Re: [gentoo-dev] [pre-GLEP] Gentoo binary package container format
On 26-11-2018 21:13:53 +, Andrey Utkin wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:45:54AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > We agree it is hackish, and we agree we can do without. You simply > > exaggerate the problem, IMO, which mostly isn't there, because it works > > fine today. It can also be solved today using shell tools. > > I am sad that you don't see it as a productivity impediment that the > user is required to know the custom tooling to do even such a trivial > non-standard action as manual extraction. Huh? tar -jxf doesn't do the trick for you? > Maybe I will make myself look bad by admitting this, but I'm not meeting > your expectations. I use Gentoo for ~11 years, and for about one year I > am using my private binpkgs distributed to all my machines (i.e. I have > read binary package guide fair number of times, but I stopped rereading > it when I satisfied my needs). When in need, I still reached to trusty > tar, and I did not even know what are the names of special tools (a > toolchain?) qtbz2 and qxpak. > > Just few days ago I messed with binpkgs for investigation purpose. I > just wanted to extract few to somewhere (definitely not into system > root), and read a core dump with GDB asking it to use those extracted > files for debug symbols. > > Of course I used `tar xaf`, because what I know is that it's honest tbz2 > just with metadata appended. > > # tar xaf boost-1.65.0.tbz2 > > bzip2: (stdin): trailing garbage after EOF ignored > > Exit code is 0. > But the notice is annoying (on subconscious level), because Silence Is > Golden - "when a program has nothing interesting or surprising to say, > it should shut up". You seem to contradict yourself. You didn't know the tools, yet you say you needed to, to unpack the files. But you show here you just unpacked the files without said knowledge. > > % head -c `grep -abo 'XPAKPACK' > > $EPREFIX/usr/portage/packages/sys-apps/sed-4.5.tbz2 | sed 's/:.*$//'` > > $EPREFIX/usr/portage/packages/sys-apps/sed-4.5.tbz2 | tar -jxf - > > > > results in no warnings/errors from bzip about trailing garbage, possible > > thanks to the spec being smart enough about this. > > Thanks, this is a very concise **custom tool** to handle current binpkg > format. As is tar followed by tar. The obvious advantage of the latter is that you don't get a warning which could trigger you into thinking something is wrong. So, in my opinion, that is a better way of doing it compared to the current way. > > Not having to do this, when under stress and pressure to restore a > > system to get it back into production, is a plus. Though, in that > > scenario the trailing garbage warning wouldn't have been that bad > > either. > > When understress and pressure, the irrelevant warning is not bad? > I am sure it is really bad for operator's attention. I've been using Gentoo binpkgs for a long while, I think something like ~14 years ago when I used them extensively. Perhaps I'm an exception, but back then I knew already there was an extra bit attached to the tars, as were all my collegues around me back then. The fact it comes up now (as a surprise?) maybe means the knowledge has gone. So good thing we're replacing it with something easier to infer from inspecting it. Fabian -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs: net-misc/sobby, net-libs/obby, net-libs/libinfinity, net-libs/net6
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Tiziano Müller wrote: > the following packages are up for grabs since I have no use for them > anymore: > net-misc/sobby > net-libs/obby > net-libs/libinfinity > net-libs/net6 > They are unfortunately not up-to-date, and 3 minor bugs are open for > net-libs/libinfinity: > https://bugs.gentoo.org/527158 > https://bugs.gentoo.org/537488 > https://bugs.gentoo.org/670610 > Upstream seems to be still around for the editor itself (gobby, not in > the tree anymore). > If nobody picks them up, they are likely to get tree-cleaned since all > except one are libraries nobody seems to be using. Actually, sobby is the server counterpart for app-emacs/rudel. So unless anyone else is interested, the Emacs team will take these three: net-misc/sobby net-libs/obby net-libs/net6 Ulrich signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs: net-misc/sobby, net-libs/obby, net-libs/libinfinity, net-libs/net6
Am Dienstag, 27. November 2018, 13:47:25 CET schrieb Ulrich Mueller: > > On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Tiziano Müller wrote: > > > the following packages are up for grabs since I have no use for them > > anymore: > > > net-misc/sobby > > net-libs/obby > > net-libs/libinfinity > > net-libs/net6 > > > They are unfortunately not up-to-date, and 3 minor bugs are open for > > net-libs/libinfinity: > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/527158 > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/537488 > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/670610 > > > Upstream seems to be still around for the editor itself (gobby, not in > > the tree anymore). > > > If nobody picks them up, they are likely to get tree-cleaned since all > > except one are libraries nobody seems to be using. > > Actually, sobby is the server counterpart for app-emacs/rudel. So unless > anyone else is interested, the Emacs team will take these three: > >net-misc/sobby >net-libs/obby >net-libs/net6 > > Ulrich It seems that sobby was deprecated by the Gobby team (also last commit from 2012). Libinifity also provides an obby server (infinoted). Does app-emacs/rudel run with infinoted as well? Gerion signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs: net-misc/sobby, net-libs/obby, net-libs/libinfinity, net-libs/net6
