[pacman-dev] Release plans
Hi, Back on the 15th of March, Dan mentioned the idea of making a release in a month (http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010514.html). So, given a month has passed, lets start making plans so we can do that next month! Things that need done before release: 1) Nagy's -D patch should be included. I am not sure what the final status of that was. 2) Revert/fix the cross-build library linking patch as this forces some linking that it should not. (perhaps consider making linking with --as-needed the default when supported too?) 3) Fix "makepkg --source" issue with split packages and install/changelog files (FS#18831) Related bugs FS#18394 and FS#16004 can be fixed at the same time. I have most of a patch prepared. 4) Pull in other stuff from working branches - Nagy has another couple of minor patches - Xavier has a couple (I am not sure about asciidoc one...) - I have few patches (all makepkg ones are well tested, pacman -Qo "functional which" could do with a final review) 5) Tidy up bash_completion stuff? (FS#16630) 6) Look at Flyspray roadmap: http://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?do=index&tasks=&project=3&due=69 (I just removed package signing to 4.0...). I think the only thing not covered above is FS#15657 (presence of new db version is not checked when <dbfile>.part exists) and that is fairly minor... 7) Any other patches waiting on the mailing list? Any other points/concerns people want to mention? Allan
Hi,
7) Any other patches waiting on the mailing list?
Any other points/concerns people want to mention?
I have a couple of unresolved bugs, FS#18769 and FS#18770. If they could be fixed for the next release that would be nice. There's a patch for the first one in the flyspray comments (and the mailing list), while the second one should be trivial. I hope these can be dealt with easily. Thanks, Jonathan
On 23/04/10 12:40, Jonathan Conder wrote:
Hi,
7) Any other patches waiting on the mailing list?
Any other points/concerns people want to mention?
I have a couple of unresolved bugs, FS#18769 and FS#18770. If they could be fixed for the next release that would be nice. There's a patch for the first one in the flyspray comments (and the mailing list), while the second one should be trivial. I hope these can be dealt with easily.
The patch for FS#18769 looks fine to me... I have added it to the 3.4 target on Flyspray to remind everyone to give it a look. FS#18770, could be trivial... but probably needs discussed. If there is no patch (even a trivial), then it very likely will not get included (based on past experience). Allan
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 13:29 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
The patch for FS#18769 looks fine to me... I have added it to the 3.4 target on Flyspray to remind everyone to give it a look.
Ok, thanks.
FS#18770, could be trivial... but probably needs discussed. If there is no patch (even a trivial), then it very likely will not get included (based on past experience).
Fair enough. Jonathan
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:00:09 +1000, "Allan McRae" <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
7) Any other patches waiting on the mailing list?
Any other points/concerns people want to mention?
Do you think the vercmp patch should be within the pacman branch? http://repos.archlinux.org/wsvn/packages/pacman/trunk/vercmp.patch (This makes vercmp independent of other libs so it wont break during a transaction) I have heard Dan wanted to implement a more elegant way without code duplication. Greetings, Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre
Am Freitag, den 23.04.2010, 12:00 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae:
Hi,
Hello,
Back on the 15th of March, Dan mentioned the idea of making a release in a month (http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010514.html). So, given a month has passed, lets start making plans so we can do that next month!
Things that need done before release:
--8<--
7) Any other patches waiting on the mailing list?
The include globbing patch. :) Was Xaviers delta cleanup stuff merged? I had a lightning stroke disaster last year which effectively killed my UPS and took a softraid mirror with the bash-foo delta cleanup stuff i worked on with it (it grilled the PSU, the mainboard and the hdds :-/ ). Marc
On 23/04/10 18:02, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
Am Freitag, den 23.04.2010, 12:00 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae:
Hi,
Hello,
Back on the 15th of March, Dan mentioned the idea of making a release in a month (http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010514.html). So, given a month has passed, lets start making plans so we can do that next month!
Things that need done before release:
--8<--
7) Any other patches waiting on the mailing list?
The include globbing patch. :)
Any chance of a flyspray/mailing list link to the patch?
Was Xaviers delta cleanup stuff merged?
Yes.
Am Freitag, den 23.04.2010, 19:32 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae:
On 23/04/10 18:02, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
Am Freitag, den 23.04.2010, 12:00 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae:
Hi,
Hello,
Back on the 15th of March, Dan mentioned the idea of making a release in a month (http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010514.html). So, given a month has passed, lets start making plans so we can do that next month!
