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 03-06-2012, 09:42 PM
Jeroen Roovers
 
Default Ruby keywording

On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:17:34 +0100
Thomas Kahle <tomka@gentoo.org> wrote:

> There are tons of circular deps with USE="test" [...]

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=398853


jer
 
Old 03-07-2012, 06:00 AM
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
 
Default Ruby keywording

On 3/6/12 11:17 PM, Thomas Kahle wrote:
> the x86 team has many ruby keywording bugs in the queue and it is
> hard to keep up because testing them can be a pain. There are tons
> of circular deps with USE="test" or USE="doc", there are the
> different ruby interpreters.

Yeah. Maintainers, if you get delays on arch-related bugs it's often
because of pain like this.

> Also the inter-bug dependencies are often not resolved correctly,
> that is the to be keyworded package depends on non-keyworded stuff
> not listed in the bug.

And this is even worse. Please check things with repoman before filing
bugs. You can even write automated scripts at least for the "check
whether we got all deps right" part.

> All of these packages are already keyworded ~amd64. Ruby is an
> interpreted language, I don't see any point in having every arch team
> do the testing for every small package. Could the ruby team add ~x86
> themselves after testing on ~amd64, or are there compelling reasons
> to not do this?

It's trivial to set up x86 chroot on amd64 box, so I can't imagine
what's preventing people from creating such chroot, doing the testing
and keywording themselves.
 
Old 03-07-2012, 11:25 AM
Alexis Ballier
 
Default Ruby keywording

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:00:16 +0100
""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Also the inter-bug dependencies are often not resolved correctly,
> > that is the to be keyworded package depends on non-keyworded stuff
> > not listed in the bug.
>
> And this is even worse. Please check things with repoman before filing
> bugs. You can even write automated scripts at least for the "check
> whether we got all deps right" part.

As a maintainer I can tell you that when you drop keywords on B because
it needs non keyworded A, then drop keywords on C because it needs
latest B then drop keywords on D because it needs latest C, you have
completely forgotten that some arches need A, which ones, etc. There are
scripts for this, and I hope arch teams that like to have a list use
them.

As occasionally doing fbsd keywording, I almost never read nor use a
list that is provided since the above scenario often occurs (or at
least used to). Instead of this, I do a depth-first keywording of
packages repoman tells are missing. The deepest package is in the
latest tab of my terminal emulator I'll run repoman anyway,
and this approach allows a double checking. Also, since this means I'll
start committing from the leaves of the depgraph, this ensures no
package has broken deps between commits (with the exception of circular
deps of course).

A.
 
Old 03-07-2012, 01:54 PM
Thomas Kahle
 
Default Ruby keywording

On 09:25 Wed 07 Mar 2012, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:00:16 +0100
> ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > Also the inter-bug dependencies are often not resolved correctly,
> > > that is the to be keyworded package depends on non-keyworded stuff
> > > not listed in the bug.
> >
> > And this is even worse. Please check things with repoman before filing
> > bugs. You can even write automated scripts at least for the "check
> > whether we got all deps right" part.
>
> As a maintainer I can tell you that when you drop keywords on B because
> it needs non keyworded A, then drop keywords on C because it needs
> latest B then drop keywords on D because it needs latest C, you have
> completely forgotten that some arches need A, which ones, etc. There are
> scripts for this, and I hope arch teams that like to have a list use
> them.

What scripts are out there? I just do iterated repoman calls without
much automation (pretty much as described below). Got anything better?
-> please post it!

Cheers,
Thomas

> As occasionally doing fbsd keywording, I almost never read nor use a
> list that is provided since the above scenario often occurs (or at
> least used to). Instead of this, I do a depth-first keywording of
> packages repoman tells are missing. The deepest package is in the
> latest tab of my terminal emulator I'll run repoman anyway,
> and this approach allows a double checking. Also, since this means I'll
> start committing from the leaves of the depgraph, this ensures no
> package has broken deps between commits (with the exception of circular
> deps of course).
>
> A.
>

--
Thomas Kahle
http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/
 
Old 03-07-2012, 03:09 PM
Alexis Ballier
 
Default Ruby keywording

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 15:54:49 +0100
Thomas Kahle <tomka@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 09:25 Wed 07 Mar 2012, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:00:16 +0100
> > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > Also the inter-bug dependencies are often not resolved
> > > > correctly, that is the to be keyworded package depends on
> > > > non-keyworded stuff not listed in the bug.
> > >
> > > And this is even worse. Please check things with repoman before
> > > filing bugs. You can even write automated scripts at least for
> > > the "check whether we got all deps right" part.
> >
> > As a maintainer I can tell you that when you drop keywords on B
> > because it needs non keyworded A, then drop keywords on C because
> > it needs latest B then drop keywords on D because it needs latest
> > C, you have completely forgotten that some arches need A, which
> > ones, etc. There are scripts for this, and I hope arch teams that
> > like to have a list use them.
>
> What scripts are out there? I just do iterated repoman calls without
> much automation (pretty much as described below). Got anything
> better? -> please post it!
>

gnome team posts nice lists afaik:
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/gnome.git;a=blob;f=scripts/gen_archlist.py
 
Old 03-07-2012, 05:52 PM
Hans de Graaff
 
Default Ruby keywording

On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 23:17 +0100, Thomas Kahle wrote:

> Ruby is an interpreted language, I don't see any
> point in having every arch team do the testing for every small package.
> Could the ruby team add ~x86 themselves after testing on ~amd64, or are
> there compelling reasons to not do this?

This discussion has come up in the past, not just for Ruby. The
consensus seems to be that it's better to keep handling everything by
the arch teams, since there may be other issues besides compilation that
may cause differences on arches. I know of several arch-specific bugs in
interpreted Ruby code myself.

It's also a matter of where to stop. Each new keyword added in the end
is an additional maintenenance burden for that arch. I don't want to
make that decision since I won't be doing the work.

Hans
 
Old 03-07-2012, 05:56 PM
Hans de Graaff
 
Default Ruby keywording

On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 08:00 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:

> It's trivial to set up x86 chroot on amd64 box, so I can't imagine
> what's preventing people from creating such chroot, doing the testing
> and keywording themselves.

In my personal case what is preventing me is sheer and utter
disinterest. For me x86 and, say, sh, are similar arches. I'm happy to
support both via keywording and stabilization bugs, but I'd rather spent
what little time I have these days on actual ruby stuff.

Kind regards,

Hans
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:52 PM.

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