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Gerion Entrup wrote: > It seems that sobby was deprecated by the Gobby team (also last commit > from 2012). Libinifity also provides an obby server (infinoted). Does > app-emacs/rudel run with infinoted as well? According to https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Rudel: "Rudel’s infinote support is under development and not yet usable in production." Not sure how old that info is, so I'll investigate if it can run with infinoted. Ulrich signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
All, based on the previous thread about copyright attribution clarifications, I want to add the following AUTHORS file to the top level of the portage repository if no one objects. This is based on the description of the AUTHORS file at Google [1]. Everyone is not required to be listed, but there is no reason you can't add yourself if you have contributed to the tree and want to be listed. I hope this will satisfy everyone involved in the discussion. Thoughts? William [1] https://opensource.google.com/docs/releasing/authors/ Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 09:12 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > based on the previous thread about copyright attribution clarifications, > I want to add the following AUTHORS file to the top level of the portage > repository if no one objects. > > This is based on the description of the AUTHORS file at Google [1]. > > Everyone is not required to be listed, but there is no reason you can't > add yourself if you have contributed to the tree and want to be listed. > > I hope this will satisfy everyone involved in the discussion. > > Thoughts? > Will that actually solve any problem, or just add another half-baked solution with no benefit to the resulting status? In other words, would SIE suddenly stop requiring you to alter copyright in ebuilds? -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:16 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > Will that actually solve any problem, or just add another half-baked > solution with no benefit to the resulting status? In other words, would > SIE suddenly stop requiring you to alter copyright in ebuilds? ++ It makes sense to ensure that the solution actually solves the problem before we simply implement it. If we really need such a file it would probably also make more sense to have it auto-generated from git commit headers, which could use a standardized format. This would actually provide more useful data around authorship/copyright than a generic file with a list of names anyway. Certainly standards like SPDX should be leveraged. These tags could be optional in git, but anybody who wants to use these tags could do so and tools that parse them could be created by those interested in this information. -- Rich -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:12:26AM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > based on the previous thread about copyright attribution clarifications, > I want to add the following AUTHORS file to the top level of the portage > repository if no one objects. > > This is based on the description of the AUTHORS file at Google [1]. > > Everyone is not required to be listed, but there is no reason you can't > add yourself if you have contributed to the tree and want to be listed. > > I hope this will satisfy everyone involved in the discussion. > > Thoughts? It seems to me this will grow huge, and be the source of annoyance for users. There's a plausible opinion that today's Unixes will stay around forever: https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/DurableCurrentUnixes And obviously Gentoo is the best flavour of them, so... Are there any long-lived community FOSS projects maintaining such file? FFmpeg had such one (CREDITS file), but eschewed it in 2013 for a short notice "check git log". signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:41 AM Rich Freeman wrote: > It makes sense to ensure that the solution actually solves the problem > before we simply implement it. > > If we really need such a file it would probably also make more sense > to have it auto-generated from git commit headers And how do you want to determine whether William's contributions are copyright Sony or now? Do you want to look up his timezone and check whether they were made during work hours? If this satisfies Sony, please don't bikeshed this. The perfect it the enemy of the good.
