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 08-18-2012, 03:31 AM
Mike Frysinger
 
Default glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

with glibc-2.15 gone stable, it's time to get 2.16 in the pipe. the big
issues have been sorted out already. there's a few packages still known to
build fail, but they've had quite some time to sort their stuff out, so i don't
see delaying further making a difference there. if anything, they'll be more
inclined to get their stuff fixed .

i'll probably land it later this weekend/monday.
-mike
 
Old 08-18-2012, 05:16 AM
Diego Elio Pettenò
 
Default glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> there's a few packages still known to
> build fail, but they've had quite some time to sort their stuff out, so i don't
> see delaying further making a difference there.

So you're saying you're fine to break:

- everything depending on boost (current 1.49 won't work, you need
1.50, and quite a few things break with 1.50);
- everything depending on gnutls (current 2.x version does not build
with glibc 2.16, and quite a few things don't build with gnutls 3);

Congrats, this is just the kind of behaviour that makes Gentoo look
professional... no wait I meant the other way around I guess. Because
the automake 1.12 breakage is not enough to have in tree, hm?

--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flameeyes@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
 
Old 08-18-2012, 05:44 AM
Mike Frysinger
 
Default glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

On Saturday 18 August 2012 01:16:29 Diego Elio Petten wrote:
> - everything depending on boost (current 1.49 won't work, you need
> 1.50, and quite a few things break with 1.50);

there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49 work. forcing people to use 1.50
is purely the boost's maintainers choice.

> - everything depending on gnutls (current 2.x version does not build
> with glibc 2.16, and quite a few things don't build with gnutls 3);

there's a trivial patch long been available that you've refused to merge. so
any errors here are of your choosing.

> Congrats, this is just the kind of behaviour that makes Gentoo look
> professional... no wait I meant the other way around I guess. Because
> the automake 1.12 breakage is not enough to have in tree, hm?

*yawn*. don't use unstable if you want stability.
-mike
 
Old 08-18-2012, 05:50 AM
Tiziano Mller
 
Default glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

Am Samstag, den 18.08.2012, 01:44 -0400 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> On Saturday 18 August 2012 01:16:29 Diego Elio Petten wrote:
> > - everything depending on boost (current 1.49 won't work, you need
> > 1.50, and quite a few things break with 1.50);
>
> there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49 work. forcing people to use 1.50
> is purely the boost's maintainers choice.

I'm already working on some of the boost-1.49/50 breakages and 1.51 is
already in the pipeline, so 1.50 has to leave p.mask in a month or so
anyway.

>
> > - everything depending on gnutls (current 2.x version does not build
> > with glibc 2.16, and quite a few things don't build with gnutls 3);
>
> there's a trivial patch long been available that you've refused to merge. so
> any errors here are of your choosing.
>
> > Congrats, this is just the kind of behaviour that makes Gentoo look
> > professional... no wait I meant the other way around I guess. Because
> > the automake 1.12 breakage is not enough to have in tree, hm?
>
> *yawn*. don't use unstable if you want stability.
> -mike
 
Old 08-18-2012, 06:01 AM
Diego Elio Petten
 
Default glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49 work. forcing people to use 1.50
> is purely the boost's maintainers choice.

[...]

> there's a trivial patch long been available that you've refused to merge. so
> any errors here are of your choosing.

So you pretend that people apply "trivial patches" because you're in a
hurry to unmask something, but when it's time to actually do some
fixing yourself you procrastinate because you don't like the way the
bug is open?

What a team player uh?

Just for the sake of argument, why don't you instead look at
https://bugs.gentoo.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=421391&hide_resolved=1
and see that two bugs blocking the tracker are actually from herds
you're part of?

And on https://bugs.gentoo.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=boost-1.50&hide_resolved=1
I count four just for games.
 
Old 08-18-2012, 06:08 AM
Diego Elio Petten
 
Default glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Tiziano Mller <dev-zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I'm already working on some of the boost-1.49/50 breakages and 1.51 is
> already in the pipeline, so 1.50 has to leave p.mask in a month or so
> anyway.

Thanks, at least somebody's doing something to help.

By the way I forgot to say in my previous mail that the famous
"trivial patch" for boost causes at least some of the same failures
that 1.50 would cause.

Why? Because the problem is an _API collision_ which requires _an API change_.

So, thanks Tiziano for doing the right thing.
 
Old 08-18-2012, 03:42 PM
Mike Frysinger
 
Default glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

On Saturday 18 August 2012 02:01:12 Diego Elio Petten wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49 work. forcing people to use
> > 1.50 is purely the boost's maintainers choice.
>
> [...]
>
> > there's a trivial patch long been available that you've refused to merge.
> > so any errors here are of your choosing.
>
> So you pretend that people apply "trivial patches" because you're in a
> hurry to unmask something

yes, the patch here is trivial. it removes 1 line of unused code and has fixed
a lot of other packages. deflecting the argument to a flawed system of your own
creation doesn't change it. if you're worried about gnutls breakage, you've
only yourself to blame.
-mike
 
Old 08-18-2012, 03:49 PM
Diego Elio Petten
 
Default glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> yes, the patch here is trivial. it removes 1 line of unused code and has fixed
> a lot of other packages. deflecting the argument to a flawed system of your own
> creation doesn't change it. if you're worried about gnutls breakage, you've
> only yourself to blame.

I'm worried that one developer thinks that he can make a change to
_the_ base library for the tree over a weekend, without informing
anybody else of his plan if not one day before.

I'm worried that Gentoo's health depends on the whim of a person who
can't see the needs of others and only care about his own.

So unless you're so full of yourself that you still think it's okay
for you to do this by announcing it the day before, start actually
working _with_ others instead than _against_ other: fix your crap that
is blocking glibc 2.16, and see how soon the others can fix theirs.

If you can't do that, then I'd suggest you step down and take a
vacation, because you're totally out of your mind.
 
Old 08-18-2012, 03:50 PM
Nikos Chantziaras
 
Default glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

On 18/08/12 18:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:

On Saturday 18 August 2012 02:01:12 Diego Elio Petten wrote:

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49 work. forcing people to use
1.50 is purely the boost's maintainers choice.


[...]


there's a trivial patch long been available that you've refused to merge.
so any errors here are of your choosing.


So you pretend that people apply "trivial patches" because you're in a
hurry to unmask something


yes, the patch here is trivial. it removes 1 line of unused code and has fixed
a lot of other packages. deflecting the argument to a flawed system of your own
creation doesn't change it. if you're worried about gnutls breakage, you've
only yourself to blame.
-mike


Maybe Diego loaded the gun, but you're the one pulling the trigger.

In any event, the user is the one getting shot, not you nor Diego.
 
Old 08-18-2012, 04:00 PM
Mike Frysinger
 
Default glibc-2.16 moving to ~arch

*yawn* such a drama queen.

i never said "i am going to do this everyone else be damned". i did say "i
will probably do this soon". but that is why i posted to gentoo-dev in the
first place -- to get feedback from others.

gnutls breakage: not relevant. you're causing that breakage by not adding a
simple patch that most every other package has merged. conflating the issue to
a major ABI bump is also irrelevant.

boost breakage: if 1.50 is going to be unmasked soon, i can wait for that.

general breakage: we can't sit around waiting for all packages to get fixed.
if people aren't going to fix packages after being given notice, then they get
tree cleaned. not a big deal.
-mike
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:34 AM.

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