Things that need done before release:
--8<--
7) Any other patches waiting on the mailing list?
The include globbing patch. :)
Any chance of a flyspray/mailing list link to the patch?
Patch: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010550.html Original thread: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-September/009355.html Discussion: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-October/009711.html http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-November/010158.html http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010551.html
Was Xaviers delta cleanup stuff merged?
Yes.
nice :) Marc
On 23/04/10 22:50, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
Am Freitag, den 23.04.2010, 19:32 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae:
On 23/04/10 18:02, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
Am Freitag, den 23.04.2010, 12:00 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae:
Hi,
Hello,
Back on the 15th of March, Dan mentioned the idea of making a release in a month (http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010514.html). So, given a month has passed, lets start making plans so we can do that next month!
Things that need done before release:
--8<--
7) Any other patches waiting on the mailing list?
The include globbing patch. :)
Any chance of a flyspray/mailing list link to the patch?
Patch: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010550.html
Original thread: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-September/009355.html
Discussion: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-October/009711.html http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-November/010158.html http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010551.html
Thanks. I think I have no objection to this patch... The code is fine, I am just unsure about the use cases. Mind you, with pacman hooks in the future, we might want to have "Include /etc/pacman/hooks/*". One query, does this handle the case where there is nothing in the globbed folder? Is that the GLOB_ABORTED case? Allan
On 24/04/10 23:15, Allan McRae wrote:
On 23/04/10 22:50, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
Am Freitag, den 23.04.2010, 19:32 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae:
On 23/04/10 18:02, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
The include globbing patch. :)
Any chance of a flyspray/mailing list link to the patch?
Patch: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010550.html
Original thread: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-September/009355.html
Discussion: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-October/009711.html
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-November/010158.html
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010551.html
Thanks. I think I have no objection to this patch... The code is fine, I am just unsure about the use cases. Mind you, with pacman hooks in the future, we might want to have "Include /etc/pacman/hooks/*".
One query, does this handle the case where there is nothing in the globbed folder? Is that the GLOB_ABORTED case?
In fact, it looks like it does not handle that case and it is probably not a good thing if that is struck. A case GLOB_NOMATCH with just a debug message should be fine. Allan
Am Samstag, den 24.04.2010, 23:34 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae:
On 24/04/10 23:15, Allan McRae wrote:
On 23/04/10 22:50, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
Am Freitag, den 23.04.2010, 19:32 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae:
On 23/04/10 18:02, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
The include globbing patch. :)
Any chance of a flyspray/mailing list link to the patch?
Patch: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010550.html
Original thread: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-September/009355.html
Discussion: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-October/009711.html
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-November/010158.html
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010551.html
Thanks. I think I have no objection to this patch... The code is fine, I am just unsure about the use cases. Mind you, with pacman hooks in the future, we might want to have "Include /etc/pacman/hooks/*".
One query, does this handle the case where there is nothing in the globbed folder? Is that the GLOB_ABORTED case?
In fact, it looks like it does not handle that case and it is probably not a good thing if that is struck. A case GLOB_NOMATCH with just a debug message should be fine.
It handled the GLOB_NOMATCH case silently in the default handler. But a debug print would help alot eg. on typos in include rules. You can find an altered version attached. Thanks for the feadback, Marc
On 26/04/10 19:05, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
It handled the GLOB_NOMATCH case silently in the default handler. But a debug print would help alot eg. on typos in include rules. You can find an altered version attached.
The updated version looks fine to me now (although I have not thoroughly tested). We will also need an update to the pacman.conf manpage indicating that globbing can be used for Include. Allan
Am Mittwoch, den 05.05.2010, 16:13 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae:
On 26/04/10 19:05, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
It handled the GLOB_NOMATCH case silently in the default handler. But a debug print would help alot eg. on typos in include rules. You can find an altered version attached.
The updated version looks fine to me now (although I have not thoroughly tested). We will also need an update to the pacman.conf manpage indicating that globbing can be used for Include.
