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 02-10-2011, 05:02 PM
"Andreas K. Huettel"
 
Default Lastrite: app-pda/libopensync and reverse dependencies

> Sorry but it really matters very little whether maintainer acks at all,
> *if the package fails to build*.
>
> We're not talking about a single problem with a single package.

Yes, you are completely right regarding the ebuilds.
I do not dispute at all that masking them is a correct way of action.

However we are talking about interaction of human beings here.

What I was trying to say: _If_ you have coordinated this with the maintainer, it should be worth the effort to add two words to the email just to mention this. It would even strengthen your argumentative position!

In general, we have had the discussion a few times here already whether briefness/conciseness or politeness/additional information is more important. I agree that this may be a cultural thing. But then, normally the consensus is to rather err on the side of caution...

Cheers, Andreas

--
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer - kde, sci, arm, tex
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/
 
Old 02-10-2011, 05:44 PM
Krzysztof Pawlik
 
Default Lastrite: app-pda/libopensync and reverse dependencies

On 02/10/11 19:02, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> Sorry but it really matters very little whether maintainer acks at all, *if
>> the package fails to build*.

I don't agree with that - QA doesn't give anyone a silver bullet for killing
whatever you want (or whatever you think should die). Maintainer must be
*always* notified/pinged/mailed/im'ed/phoned/poked when his package is going to
be masked & removed, if he's responsive then getting his ACK on the matter
shouldn't be a problem, if not... at least you've tried.

>> We're not talking about a single problem with a single package.
>
> Yes, you are completely right regarding the ebuilds. I do not dispute at all
> that masking them is a correct way of action.
>
> However we are talking about interaction of human beings here.
>
> What I was trying to say: _If_ you have coordinated this with the maintainer,
> it should be worth the effort to add two words to the email just to mention
> this. It would even strengthen your argumentative position!
>
> In general, we have had the discussion a few times here already whether
> briefness/conciseness or politeness/additional information is more important.
> I agree that this may be a cultural thing. But then, normally the consensus
> is to rather err on the side of caution...

It's usually better to be overly verbose in such cases, so yes: if maintainer
said it's ok then please mention that in mask message - it's just few keystrokes
more.

--
Krzysztof Pawlik <nelchael at gentoo.org> key id: 0xF6A80E46
desktop-misc, java, vim, kernel, python, apache...
 
Old 02-10-2011, 06:36 PM
Diego Elio Pettenò
 
Default Lastrite: app-pda/libopensync and reverse dependencies

Il giorno gio, 10/02/2011 alle 19.44 +0100, Krzysztof Pawlik ha scritto:
>
> I don't agree with that - QA doesn't give anyone a silver bullet for
> killing
> whatever you want (or whatever you think should die). Maintainer must
> be
> *always* notified/pinged/mailed/im'ed/phoned/poked when his package is
> going to
> be masked & removed, if he's responsive then getting his ACK on the
> matter
> shouldn't be a problem, if not... at least you've tried.

Please make up your mind on what you don't agree with.

We don't need the ACK but we don't go around masking packages just
because we feel like it. What gets the "Masked for removal by QA"
treatment doesn't need an ACK because it's always stuff that was left
untouched for months if not years.

To rephrase it so that you can get it:

WE DON'T GO AROUND REMOVING ACTIVELY MAINTAINED PACKAGES.

But when the package is unmaintained for months, we don't _need_ the
ACK, nor we'd have to say "we're given the go by the maintainer" or
"maintainer timeout". We simply don't do that if there *is* an active,
interested maintainer.

If you're the active maintainer, you can complain if we didn't poke you,
but you have actually been poked and either not replied or acked it, you
really don't have to read it on the mask reason, unless you suffer from
amnesia. And if you're *not* the active maintainer, why would you care?

Remember that for *all* QA masking, the rule is simple: if you care
about the package you bring it up to standard (cleanup ebuild, fix open
bugs, make sure it doesn't bundle libraries, respects flags, and so on)
and unmask it (the new versions obviously). Otherwise, it'll go away,
full stop.

No, we're not going to stop if "somebody is looking at it": looking at
it doesn't mean that it will ever work, and don't give me the usual
"warn us before" story, 'cause we use 60 days for most un-responsive
packages, and 30 days only when the packages are just so broken up
there's no chance of them working. And even though I don't like it,
there is *nothing* stopping anybody from fixing the packages and
unmasking them on the 29th or 59th day. Warning enough?

--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
 
Old 02-10-2011, 07:01 PM
Krzysztof Pawlik
 
Default Lastrite: app-pda/libopensync and reverse dependencies

On 02/10/11 20:36, Diego Elio Petten wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 10/02/2011 alle 19.44 +0100, Krzysztof Pawlik ha scritto:
>>
>> I don't agree with that - QA doesn't give anyone a silver bullet for
>> killing
>> whatever you want (or whatever you think should die). Maintainer must
>> be
>> *always* notified/pinged/mailed/im'ed/phoned/poked when his package is
>> going to
>> be masked & removed, if he's responsive then getting his ACK on the
>> matter
>> shouldn't be a problem, if not... at least you've tried.
>
> Please make up your mind on what you don't agree with.