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:58 AM Andrey Utkin wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:12:26AM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > > All, > > > > based on the previous thread about copyright attribution clarifications, > > I want to add the following AUTHORS file to the top level of the portage > > repository if no one objects. > > > > This is based on the description of the AUTHORS file at Google [1]. > > > > Everyone is not required to be listed, but there is no reason you can't > > add yourself if you have contributed to the tree and want to be listed. > > > > I hope this will satisfy everyone involved in the discussion. > > > > Thoughts? > > It seems to me this will grow huge, and be the source of annoyance for > users. I'm imagining it's only those that are not obvious from the commit log that will be listed here. But regardless, you're right that it will grow. At the same time I doubt it will be a serious concern, and in the case that it becomes one we can sort it out then.
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Andrey Utkin wrote: > It seems to me this will grow huge, and be the source of annoyance for > users. IIUC the file has a specific purpose, namely to solve the copyright attribution problem. So only those entities who would otherwise add themselves to ebuild headers must be listed there. > There's a plausible opinion that today's Unixes will stay around > forever: > https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/DurableCurrentUnixes > And obviously Gentoo is the best flavour of them, so... > Are there any long-lived community FOSS projects maintaining such > file? GNU Emacs: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/etc/AUTHORS They add everyone who has contributed, and after 33 years the file has grown to 170 kB, which I think is still acceptable. We have some Manifest files that are much larger. So I don't think we would run into problems anytime soon, even if we added everybody (which we shouldn't, IMHO). Ulrich signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:40:57AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:16 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > > > Will that actually solve any problem, or just add another half-baked > > solution with no benefit to the resulting status? In other words, would > > SIE suddenly stop requiring you to alter copyright in ebuilds? > > ++ > > It makes sense to ensure that the solution actually solves the problem > before we simply implement it. > > If we really need such a file it would probably also make more sense > to have it auto-generated from git commit headers, which could use a > standardized format. This would actually provide more useful data > around authorship/copyright than a generic file with a list of names > anyway. Certainly standards like SPDX should be leveraged. These > tags could be optional in git, but anybody who wants to use these tags > could do so and tools that parse them could be created by those > interested in this information. My understanding is yes. SIE legal doesn't care where the copyright is as long as it is there. A good example of this file would be the one in the golang upstream repo [1]. This file is not autogenerated and would only be updated as requested when people or organizations want to add themselves. I'm not sure auto generation is worth the work in this case since there is very little overhead in maintaining the file. You just add a person or organization when they request it. If they don't request it, they don't care. William [1] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/golang/go/master/AUTHORS signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 06:01:58PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Andrey Utkin wrote: > > > It seems to me this will grow huge, and be the source of annoyance for > > users. > > IIUC the file has a specific purpose, namely to solve the copyright > attribution problem. So only those entities who would otherwise add > themselves to ebuild headers must be listed there. > > > There's a plausible opinion that today's Unixes will stay around > > forever: > > https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/DurableCurrentUnixes > > > And obviously Gentoo is the best flavour of them, so... > > > Are there any long-lived community FOSS projects maintaining such > > file? > > GNU Emacs: > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/etc/AUTHORS > They add everyone who has contributed, and after 33 years the file > has grown to 170 kB, which I think is still acceptable. We have some > Manifest files that are much larger. > > So I don't think we would run into problems anytime soon, even if we > added everybody (which we shouldn't, IMHO). Agreed, we should not add every developer to this file by default. On the other hand, if some person or organization requests to be added, we should not refuse to add them, imho. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:59 AM Matt Turner wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:41 AM Rich Freeman wrote: > > It makes sense to ensure that the solution actually solves the problem > > before we simply implement it. > > > > If we really need such a file it would probably also make more sense > > to have it auto-generated from git commit headers > > And how do you want to determine whether William's contributions are > copyright Sony or now? Do you want to look up his timezone and check > whether they were made during work hours? No, you look at the Copyright-owner header or whatever we want to call it, and use that. Companies that care about labeling what they own can take the time to properly document this. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:31 PM William Hubbs wrote: > > Agreed, we should not add every developer to this file by default. > Isn't this basically giving the most credit to the most difficult-to-work-with entities by default? As others have pointed out, it seems like other projects are moving away from AUTHORS files in favor of git. If we want to go in the opposite direction, why wouldn't we give credit to those who aren't creating drama? -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:49 PM Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:59 AM Matt Turner wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:41 AM Rich Freeman wrote: > > > It makes sense to ensure that the solution actually solves the problem > > > before we simply implement it. > > > > > > If we really need such a file it would probably also make more sense > > > to have it auto-generated from git commit headers > > > > And how do you want to determine whether William's contributions are > > copyright Sony or now? Do you want to look up his timezone and check > > whether they were made during work hours? > > No, you look at the Copyright-owner header or whatever we want to call > it, and use that. Companies that care about labeling what they own > can take the time to properly document this. I would prefer not to see copyright noise to git commit messages. If a manually maintained file will suffice, please don't over-complicate matters.