As i'm not an english native, is the following correct? Marc --- a/doc/pacman.conf.5 +++ b/doc/pacman.conf.5 @@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ Instructs pacman to ignore any upgrades .PP \fBInclude =\fR path .RS 4 -Include another config file\&. This file can include repositories or general configuration options\&. +Include another config file\&. This file can include repositories or general configuration options\&. Wildcards in path get expanded\&. .RE .PP \fBXferCommand =\fR /path/to/command %u
Am Mittwoch, den 05.05.2010, 20:08 +0200 schrieb Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ]:
Am Mittwoch, den 05.05.2010, 16:13 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae:
On 26/04/10 19:05, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
It handled the GLOB_NOMATCH case silently in the default handler. But a debug print would help alot eg. on typos in include rules. You can find an altered version attached.
The updated version looks fine to me now (although I have not thoroughly tested). We will also need an update to the pacman.conf manpage indicating that globbing can be used for Include.
As i'm not an english native, is the following correct?
Marc
--- a/doc/pacman.conf.5 +++ b/doc/pacman.conf.5 @@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ Instructs pacman to ignore any upgrades .PP \fBInclude =\fR path .RS 4 -Include another config file\&. This file can include repositories or general configuration options\&. +Include another config file\&. This file can include repositories or general configuration options\&. Wildcards in path get expanded\&. .RE .PP \fBXferCommand =\fR /path/to/command %u
Is there anything still missing on this one?
On 17/05/10 18:35, Marc - A. Dahlhaus wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 05.05.2010, 20:08 +0200 schrieb Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ]:
Am Mittwoch, den 05.05.2010, 16:13 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae:
On 26/04/10 19:05, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
It handled the GLOB_NOMATCH case silently in the default handler. But a debug print would help alot eg. on typos in include rules. You can find an altered version attached.
The updated version looks fine to me now (although I have not thoroughly tested). We will also need an update to the pacman.conf manpage indicating that globbing can be used for Include.
As i'm not an english native, is the following correct?
Marc
--- a/doc/pacman.conf.5 +++ b/doc/pacman.conf.5 @@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ Instructs pacman to ignore any upgrades .PP \fBInclude =\fR path .RS 4 -Include another config file\&. This file can include repositories or general configuration options\&. +Include another config file\&. This file can include repositories or general configuration options\&. Wildcards in path get expanded\&. .RE .PP \fBXferCommand =\fR /path/to/command %u
Is there anything still missing on this one?
It _looks_ fine to me. However, I have not taken it for a test run yet as the patch did not apply easily with git. How are you creating the patch? Can you use "git format-patch" and send the entire patch (it looks like the main one is missing the header) either using "git send-email" or less preferably as an attachment. Allan
Am Montag, den 17.05.2010, 21:17 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae:
On 17/05/10 18:35, Marc - A. Dahlhaus wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 05.05.2010, 20:08 +0200 schrieb Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ]:
Am Mittwoch, den 05.05.2010, 16:13 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae:
On 26/04/10 19:05, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
It handled the GLOB_NOMATCH case silently in the default handler. But a debug print would help alot eg. on typos in include rules. You can find an altered version attached.
The updated version looks fine to me now (although I have not thoroughly tested). We will also need an update to the pacman.conf manpage indicating that globbing can be used for Include.
As i'm not an english native, is the following correct?
Marc
--- a/doc/pacman.conf.5 +++ b/doc/pacman.conf.5 @@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ Instructs pacman to ignore any upgrades .PP \fBInclude =\fR path .RS 4 -Include another config file\&. This file can include repositories or general configuration options\&. +Include another config file\&. This file can include repositories or general configuration options\&. Wildcards in path get expanded\&. .RE .PP \fBXferCommand =\fR /path/to/command %u
Is there anything still missing on this one?
It _looks_ fine to me. However, I have not taken it for a test run yet as the patch did not apply easily with git.
How are you creating the patch?
I used the last tarball release to work against and master is far away from the code in the last release with the config parsing and error reporting that got added. I rebased the patch against a fresh clone of master. I also adapted the debug output to contain filename and line as this would make the outputs really useful on a large include chain. It builds but i have a problem in my test environment. I doesn't let me use Include in the global section to include the repositorys one per file. This is a behaviour change compared to version 3.3. Was the removal of support for Include from outside of repository context in pacman.conf done intentional? http://projects.archlinux.org/pacman.git/commit/?id=51f9e5e40a7b4c9a2a4bb615... The Include directive should work from anywhere in the pacman.conf imo.
