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 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.

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

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 Mon, May 17, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Marc - A. Dahlhaus 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...

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Marc - A. Dahlhaus 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 ?

Am Montag, den 17.05.2010, 19:16 +0200 schrieb Xavier Chantry:

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Marc - A. Dahlhaus 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 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 Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Allan McRae 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

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 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...

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 06/05/10 02:31, Dan McGee wrote:

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Allan McRae 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