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:49 AM Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:59 AM Matt Turner wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:41 AM Rich Freeman wrote: > > > It makes sense to ensure that the solution actually solves the problem > > > before we simply implement it. > > > > > > If we really need such a file it would probably also make more sense > > > to have it auto-generated from git commit headers > > > > And how do you want to determine whether William's contributions are > > copyright Sony or now? Do you want to look up his timezone and check > > whether they were made during work hours? > > No, you look at the Copyright-owner header or whatever we want to call > it, and use that. Companies that care about labeling what they own > can take the time to properly document this. What Copyright-owner header are you talking about? You've been the most outspoken opponent of using what appears to be the standard attribution form specified in GLEP-76, and now that we have what I think is a really good compromise you're against that too? I know mailing list debates are your personal pastime but this is a real wasteoftime.
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
All, I just picked a random msg to reply to on the thread. Here is the updated AUTHORS file I would like to commit. William # This is the official list of Gentoo package authors for copyright purposes. # This file is maintained manually. # To be included, send a change adding the individual or # company who owns a contribution's copyright. # Names should be added to this file as one of # Organization's name # Individual's name # Please keep the list sorted. Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On 11/27/18 9:07 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > I just picked a random msg to reply to on the thread. > > Here is the updated AUTHORS file I would like to commit. > > William Lets put it on agenda for next council meeting and let the discussion go until then. -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 2:58 PM Matt Turner wrote: > > What Copyright-owner header are you talking about? We would create one, just as we've created bugzilla tags in git for closing bugs/etc. Surely putting one line in a commit is no more difficult than putting one file in a repository? Indeed anybody can start sticking such a tag in commits today without any involvement from anybody else. > You've been the > most outspoken opponent of using what appears to be the standard > attribution form specified in GLEP-76 When have I been opposed to anything in GLEP 76? I'll admit that I don't 100% agree with everything in there, but I'm fine with following the GLEP as it is written. Multi-line copyright notices aren't in there, and the intent was never to be accumulating copyright holders on the single notice line. An authors file was a compromise I wasn't a huge fan of, but I'm suggesting that if we have one it ought to be auto-generated (presumably with the work being done by somebody who actually wants the file to be there). Also, GLEP 76 as it is written says: "Projects using this scheme must track authorship in a VCS, unless they list all authors of copyrightable contributions in an AUTHORS file." So, a VCS is the PREFERRED way of doing it. The alternative is listing ALL authors in the authors file. Right now it seems like people are advocating for only listing some authors. > I know mailing list debates are your personal pastime but this is a > real wasteoftime. You're the one advocating for changing the status quo. I'm happy if we drop the whole topic entirely. You certainly can't point fingers at others when you're proposing doing something differently. We wouldn't be having this discussion if some contributors were unwilling to contribute under our current standards. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 14:07 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > I just picked a random msg to reply to on the thread. > > Here is the updated AUTHORS file I would like to commit. > You should include at least all current developers with commit access. Because otherwise, this really looks like all Gentoo work was done by the Foundation (which didn't do any work at all) and Sony, entirely neglecting the huge effort done by many individuals. I get you can't be expected to figure out all the people who ever done any major contribution to Gentoo. However, that's no excuse to skip the process entirely and just put your employer there. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:15:08PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 14:07 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > > All, > > I just picked a random msg to reply to on the thread. > > > > Here is the updated AUTHORS file I would like to commit. > > > > You should include at least all current developers with commit access. > Because otherwise, this really looks like all Gentoo work was done by > the Foundation (which didn't do any work at all) and Sony, entirely > neglecting the huge effort done by many individuals. No, that is definitely not the case. all devs aren't required to be listed; only those who want to be [1]. There is no way to contact everyone and see who wants to be listed, if someone wants to be listed they can let us know. William [1] https://opensource.google.com/docs/releasing/authors/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:15 PM Michał Górny wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 14:07 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > > All, > > I just picked a random msg to reply to on the thread. > > > > Here is the updated AUTHORS file I would like to commit. > > > > You should include at least all current developers with commit access. > Because otherwise, this really looks like all Gentoo work was done by > the Foundation (which didn't do any work at all) and Sony, entirely > neglecting the huge effort done by many individuals. > > I get you can't be expected to figure out all the people who ever done > any major contribution to Gentoo. However, that's no excuse to skip > the process entirely and just put your employer there. > I did not realize that williamh is on Sony's payroll. For all the talk of conflicts of interest I've seen regarding comrel decisions (where there is no financial conflict of interest as just about every company on the planet recognizes), I sincerely hope that williamh intends to recuse himself from this matter as he has an obvious financial conflict of interest here. Ditto for any other employees of companies that wish to be acknowledged in our copyright notices. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On 27.11.2018 15:23, William Hubbs wrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:15:08PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 14:07 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > I just picked a random msg to reply to on the thread. > > Here is the updated AUTHORS file I would like to commit. > You should include at least all current developers with commit access. Because otherwise, this really looks like all Gentoo work was done by the Foundation (which didn't do any work at all) and Sony, entirely neglecting the huge effort done by many individuals. No, that is definitely not the case. all devs aren't required to be listed; only those who want to be [1]. There is no way to contact everyone and see who wants to be listed, if someone wants to be listed they can let us know. William [1] https://opensource.google.com/docs/releasing/authors/ I think an AUTHORS file is very much a less than ideal solution. To point out the absurdity, please include me - It'll be nice to see only 3 names in the AUTHORS file with mine being first (hooray for alphabetical order!) Thanks, ~Craig signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:23 PM William Hubbs wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:15:08PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 14:07 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > > > All, > > > I just picked a random msg to reply to on the thread. > > > > > > Here is the updated AUTHORS file I would like to commit. > > > > > > > You should include at least all current developers with commit access. > > Because otherwise, this really looks like all Gentoo work was done by > > the Foundation (which didn't do any work at all) and Sony, entirely > > neglecting the huge effort done by many individuals. > > No, that is definitely not the case. all devs aren't required to be > listed; only those who want to be [1]. > Uh, I'll see your [1] (a random non-Gentoo website) and raise you the ACTUAL Gentoo policy on the matter [2]. If that policy is inappropriate you might want to revise it. > There is no way to contact everyone and see who wants to be listed, if > someone wants to be listed they can let us know. > > [1] https://opensource.google.com/docs/releasing/authors/ [2] https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0076.html#simplified-attribution -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 15:29 -0500, Craig Andrews wrote: > On 27.11.2018 15:23, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:15:08PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 14:07 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > All, > > > > I just picked a random msg to reply to on the thread. > > > > > > > > Here is the updated AUTHORS file I would like to commit. > > > > > > > > > > You should include at least all current developers with commit access. > > > Because otherwise, this really looks like all Gentoo work was done by > > > the Foundation (which didn't do any work at all) and Sony, entirely > > > neglecting the huge effort done by many individuals. > > > > No, that is definitely not the case. all devs aren't required to be > > listed; only those who want to be [1]. > > > > There is no way to contact everyone and see who wants to be listed, if > > someone wants to be listed they can let us know. > > > > William > > > > [1] https://opensource.google.com/docs/releasing/authors/ > > I think an AUTHORS file is very much a less than ideal solution. > > To point out the absurdity, please include me - It'll be nice to see > only 3 names in the AUTHORS file with mine being first (hooray for > alphabetical order!) > Please don't forget we're talking about Gentoo, so brace for 2 weeks of bikeshedding over whether first or last name should come first. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 15:10:36 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > Also, GLEP 76 as it is written says: "Projects using this scheme must > track authorship in a VCS, unless they list all authors of > copyrightable contributions in an AUTHORS file." Idea: How about using VCS as a defacto set of AUTHORS, but *also* support an AUTHORS file that is designed to extend the content that git provides generically. That way you can just say something like: "if the name appears naturally in git shortlog, you don't need to add anything to the AUTHORS file" And then git2rsync conversion can unify the two input sources. nb: generating the AUTHORS file from git is naturally very time consuming, as it requires full traversal of the entire repository. However, there are practical ways of caching this (eg: generate it, record the SHA1 it was generated at, then, next time, simply traverse the subrange between HEAD and SHA1-last and update the cache based on that). But that very much puts this in the realm of "things that are painful for end consumers to actually do themselves" pgpTMI44cFDwv.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:34 PM Michał Górny wrote: > > Please don't forget we're talking about Gentoo, so brace for 2 weeks of > bikeshedding over whether first or last name should come first. > Thank goodness there isn't a Mike Gordon on the rolls or we could discuss the intricacies of UTF-8 ordinality. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 12:51:00 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > As others have pointed out, it seems like other projects are moving > away from AUTHORS files in favor of git. "Other projects" don't typically have repos so large that a simple application of a git filter-branch could take weeks. That git manages not to die every day based on what we throw at it is frankly a miracle of engineering. pgpmcqchjQnqL.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:42 PM Kent Fredric wrote: > > That git manages not to die every day based on what we throw at it is > frankly a miracle of engineering. Our repo is a linked list being constantly manipulated from the head backed by a hashed object store for the contents. For that use case it is probably the ideal data structure. Since our use case is actually the typical use case, it isn't a surprise that this was the design that was chosen... :) Computers are pretty fast when you actually use the correct algorithm... -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 16:01:15 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > Our repo is a linked list being constantly manipulated from the head > backed by a hashed object store for the contents. For that use case > it is probably the ideal data structure. Since our use case is > actually the typical use case, it isn't a surprise that this was the > design that was chosen... :) > > Computers are pretty fast when you actually use the correct algorithm... There's more to it than that. If that was all it was, then imagine if it wasn't for all the compression and differencing tricks. The raw size of an uncompressed verbatim, undifferential repository for Gentoo would be phenomenal. As it is, its fortunate we don't do a lot of things that *need* raw access to non-tip commits, because doing so becomes very exhausting. And were it not for its compression techniques and the fact our use of Portage results in a vast number of highly-self-similar entries, then we'd likely be slaughtered by disk IO alone, regardless of the linked list approach. Just don't try using filter branch on a whole gentoo repository, you'll quickly learn why. ( You'll find yourself having to employ lots of tricks with git fast-export instead just to avoid projected times in weeks ) pgpVvTL7xdHAp.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 10:11:32 +1300 Kent Fredric wrote: > Just don't try using filter branch on a whole gentoo repository, you'll > quickly learn why. ( You'll find yourself having to employ lots of > tricks with git fast-export instead just to avoid projected times in > weeks ) Hah. Fun fact. Right now, `git fast-export | wc -c` emits 1402067937 Which is 1337 Mb. Such juxtaposition. pgpzmiEnU04xK.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:11 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 2:58 PM Matt Turner wrote:
> >
> > What Copyright-owner header are you talking about?
>
> We would create one, just as we've created bugzilla tags in git for
> closing bugs/etc. Surely putting one line in a commit is no more
> difficult than putting one file in a repository? Indeed anybody can
> start sticking such a tag in commits today without any involvement
> from anybody else.