Can you use "git format-patch" and send the entire patch (it looks like the main one is missing the header) either using "git send-email" or less preferably as an attachment.
The work in progress version is Attached. I still try to change the code to something that works as intended... Thanks, Marc
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Marc - A. Dahlhaus <mad@wol.de> wrote:
Am Montag, den 17.05.2010, 21:17 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae:
How are you creating the patch?
I used the last tarball release to work against and master is far away from the code in the last release with the config parsing and error reporting that got added.
As a heads up, I would say always develop against git and never against tarballs in the future. :) As you can see things change.
I rebased the patch against a fresh clone of master.
I also adapted the debug output to contain filename and line as this would make the outputs really useful on a large include chain.
It builds but i have a problem in my test environment.
I doesn't let me use Include in the global section to include the repositorys one per file.
This is a behaviour change compared to version 3.3.
Was the removal of support for Include from outside of repository context in pacman.conf done intentional?
http://projects.archlinux.org/pacman.git/commit/?id=51f9e5e40a7b4c9a2a4bb615...
The Include directive should work from anywhere in the pacman.conf imo.
I'm not sure it was, but I would guess Xavier and I had no idea anyone was using it outside of a server context. It looks easy enough to fix if we want to bring back this behavior, although I'm guessing there was always a gray area with regards to $repo variable substitution in that case.
Can you use "git format-patch" and send the entire patch (it looks like the main one is missing the header) either using "git send-email" or less preferably as an attachment.
The work in progress version is Attached.
I still try to change the code to something that works as intended...
Am Montag, den 17.05.2010, 10:10 -0500 schrieb Dan McGee:
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Marc - A. Dahlhaus <mad@wol.de> wrote:
Am Montag, den 17.05.2010, 21:17 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae:
How are you creating the patch?
I used the last tarball release to work against and master is far away from the code in the last release with the config parsing and error reporting that got added.
As a heads up, I would say always develop against git and never against tarballs in the future. :) As you can see things change.
I had the patch for the last release in use in our pacman package and just edited this. Just my laziness... :)
I rebased the patch against a fresh clone of master.
I also adapted the debug output to contain filename and line as this would make the outputs really useful on a large include chain.
It builds but i have a problem in my test environment.
I doesn't let me use Include in the global section to include the repositorys one per file.
This is a behaviour change compared to version 3.3.
Was the removal of support for Include from outside of repository context in pacman.conf done intentional?
http://projects.archlinux.org/pacman.git/commit/?id=51f9e5e40a7b4c9a2a4bb615...
The Include directive should work from anywhere in the pacman.conf imo.
I'm not sure it was, but I would guess Xavier and I had no idea anyone was using it outside of a server context. It looks easy enough to fix if we want to bring back this behavior, although I'm guessing there was always a gray area with regards to $repo variable substitution in that case.
We use globbing to include the repository definitions one per file from a config directory so that we can install a new repository with a package without the need to change anything in pacman.conf. This way we can change options in pacman.conf without problems in the pacman package and don't need to manually propagate the change on boxes that had non-standard repositories added. In this case we have the Include in the options block, so allowing it in [options] would be well enough, i think. It would be very nice if Xavier or you could take a look at it as i don't want to step on anybodies foots along the way if i change this... Thanks, Marc
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Marc - A. Dahlhaus <mad@wol.de> wrote:
It would be very nice if Xavier or you could take a look at it as i don't want to step on anybodies foots along the way if i change this...
You really wouldn't. When you spot a regression caused by a commit that doesn't mention the regression anywhere (commit log or in the code), it's almost certainly unwanted. So a patch is welcome :) It's just as Dan said, the only use of Include I ever see if to include mirror list in Server section, so I overlooked your usage. Can you please test the attached untested patch ?
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Xavier Chantry <chantry.xavier@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Marc - A. Dahlhaus <mad@wol.de> wrote:
It would be very nice if Xavier or you could take a look at it as i don't want to step on anybodies foots along the way if i change this...
You really wouldn't. When you spot a regression caused by a commit that doesn't mention the regression anywhere (commit log or in the code), it's almost certainly unwanted. So a patch is welcome :) It's just as Dan said, the only use of Include I ever see if to include mirror list in Server section, so I overlooked your usage.
Can you please test the attached untested patch ?
