[pacman-dev] Final steps before 3.2 release
I think this is the only outstanding blocker: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-July/012465.html Thanks again for the quick translation updates and the NEWS updates you guys contributed. I will send a few patches from my working branch here for review, but does anyone have objections to anything I've included on it? If not, this will all go to master with a 3.2.0 tag soon to follow. http://code.toofishes.net/gitweb.cgi?p=pacman.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/wo... -Dan
2008/7/25 Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
I think this is the only outstanding blocker: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-July/012465.html
Thanks again for the quick translation updates and the NEWS updates you guys contributed.
I will send a few patches from my working branch here for review, but does anyone have objections to anything I've included on it? If not, this will all go to master with a 3.2.0 tag soon to follow. http://code.toofishes.net/gitweb.cgi?p=pacman.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/wo...
Just a reminder: do not forget to remove unstable repo from pacman.conf SVN first. In addition, probably it would be nice to mention the last two patches in NEWS too. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
Just a reminder: do not forget to remove unstable repo from pacman.conf SVN first. In addition, probably it would be nice to mention the last two patches in NEWS too.
The unstable repo should probably be removed from abs.conf as well, even though it did not seem to hurt. (of course that concerns abs and not pacman, but it is still on topic here, as far as I know). Otherwise, which last two patches were you referring to? For example I don't know if you were looking at master branch, or toofishes' working one, etc.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
Otherwise, which last two patches were you referring to? For example I don't know if you were looking at master branch, or toofishes' working one, etc.
After re-reading this thread from the beginning, it seems more obvious that this refers to the last two pactest patches on toofishes' working branch. Would that do ? : - add the possibility to mark the pactests known to fail, which allows more informative results of make check
2008/7/27 Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com>:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
Just a reminder: do not forget to remove unstable repo from pacman.conf SVN first. In addition, probably it would be nice to mention the last two patches in NEWS too.
The unstable repo should probably be removed from abs.conf as well, even though it did not seem to hurt. (of course that concerns abs and not pacman, but it is still on topic here, as far as I know).
Otherwise, which last two patches were you referring to? For example I don't know if you were looking at master branch, or toofishes' working one, etc.
Good catch! I was referring to 2 pactest patches after the NEWS file patch in Dan's working tree. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
I think this is the only outstanding blocker: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-July/012465.html
Thanks again for the quick translation updates and the NEWS updates you guys contributed.
I will send a few patches from my working branch here for review, but does anyone have objections to anything I've included on it? If not, this will all go to master with a 3.2.0 tag soon to follow. http://code.toofishes.net/gitweb.cgi?p=pacman.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/wo...
I think we should make our _alpm_*_free public. Our GUIs should be able to free the allocated resources. Bye
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks again for the quick translation updates and the NEWS updates you guys contributed.
I had a quick look at all fixes / suggestions from the NEWS thread, compared to the current NEWS file. I found two things which were missed, I only want to know if it was intentional or not : 1) a comment from Nagy on --quiet option : http://archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-July/012578.html current : - allow -q/--quiet option with -o/--own option proposed : - allow -q/--quiet option with -o/--own and -g/--groups options 2) the whole API change section Nagy made : http://archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-July/012575.html
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks again for the quick translation updates and the NEWS updates you guys contributed.
I had a quick look at all fixes / suggestions from the NEWS thread, compared to the current NEWS file. I found two things which were missed, I only want to know if it was intentional or not : 1) a comment from Nagy on --quiet option : http://archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-July/012578.html current : - allow -q/--quiet option with -o/--own option proposed : - allow -q/--quiet option with -o/--own and -g/--groups options 2) the whole API change section Nagy made : http://archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-July/012575.html
I also have some _very minor_ suggestions to NEWS file: 1.) "- avoid adding duplicate target names" This sounds strange, maybe "-avoid adding duplicate targets" sounds better (in fact, different packages (from different repos) can have the same package names, so the original line is more precise, so I dunno) 2.) "- fix removing multiple items in dependency chain" I think this refers to 59295081982b33640f4e16589ef281872da540b5. In this case we can remove this, -Ru is a celebrated new feature of 3.2, so this problem existed in git only (after ~pkgname_pkg_cmp kill:-P). 3.) we may mention the new "pacman -S dep>=2.0" facility (this was introduced automagically) Bye
Nagy Gabor wrote:
2.) "- fix removing multiple items in dependency chain" I think this refers to 59295081982b33640f4e16589ef281872da540b5. In this case we can remove this, -Ru is a celebrated new feature of 3.2, so this problem existed in git only (after ~pkgname_pkg_cmp kill:-P).
That referred to your fix for remove052.py (ad54b286)
Nagy Gabor wrote:
2.) "- fix removing multiple items in dependency chain" I think this refers to 59295081982b33640f4e16589ef281872da540b5. In this case we can remove this, -Ru is a celebrated new feature of 3.2, so this problem existed in git only (after ~pkgname_pkg_cmp kill:-P).