>
> > You've been the
> > most outspoken opponent of using what appears to be the standard
> > attribution form specified in GLEP-76
>
> When have I been opposed to anything in GLEP 76? I'll admit that I
Now what I said. You've been the most outspoken opponent of using the
standard attribution format specified in GLEP-76. You know, the one
that says
Copyright YEARS MAIN-CONTRIBUTOR [OTHER-CONTRIBUTOR]... [and others]
and would suggest that it's allowable for Sony's name to be listed as
the MAIN-CONTRIBUTOR instead of Gentoo Authors.
> don't 100% agree with everything in there, but I'm fine with following
> the GLEP as it is written. Multi-line copyright notices aren't in
> there, and the intent was never to be accumulating copyright holders
> on the single notice line. An authors file was a compromise I wasn't
> a huge fan of, but I'm suggesting that if we have one it ought to be
> auto-generated (presumably with the work being done by somebody who
> actually wants the file to be there).
>
> Also, GLEP 76 as it is written says: "Projects using this scheme must
> track authorship in a VCS, unless they list all authors of
> copyrightable contributions in an AUTHORS file."
>
> So, a VCS is the PREFERRED way of doing it. The alternative is
> listing ALL authors in the authors file. Right now it seems like
> people are advocating for only listing some authors.
Let's not pretend that the authors of the GLEP (you're listed first,
by the way!) foresaw these issues (and rather obvious ones at that, I
might add). I'm already having to communicate the authors' intentions
and how they're different from what regular folks would think after
reading the GLEP (see:
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/10481#issuecomment-442175181)
So let's satisfy everyone and be done with it: Let's put AUTHORS in
Git with a section header that states that these Copyright holders are
not obvious from the git history. This is where Sony would go. Then
let's append the output of "git log --format='%aN <%aE>" during
metadata generation or whenever stuff like that gets expanded. That
output is currently 36k FWIW.
Or, I don't know. Come up with something better and continue
bikeshedding. I won't.
> > I know mailing list debates are your personal pastime but this is a
> > real wasteoftime.
>
> You're the one advocating for changing the status quo. I'm happy if
> we drop the whole topic entirely. You certainly can't point fingers
> at others when you're proposing doing something differently. We
> wouldn't be having this discussion if some contributors were unwilling
> to contribute under our current standards.
At what point would you say maybe gentoo-{dev,proj}@ has heard enough
of me for a while? I'd wager that you have an order of magnitude more
emails to these lists this calendar year than commits to gentoo.git. I
see 20 commits and I'm not going to try count all your messages.
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 4:50 PM Matt Turner wrote: > > Or, I don't know. Come up with something better and continue > bikeshedding. I won't. > I think antarus already came up with something better - let Sony explain its thinking, rather than trying to guess at what they're trying to accomplish and whether it is something we want to support or not. Or just stick with what we've already been doing for the last 15 years, which is completely compatible with the new GLEP. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 16:01 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:42 PM Kent Fredric wrote: > > > > That git manages not to die every day based on what we throw at it is > > frankly a miracle of engineering. > > Our repo is a linked list being constantly manipulated from the head > backed by a hashed object store for the contents. For that use case > it is probably the ideal data structure. Since our use case is > actually the typical use case, it isn't a surprise that this was the > design that was chosen... :) > > Computers are pretty fast when you actually use the correct algorithm... > Yes, computers are fast and their work is cheap. On the other hand, humans are not fast and their time is expensive. Now use the power of human thinking to infer this to what you're doing to this thread. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] AUTHORS file for portage repository
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:49 PM Michał Górny wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 16:01 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:42 PM Kent Fredric wrote: > > > > > > That git manages not to die every day based on what we throw at it is > > > frankly a miracle of engineering. > > > > Our repo is a linked list being constantly manipulated from the head > > backed by a hashed object store for the contents. For that use case > > it is probably the ideal data structure. Since our use case is > > actually the typical use case, it isn't a surprise that this was the > > design that was chosen... :) > > > > Computers are pretty fast when you actually use the correct algorithm... > > > > Yes, computers are fast and their work is cheap. On the other hand, > humans are not fast and their time is expensive. Now use the power of > human thinking to infer this to what you're doing to this thread. > Not wasting everybody's time with personal attacks? -- Rich
