why I
> asked it to be printed on scan.
>

So, my typical stable workflow is:

Install package, after overriding keywords/etc in /etc/portage.
Test package and satisfy myself that it is OK.
From CVS tree, cvs update, ekeyword, echangelog, repoman manifest,
repoman scan, repoman commit.

All the testing typically takes place well before I've touched an ebuild
or run repoman.

However, I don't see this as a big deal. Right now I shoot myself in
the foot and make a bunch of users upset if I don't know about something
when I stable a package. The enhancement causes me to potentially waste
some of my time, but less than if I have a big mess to clean up. The
ideal solution as all agree is to have the package maintainer point
things out in the STABLEREQ.

Rich
 
Old 12-03-2010, 10:50 AM
Peter Volkov
 
Default Maintainer notes in metadata.xml?

В Срд, 01/12/2010 в 17:35 +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò пишет:
> Il giorno mer, 01/12/2010 alle 17.02 +0300, Peter Volkov ha scritto:
> > Comments inside are better suited for this task - you see/update notes
> > as you edit ebuild.
> >
> How many ATs/arch maintainers will look _within_ the ebuild when testing
> an ebuild for stable?

Same logic applies for metadata.xml. Personally doing AT work I always
review ebuild. At the same time I never opened metadata.xml, so I don't
see your point.

--
Peter.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:20 PM.

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