That referred to your fix for remove052.py (ad54b286)
Hm. Thanks. I couldn't suggest a better NEWS entry for this. (I am thinking about it, because I didn't understand this.) This was an -Rs specific problem, maybe insert -Rs somewhere. Bye
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Nagy Gabor <ngaba@bibl.u-szeged.hu> wrote:
I also have some _very minor_ suggestions to NEWS file: 1.) "- avoid adding duplicate target names" This sounds strange, maybe "-avoid adding duplicate targets" sounds better (in fact, different packages (from different repos) can have the same package names, so the original line is more precise, so I dunno)
If it is confusing, let's just remove it. I doubt anyone cares about that anyway.
2.) "- fix removing multiple items in dependency chain" I think this refers to 59295081982b33640f4e16589ef281872da540b5. In this case we can remove this, -Ru is a celebrated new feature of 3.2, so this problem existed in git only (after ~pkgname_pkg_cmp kill:-P).
I think this rather refers to ad54b286802fd739532c9fd6f3bc6c7c431bddf4
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
I will send a few patches from my working branch here for review, but does anyone have objections to anything I've included on it? If not, this will all go to master with a 3.2.0 tag soon to follow. http://code.toofishes.net/gitweb.cgi?p=pacman.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/wo...
Well, the only thing I see is my two display_targets patches breaking gettext strings : http://code.toofishes.net/gitweb.cgi?p=pacman.git;a=commitdiff;h=dfae7bdd524... "Targets:" -> "Targets (%d):" "Remove:" -> "Remove (%d):" http://code.toofishes.net/gitweb.cgi?p=pacman.git;a=commitdiff;h=8877c88defd... "\nDo you want to remove these packages?" -> "Do you want to remove these packages?" However, as you can see, these 3 changes can easily be replicated to every translations by anyone. If you also think these patches are a good idea for the 3.2 release, I can do the necessary translation changes.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 6:42 AM, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
I will send a few patches from my working branch here for review, but does anyone have objections to anything I've included on it? If not, this will all go to master with a 3.2.0 tag soon to follow. http://code.toofishes.net/gitweb.cgi?p=pacman.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/wo...
Well, the only thing I see is my two display_targets patches breaking gettext strings : http://code.toofishes.net/gitweb.cgi?p=pacman.git;a=commitdiff;h=dfae7bdd524... "Targets:" -> "Targets (%d):" "Remove:" -> "Remove (%d):" Ha, I hadn't even realized this. Oops. Can you mark your patches [PATCH/3.2] or [PATCH/future] or something next time? I wanted to ask you which patches were for what, but you were sleeping obviously.
http://code.toofishes.net/gitweb.cgi?p=pacman.git;a=commitdiff;h=8877c88defd... "\nDo you want to remove these packages?" -> "Do you want to remove these packages?"
However, as you can see, these 3 changes can easily be replicated to every translations by anyone. If you also think these patches are a good idea for the 3.2 release, I can do the necessary translation changes.
Is it worth it, or just wait for 3.2.1? Up to you, but if we want to do this now I need someone else to write the patch. -Dan
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, the only thing I see is my two display_targets patches breaking gettext strings : http://code.toofishes.net/gitweb.cgi?p=pacman.git;a=commitdiff;h=dfae7bdd524... "Targets:" -> "Targets (%d):" "Remove:" -> "Remove (%d):"
Ha, I hadn't even realized this. Oops. Can you mark your patches [PATCH/3.2] or [PATCH/future] or something next time? I wanted to ask you which patches were for what, but you were sleeping obviously.
http://code.toofishes.net/gitweb.cgi?p=pacman.git;a=commitdiff;h=8877c88defd... "\nDo you want to remove these packages?" -> "Do you want to remove these packages?"
However, as you can see, these 3 changes can easily be replicated to every translations by anyone. If you also think these patches are a good idea for the 3.2 release, I can do the necessary translation changes.
Is it worth it, or just wait for 3.2.1? Up to you, but if we want to do this now I need someone else to write the patch.
I didn't make a distinction because I considered the possibility of fixing all strings myself, they are not real strings change. But this is the case for all patches currently on my working branch. For example the makepkg Y/n is in the same situation. If it is applied, I can do the translation updates myself. I am also fine with delaying all this stuff for 3.2.1.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks again for the quick translation updates and the NEWS updates you guys contributed.
Since the NEWS patch isn't on master yet, I amended it with all updates from this thread and added it to my working branch. So maybe you can pick it before pushing your branch to master.
participants (5)
-
Allan McRae
-
Dan McGee
-
Nagy Gabor
-
Roman Kyrylych
-
Xavier