This proved that it worked, but didn't prove that Include still works elsewhere. I'm going to see if I can wire up pactest for that. $ cat pactest/tests/config001.py self.description = "Quick check for Include being parsed in [options]" self.option['Include'] = ['/dev/null'] p = pmpkg("foobar") p.files = ["bin/foobar"] p.desc = "test description" p.groups = ["foo"] p.url = "http://www.archlinux.org" p.license = "GPL2" p.arch = "i686" self.addpkg2db("local", p) self.args = "-Qi %s" % p.name self.addrule("PACMAN_RETCODE=0")
Am Montag, den 17.05.2010, 19:16 +0200 schrieb Xavier Chantry:
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Marc - A. Dahlhaus <mad@wol.de> wrote:
It would be very nice if Xavier or you could take a look at it as i don't want to step on anybodies foots along the way if i change this...
You really wouldn't. When you spot a regression caused by a commit that doesn't mention the regression anywhere (commit log or in the code), it's almost certainly unwanted. So a patch is welcome :) It's just as Dan said, the only use of Include I ever see if to include mirror list in Server section, so I overlooked your usage.
Can you please test the attached untested patch ?
This worked as expected. As Dan allready merged it into master i rebased my patch to it and attached is a tested and working version of include globbing. Thanks, Marc
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Marc - A. Dahlhaus <mad@wol.de> wrote:
Am Montag, den 17.05.2010, 19:16 +0200 schrieb Xavier Chantry:
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Marc - A. Dahlhaus <mad@wol.de> wrote:
It would be very nice if Xavier or you could take a look at it as i don't want to step on anybodies foots along the way if i change this...
You really wouldn't. When you spot a regression caused by a commit that doesn't mention the regression anywhere (commit log or in the code), it's almost certainly unwanted. So a patch is welcome :) It's just as Dan said, the only use of Include I ever see if to include mirror list in Server section, so I overlooked your usage.
Can you please test the attached untested patch ?
This worked as expected.
As Dan allready merged it into master i rebased my patch to it and attached is a tested and working version of include globbing.
Thanks! Applied with small changes. -Dan
Any other points/concerns people want to mention?
The phonon/qt issue: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-February/010429.html And I revoke my reply. :-) Xavier and I discussed this issue on irc, and neither of us could come up with a perfect solution. So we should discuss what to do. Bye
On 24/04/10 02:04, Nagy Gabor wrote:
Any other points/concerns people want to mention?
The phonon/qt issue: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-February/010429.html
And I revoke my reply. :-) Xavier and I discussed this issue on irc, and neither of us could come up with a perfect solution. So we should discuss what to do.
Given there is no patch or idea how to patch yet, lets not make this a blocker... :) Is there a new pactest for this case around? That can easily be included. Allan
On 24/04/10 02:04, Nagy Gabor wrote:
Any other points/concerns people want to mention?
The phonon/qt issue: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-February/010429.html
And I revoke my reply. :-) Xavier and I discussed this issue on irc, and neither of us could come up with a perfect solution. So we should discuss what to do.
Given there is no patch or idea how to patch yet, lets not make this a blocker... :)
You should open the link I gave. :-P That patch should fix sync405.py pactest (that I've just sent to this ML), including all -Su related problems, so that should cover the most "real" issues. The second pactest is tricky, and that seems quite hard to fix without notable slow-down (there the new qt is pulled by an other package; this cannot happen with -Su). So I think we should just accept that patch with minor modifications. Xavier? Bye
On 25/04/10 00:59, Nagy Gabor wrote:
On 24/04/10 02:04, Nagy Gabor wrote:
Any other points/concerns people want to mention?
The phonon/qt issue: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-February/010429.html
And I revoke my reply. :-) Xavier and I discussed this issue on irc, and neither of us could come up with a perfect solution. So we should discuss what to do.
Given there is no patch or idea how to patch yet, lets not make this a blocker... :)
You should open the link I gave. :-P
That patch should fix sync405.py pactest (that I've just sent to this ML), including all -Su related problems, so that should cover the most "real" issues. The second pactest is tricky, and that seems quite hard to fix without notable slow-down (there the new qt is pulled by an other package; this cannot happen with -Su).
So I think we should just accept that patch with minor modifications. Xavier?
