On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 10:02:24 +0100 Sl�vek Banko <slavek.banko@...> wrote: > On Friday 27 of December 2019 14:39:02 E. Liddell wrote: > > > > Looks like the copy is all that's there right now. I'll have to reread > > some documentation, since I mostly use mercurial rather than git, and > > register myself with the current system. > > > > Michele has already sent a link to the TGW information. Once you have an > account, we will join you in the Contributors team. This will allow you to > create pull-requests. Later we will join you in the Packagers team. Then > you will be able to push the commits directly into the main branches. Okay, I registered. Account name eliddell, since I can't be bothered to be creative. (A note: Is there some way to make the registration page show what the password complexity requirements are, if you must have them at all? Counterintuitively, requirements like that actually make passwords slightly easier to crack when you have a tech-savvy userbase, because they reduce the number of possible passwords.) > > Currently, I have tqt, tqt-interface, and dbus-1-tqt more-or-less > > working. I'll see about getting this into source control once I've fixed > > the msg2tqm thing (if I can) and have tdelibs working. > > > As you can see in tde-packaging for deb packages, it is recommended that > you manage to keep the code consistent between master and r14.0.x (stable) > branch. Usually we use cherry-pick from master branch to r14.0.x branch. > > Therefore, it will be good to align your plans so that the intended goals > work for both branches. It is clear that this will require more discussion > than comments on pull-request :) Normally, Gentoo uses one ebuild file per package version, and they're all held in one directory together. For instance, if we had a working overlay at this time, the directory for tdelibs would contain tdelibs-14.0.6.ebuild, tdelibs-14.0.7.ebuild, and tdelibs-9999.ebuild (by Gentoo convention, a "live" ebuild that pulls from source control rather than a prepackaged release is always version 9999). That's the direction I'm trying to head in. If version 14.0.8 came out, I'd then copy tdelibs-14.0.7.ebuild to tdelibs-14.0.8.ebuild, then build and test the package to make certain that the ebuild didn't need to be modified. If version 14.1.0 came out, I'd copy tdelibs-9999.ebuild to tdelibs-14.1.0.ebuild, fix the KEYWORDS variable, and build, test, etc. How does the package manager know whether or not to install tdelibs-9999 if I ask for an update? That's what KEYWORDS is for. Release versions would be keyworded ~amd64 (non-stable keyword for x86_64 systems) and possibly ~arm (non-stable 32-bit ARM, like the Raspberry Pi) and/or ~x86 (non-stable 32-bit Intel x86) depending on how much testing I have the energy for. (As for stable keywords, they're not supposed to be issued by anyone other than official Gentoo devs or QA.) 9999 versions carry no keywords at all (again, this is Gentoo convention) and have to be unmasked specifically. It's generally understood that software with no keywords may fail to build, exhibit random runtime failures, turn your cat into a toaster, etc. (Gentoo's onetime reputation for being bleeding-edge came about for a reason.) Splitting all of this into "master" and "stable" branches only means that the people pulling the "stable" branch might get stale/broken/no 9999 ebuilds. It just isn't supposed to work like that. If you'd like a sample of how this kind of thing looks in practice, here's poppler in the official Gentoo ebuild repository, with three release ebuilds and one live ebuild: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/tree/app-text/poppler > > > > What is the actual version number of tqt? Of tqtinterface? > > > > Historically, these followed a different version scheme from the > > > > main desktop, but that seems to have changed. Currently, I'm dealing > > > > with the version numbers, certain directory and file names, and a > > > > Gentoo SLOT (mechanism for tracking multiple versions of the same > > > > package installed in parallel) inconsistently, and I would like to > > > > clean things up. > > > > > > Here are two numbers - the git repository versions and packages follow > > > the TDE version numbering as a whole. However, the internal version > > > number of the library is now 3.5.0. For deb packages, the package > > > version is now 14.0.7, where the so library version inside the package > > > is 3.5.0. > > > > Ugh. That's messy. Especially since the source releases only place the > > 14.x.y package version in the filename, which means that the ebuild > > needs to know that number *anyway*, even though it's technically > > irrelevant. > > > > I think I'm going to leave it as-is, with directory=tqt3, SLOT=3 > > (SLOT=3.5.0? I'll have to see if that's allowed), but ebuild version > > 14.x.y. It may lead to some people updating that package unnecessarily, > > but it won't actually break anything. > > It's not as crazy as it may seem. TQt simply has a version that complies > with the TDE itself. So in stable branch it is now 14.0.7. That's why the > package version is 14.0.7 - I suppose you can use it for Gentoo anyway. > > Libraries themselves have an internal version number determined by API / > ABI changes and backward compatibility. Therefore, it is not unusual for > individual libraries to have internal version numbers different from the > package version itself. For example, you can see libtqt-mt.so.3.5.0 and > libtqui.so.1.0.0 side by side in the same package. Regardless of the fact > that the version number of the package as a whole is 14.0.7. The idea here is to keep people from having to download and compile tqt3-trinity-14.0.8.tar.xz if tqt3-trinity-14.0.7.tar.xz is already installed and provides the same code. Depending on the SLOT rather than the package version should work for this, but I have to make sure I know when to change the SLOT (it has to reflect API and ABI). > > > > What, exactly, are msg2qm and qembed? The ebuild I inherited for > > > > tqt builds them separately, with comments reading "# Make the > > > > msg2qm[/qembed] utility (not made by default)", and furthermore the > > > > build mechanism is currently broken. I need to know whether or not > > > > fixing it is worth the effort. Are these utilities used for > > > > building and/or running anything? > > > > > > msg2tqm (tqembed) is a tool for converting data, such as images, into > > > C++ code that can be embedded as part of a binary. Unfortunately, I do > > > not remember whether / where this tool is actually used. However, for > > > deb packages it is also built as part of TQt. > > > > I'd probably better try to sort it out, then. At a guess, it's probably > > used for some simple icon graphics somewhere. > > > I found several files in the source code that were generated by qembed. > However, apparently at present there is nothing to use tqembed during > build. In that case, I'll do an about-face and wait and see if anything blows up. > > libart-lgpl is still in the main Gentoo tree, and TDE seems to > > work fine with that version, so I'm removing it as well. > > > The version of libart-lgpl in the TDE repository contains bug fixes - as > far as I remember, it was the solution to some crashes. I can only see one relevant commit, back in 2011: https://mirror.git.trinitydesktop.org/gitea/TDE/libart-lgpl/commit/150562b89b645c402f1bb837a09f8b84bf6e49ec The rest seems to be CMake conversion, tweaks to informational files, and similar. In theory, I could try to submit the patches back to Gentoo. In practice, I have no idea what they do (what are "a number of problems"?) or whether they'd break any of the other ten reverse dependencies of media-libs/libart_lgpl (or whether it matters, given how old some of them are). I'm not sure what the best move is here at this point. The quick-and-messy fix is to provide libart_lgpl-2.3.21-r99.ebuild to supersede the upstream libart_lgpl-2.3.21-r3.ebuild, but that's an ugly solution. E. Liddell