On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 19:14:32 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I would love to avoid you. However, you make this impossible via > trying to make the life of Python team (which I am part of) a misery, I do not force you to reply. Clearly you are not able to control yourself from replying. I do with facts, you with opinions and comments. > and Python support in Gentoo (which I use) a mess long-term. What is > even worse, you do that without even talking to the Python team, or > even bothering to CC them -- what you do instead is start a public > discussion about Python without even bothering to invite Python > people to it. This discussion is about more than python. You are ONE member of the team, with at least 17 others. You are also NOT the Python Team lead. Who do you think you are, to approach me or ANYONE such way? You are one person. The word team does not mean I, MGORNY.... Now to step back. The post here is to engage in discussion with said teams. But rather than address Python directly, and Ruby directly. I chose to come here to address BOTH. The problem is not unique to one or the other. What if Ruby team had ideas that could benefit Python? Would they know if the interaction is happening just with the Python team? Think, how do you reach more than one Gentoo team? What if an idea effects more than one? I chose the right list, and the correct method. Even if it does not suit some individuals opinions. Or their preferred way of dictating how others conduct themselves. > FYI, if you want to change something, the first research you ought to > do is to ask 'why is it done this way?' Not jump to some random > points that might be completely irrelevant. I understand, and I believe there are better ways. If you are not capable of coming up with any better ways. That is your own personal limitation. Again to add/remove a new python/ruby version requires touching every python/ruby ebuild. You think that is efficient or the best way? Are you, mgorny, adding/removing these python/ruby targets to lots of ebuilds? I do not see any of that here. Guess you leave that work to others https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commits?author=mgorny Not to mention your 2,033 commits, across the life of Gentoo Git repo. With some 1600+ python packages. Just modifying the COMPAT would increase your commit count considerable. I believe you are not doing this work, leaving it to others. You can prove me wrong with commits. Should be close to at least 100 commits. If you are doing serious python work. > Well, I've opened the first ebuild in your overlay [1] and it wouldn't > pass basic code review. Your review. Which your review of Firebird introduced REQUIRED USE flags that did not work and broke the package. Despite the issue being addressed a 1 line fix. You wanted the entire ebuild revised and introduced a much larger issue that did not exist in the first place. I use repoman on my overlay. If something does not meet QA. Then go modify repoman to point such out. If repoman is not pointing it out, then is it really an issue? Maybe just in mgorny's mind.... > For a start, it doesn't enforce USE > dependencies which are absolutely necessary for anything to work by > omething else than mere accident. It also explains why you are able > to claim that your solution works. I have not implemented what I am suggestion. I fail to see how you can say something not implemented fails to work. What is your case study? Have you re-wrote python eclasses to no use TARGETS? > [1]:https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/os-xtoo/blob/master/dev-pytho > n/python-efl/python-efl-9999.ebuild That is new, and FYI mostly a copy form what is in TREE... Go diff and see for yourself. What ever issues I expect YOU mgorny to go fix in tree. Otherwise be quiet. https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/tree/master/dev-libs/efl It also breaks due to upstream changes, it requires EFL 1.18, and breaks with 1.19. EFL likely needs to be slotted but that is another matter. > > I think I have a clue when it comes to package maintenance. I was > > doing it as a Developer back in 2006 thru 2008... > > https://github.com/wltjr?tab=overview&from=2006-12-01&to=2006-12-31 > > I'm sorry but 10 years ago is not very relevant to Gentoo today. Funny, given stuff 10years ago is still in tree... https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/tree/master/dev-java/servletapi I was working on removing that in 2007.... Repomans commit message is more than 10yrs old. Considerable stuff in gentoo has been around for some time. Things have been added but hardly changed, equery, euse, emerge, eselect, etc... Any EAPI=0 ebuilds around? Guess how old those are? Or others... > The funny part is that you can write walls of text on yourself and > your ideas but find it impossible to put the most important question: > *why is it done like this?* Likely cause of people like you, who cannot come up with a better way. What are your ideas to improve things? Any? Or the status quo is utopia? All I see is negativity. Not a single technical argument why it technically would not be feasible. Nothing to suggest an alternative way. Absolutely nothing constructive. -- William L. Thomson Jr.
pgpw66mmBwG7Q.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