Ah... I skimmed over your "I revoke my reply" comment. :P That patch (with the needed modifications) is better than nothing so I would be in favour of including it. Allan
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 25/04/10 00:59, Nagy Gabor wrote:
On 24/04/10 02:04, Nagy Gabor wrote:
Any other points/concerns people want to mention?
The phonon/qt issue:
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-February/010429.html
And I revoke my reply. :-) Xavier and I discussed this issue on irc, and neither of us could come up with a perfect solution. So we should discuss what to do.
Given there is no patch or idea how to patch yet, lets not make this a blocker... :)
You should open the link I gave. :-P
That patch should fix sync405.py pactest (that I've just sent to this ML), including all -Su related problems, so that should cover the most "real" issues. The second pactest is tricky, and that seems quite hard to fix without notable slow-down (there the new qt is pulled by an other package; this cannot happen with -Su).
So I think we should just accept that patch with minor modifications. Xavier?
Ah... I skimmed over your "I revoke my reply" comment. :P
That patch (with the needed modifications) is better than nothing so I would be in favour of including it.
I would be too...if Xavier says yes as well. :) The pactest addition patch went in tonight so we should see this patch flip one of those to successful. -Dan
Any other points/concerns people want to mention?
Allan
One more thing I want to mention: "pacman -S group" interactive versus non-interactive behaviour. Details: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010516.html Bye
On 25/04/10 00:13, Nagy Gabor wrote:
Any other points/concerns people want to mention?
Allan
One more thing I want to mention: "pacman -S group" interactive versus non-interactive behaviour. Details: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010516.html
This is probably a "regression" that we should fix. Has anyone looked at bringing the group selection interactivity into the pacman frontend now the main package group handling is done in the backend? I can see this not being the smallest of patches so it would be good to get one sooner rather than later. Allan
On 04/24/2010 05:27 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
On 25/04/10 00:13, Nagy Gabor wrote:
Any other points/concerns people want to mention?
Allan
One more thing I want to mention: "pacman -S group" interactive versus non-interactive behaviour. Details: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010516.html
This is probably a "regression" that we should fix. Has anyone looked at bringing the group selection interactivity into the pacman frontend now the main package group handling is done in the backend? I can see this not being the smallest of patches so it would be good to get one sooner rather than later.
Allan
are we going to release without this regression to be fixed? -- Ionut
On 09/05/10 22:46, Ionut Biru wrote:
On 04/24/2010 05:27 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
On 25/04/10 00:13, Nagy Gabor wrote:
Any other points/concerns people want to mention?
Allan
One more thing I want to mention: "pacman -S group" interactive versus non-interactive behaviour. Details: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010516.html
This is probably a "regression" that we should fix. Has anyone looked at bringing the group selection interactivity into the pacman frontend now the main package group handling is done in the backend? I can see this not being the smallest of patches so it would be good to get one sooner rather than later.
are we going to release without this regression to be fixed?
Nothing has been remove from the TODO list as far as I can tell. But if there is no patch forthcoming...
Updated list of things that need done before release: (** indicates patches available) (* indicates a patch needing revision is available) 1**) Nagy's -D patch should be included. 2) Revert/fix the cross-build library linking patch as this forces some linking that it should not. Dan said he was looking at this (?). 3) Fix "makepkg --source" issue with split packages and install/changelog files (FS#18831) Related bugs FS#18394 and FS#16004 can be fixed at the same time. I have most of a patch prepared. 4**) Pull in other stuff from working branches - Nagy has another couple of minor patches - Xavier has a couple (I am not sure about asciidoc one... but I do not see a better way) - I have few patches (all makepkg ones are well tested, pacman -Qo "functional which" could do with a final review) 5*) phonon/qt issue patch: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-February/010429.html - needs cleanup first. 6*) Include globbing patch: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010550.html - see my recent post about potential fix needed for no match case. 7) "pacman -Sg group" interactivity: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010516.html 8*?) Tidy up bash_completion stuff? (FS#16630) 9) Look at Flyspray roadmap: http://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?do=index&tasks=&project=3&due=69 and remove anything not being implemented. 10) Write NEWS... My working branch has Nagy's and Xavier's patches (apart from the asciidoc one) on it. I will try and keep it up to date with all other patches that are needed to address these issues as they arrive so Dan (and anyone else) can easily pull them from one place. Allan
On 25/04/10 01:36, Allan McRae wrote:
Updated list of things that need done before release: (** indicates patches available) (* indicates a patch needing revision is available)
1**) Nagy's -D patch should be included.