You've just removed the relevant quote, so let me add it again:

Diego: Sorry but it really matters very little whether maintainer acks at all,
*if the package fails to build*.
Andreas: <nothing for this line>
Me: I don't agree with that ... [cut]

Is that clear enough?

> We don't need the ACK but we don't go around masking packages just
> because we feel like it. What gets the "Masked for removal by QA"
> treatment doesn't need an ACK because it's always stuff that was left
> untouched for months if not years.
>
> To rephrase it so that you can get it:
>
> WE DON'T GO AROUND REMOVING ACTIVELY MAINTAINED PACKAGES.

(your caps lock is on, please turn it off, thank you)

> But when the package is unmaintained for months, we don't _need_ the
> ACK, nor we'd have to say "we're given the go by the maintainer" or
> "maintainer timeout". We simply don't do that if there *is* an active,
> interested maintainer.
[cut]

I don't exactly see how what you've written is of any relevance to the main
point of this - the original issue was *extremely* simple: whenever maintainer's
(active, inactive, last maintainer, whatever) ACK should be mentioned in the
message that ends up in p.mask -- according to me and Andreas: yes. Look at it
as a kind of 'Signed-Off'.

--
Krzysztof Pawlik <nelchael at gentoo.org> key id: 0xF6A80E46
desktop-misc, java, vim, kernel, python, apache...
 
Old 02-10-2011, 07:08 PM
Ryan Hill
 
Default Lastrite: app-pda/libopensync and reverse dependencies

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:23:08 +0200
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:

> # Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> (10 Feb 2011)
> # Unmaintained and completely broken wrt bugs
> # 185475, 211262, 247268, 276220, 287751, 293501, 298109,
> # 301729, 308801, 311763, 311765, 328691, 340605, 348483,
> # 352506, 237366, 250054
> # Removal in 30 days
> app-pda/barry
> app-pda/libopensync
> app-pda/libopensync-plugin-evolution2
> app-pda/libopensync-plugin-file
> app-pda/libopensync-plugin-gnokii
> app-pda/libopensync-plugin-google-calendar
> app-pda/libopensync-plugin-gpe
> app-pda/libopensync-plugin-irmc
> app-pda/libopensync-plugin-palm
> app-pda/libopensync-plugin-python
> app-pda/libopensync-plugin-sunbird
> app-pda/libopensync-plugin-syncml
> app-pda/libopensync-plugin-vformat
> app-pda/msynctool
> app-pda/multisync-gui
> app-pda/osynctool

I've been working with barry and it works perfectly fine without libopensync
(guess what the opensync USE flag does). So don't touch it.

Hey, here's an idea. Before you go making big masks like this for packages
several people depend on, maybe try looking for a maintainer. I would have
looked at this long ago if someone had simply said "Hey, opensync needs some
lovin". At least half of the listed bugs are either five-minute fixes or not
grounds for removal (seriously, there's three duplicates, a svn ebuild, and
maintainer-wanted bug).


--
fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense
toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime
@ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
 
Old 02-10-2011, 07:09 PM
Samuli Suominen
 
Default Lastrite: app-pda/libopensync and reverse dependencies

On 02/10/2011 10:01 PM, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
> I don't exactly see how what you've written is of any relevance to the main
> point of this - the original issue was *extremely* simple: whenever maintainer's
> (active, inactive, last maintainer, whatever) ACK should be mentioned in the
> message that ends up in p.mask -- according to me and Andreas: yes. Look at it
> as a kind of 'Signed-Off'.

it's already ack'd by 185475, 211262, 247268, 276220, 287751, 293501,
298109, 301729, 308801, 311763, 311765, 328691, 340605, 348483, 352506,
237366, and 250054. no futher justification is required.
 
Old 02-10-2011, 07:27 PM
Krzysztof Pawlik
 
Default Lastrite: app-pda/libopensync and reverse dependencies

On 02/10/11 21:09, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 02/10/2011 10:01 PM, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote:
>> I don't exactly see how what you've written is of any relevance to the main
>> point of this - the original issue was *extremely* simple: whenever maintainer's
>> (active, inactive, last maintainer, whatever) ACK should be mentioned in the
>> message that ends up in p.mask -- according to me and Andreas: yes. Look at it
>> as a kind of 'Signed-Off'.
>
> it's already ack'd by 185475, 211262, 247268, 276220, 287751, 293501,
> 298109, 301729, 308801, 311763, 311765, 328691, 340605, 348483, 352506,
> 237366, and 250054. no futher justification is required.

No. *None* of those bugs even *mentions* QA, the only thing I see is that peper@
really wants to be spanked (possibly with a sledgehammer or something else of
appropriate size and mass). If Piotr doesn't want to maintain those packages he
should send out an e-mail that there are a few packages up for grabs, not sit on
those bugs for >12 months. If we can't get new maintainer (or proxy-maintainer)
then you're free to kill them.

Anyway: looks like Ryan wants to take a look at those packages.

--
Krzysztof Pawlik <nelchael at gentoo.org> key id: 0xF6A80E46
desktop-misc, java, vim, kernel, python, apache...
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:50 PM.

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