On Monday 30 of December 2019 22:43:06 E. Liddell wrote: > 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. > You are now a Contributors team member - welcome :) > (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.) > Good question. I don't recall that in Gitea there is any setting for it. > > > 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 > Thank you, now I understand better. This means there is no need to create a branch. It also means that tde-packaging-gentoo will not be part of the 'tde' tree on r14.0.x branch. Is there also a convention for preliminary packages? For example, as on Debian "~preXX", or on FreeBSD "+pXX"? > > > 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). > I'm afraid we're not careful here. For example, in the master branch, the TQt1 and TQt2 compatibility functions (which never existed as TQt) have been removed, but we still did not change the internal version number. > > > 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. > Yes, it probably can be left for later. We'll see if Chris devoted himself to it :) > > > 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/15056 >2b89b645c402f1bb837a09f8b84bf6e49ec > > 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. > For deb packages, we have upgraded the libart-lgpl package version number to the TDE version number. But it is true that we probably did not increase the internal version number of the library. > E. Liddell > Cheers -- Sl�vek