2) Revert/fix the cross-build library linking patch as this forces some linking that it should not. Dan said he was looking at this (?).
3) Fix "makepkg --source" issue with split packages and install/changelog files (FS#18831) Related bugs FS#18394 and FS#16004 can be fixed at the same time. I have most of a patch prepared.
4**) Pull in other stuff from working branches - Nagy has another couple of minor patches - Xavier has a couple (I am not sure about asciidoc one... but I do not see a better way) - I have few patches (all makepkg ones are well tested, pacman -Qo "functional which" could do with a final review)
5*) phonon/qt issue patch: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-February/010429.html - needs cleanup first.
6*) Include globbing patch: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010550.html - see my recent post about potential fix needed for no match case.
7) "pacman -Sg group" interactivity: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010516.html
8*?) Tidy up bash_completion stuff? (FS#16630)
9) Look at Flyspray roadmap: http://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?do=index&tasks=&project=3&due=69 and remove anything not being implemented.
10) Write NEWS...
11) vercmp changes? Trying to avoid upgrade issues like we had with openssl.
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 25/04/10 01:36, Allan McRae wrote:
Updated list of things that need done before release: (** indicates patches available) (* indicates a patch needing revision is available)
1**) Nagy's -D patch should be included.
Done. See my recent patch sent to the ML that might provoke some more discussion but might not be a blocker for 3.4.0.
2) Revert/fix the cross-build library linking patch as this forces some linking that it should not. Dan said he was looking at this (?).
I think this is better now? Matthias Lanzinger, can you confirm? Did I bust it up even more? :P
3) Fix "makepkg --source" issue with split packages and install/changelog files (FS#18831) Related bugs FS#18394 and FS#16004 can be fixed at the same time. I have most of a patch prepared.
I am still not a huge fan of the checksums business when it comes to source packages. Let me see if I can formalize my thoughts on that in another email.
4**) Pull in other stuff from working branches - Nagy has another couple of minor patches - Xavier has a couple (I am not sure about asciidoc one... but I do not see a better way) - I have few patches (all makepkg ones are well tested, pacman -Qo "functional which" could do with a final review)
Yes, I need to sit down and pull some more and do some patch review, the reason yours have gotten backed up is because a lot of them were behind the above (--source and integrity checks).
5*) phonon/qt issue patch:
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-February/010429.html - needs cleanup first.
Looks like we never got a second proposal from Nagy he said might be coming?
6*) Include globbing patch: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010550.html - see my recent post about potential fix needed for no match case.
I think this is just about ready to go, I'll try to look over it very soon.
7) "pacman -Sg group" interactivity: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-March/010516.html
Not exactly sure what to do here; part of the issue is how little I use groups myself so I don't have a lot invested in this.
8*?) Tidy up bash_completion stuff? (FS#16630)
The poster disappeared and he tried to sneak a license change in there, so that just hit a bit of a roadblock. I'd like to improve this so I might just sit down and hack at it myself.
9) Look at Flyspray roadmap: http://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?do=index&tasks=&project=3&due=69 and remove anything not being implemented.
This will probably wait until the rest of the dust settles, but yes it should be done.
10) Write NEWS...
Always looking for a volunteer to help. :)
11) vercmp changes? Trying to avoid upgrade issues like we had with openssl.
Done, thanks for reviewing. -Dan
On 06/05/10 02:31, Dan McGee wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Allan McRae<allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 25/04/10 01:36, Allan McRae wrote:
4**) Pull in other stuff from working branches - Nagy has another couple of minor patches - Xavier has a couple (I am not sure about asciidoc one... but I do not see a better way) - I have few patches (all makepkg ones are well tested, pacman -Qo "functional which" could do with a final review)
Yes, I need to sit down and pull some more and do some patch review, the reason yours have gotten backed up is because a lot of them were behind the above (--source and integrity checks).
I rebased my working branch in a nice order for you to cherry-pick from. Not that it mattered given none of them overlapped... :P Allan
participants (9)
-
Allan McRae
-
Dan McGee
-
Ionut Biru
-
Jonathan Conder
-
Marc - A. Dahlhaus
-
Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ]
-
Nagy Gabor
-
Pierre Schmitz
-
Xavier Chantry