Asking for permission to update packages from LINGUAS to L10N

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Asking for permission to update packages from LINGUAS to L10N

Ulrich Mueller-2
I have created tracker bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/586734 for the
LINGUAS to L10N conversion, and started to file bugs for individual
packages. (Starting with lightweight stuff like metapackages, so users
won't spend too much time with rebuilding if they don't get their L10N
configuration immediately right.)

However, it looks like filing bugs for all affected packages is going
to be tedious. Therefore I am asking for permission to update ebuilds
for the easy cases directly, e.g. when the change is only a simple
renaming from linguas_* to l10n_*.

Please speak up if you don't want your packages to be touched and
prefer bugs to be filed for them.

Ulrich

attachment0 (501 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asking for permission to update packages from LINGUAS to L10N

Daniel Campbell (zlg)
On 06/23/2016 02:04 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:

> I have created tracker bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/586734 for the
> LINGUAS to L10N conversion, and started to file bugs for individual
> packages. (Starting with lightweight stuff like metapackages, so users
> won't spend too much time with rebuilding if they don't get their L10N
> configuration immediately right.)
>
> However, it looks like filing bugs for all affected packages is going
> to be tedious. Therefore I am asking for permission to update ebuilds
> for the easy cases directly, e.g. when the change is only a simple
> renaming from linguas_* to l10n_*.
>
> Please speak up if you don't want your packages to be touched and
> prefer bugs to be filed for them.
>
> Ulrich
>
I didn't see any mention of LINGUAS in my ebuilds, but if you stumble
across one, feel free to fix it and ideally let me know, so I can take a
look and understand how it needs to be done.

--
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asking for permission to update packages from LINGUAS to L10N

NP-Hardass-2
In reply to this post by Ulrich Mueller-2
On 06/23/2016 05:04 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:

> I have created tracker bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/586734 for the
> LINGUAS to L10N conversion, and started to file bugs for individual
> packages. (Starting with lightweight stuff like metapackages, so users
> won't spend too much time with rebuilding if they don't get their L10N
> configuration immediately right.)
>
> However, it looks like filing bugs for all affected packages is going
> to be tedious. Therefore I am asking for permission to update ebuilds
> for the easy cases directly, e.g. when the change is only a simple
> renaming from linguas_* to l10n_*.
>
> Please speak up if you don't want your packages to be touched and
> prefer bugs to be filed for them.
>
> Ulrich
>
I was going through my packages to make sure that I was compliant with
this change, and found that I was not.  The l10n eclass makes use of the
LINGUAS USE_EXPAND and isn't covered in the tracker bug.  I attempted to
read through the old thread to see if someone mentioned that eclass, but
I must have missed it if someone mentioned it.  Are we EOL'ing that
eclass, or keeping it (update or revbump)?

Looks to me like we can't edit that eclass in place, so if we are to
keep it, we should probably revbump it, update the -r1 to L10N, and add
a deprecation warning to the old eclass to help maintainers migrate over.

Any opinions?  I'd be happy work on the revbump for the eclass if we
decide to go that route.  CC'ing yngwin since it is his eclass.

--
NP-Hardass


signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asking for permission to update packages from LINGUAS to L10N

James Le Cuirot
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 16:22:24 -0400
NP-Hardass <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I was going through my packages to make sure that I was compliant with
> this change, and found that I was not.  The l10n eclass makes use of
> the LINGUAS USE_EXPAND and isn't covered in the tracker bug.  I
> attempted to read through the old thread to see if someone mentioned
> that eclass, but I must have missed it if someone mentioned it.  Are
> we EOL'ing that eclass, or keeping it (update or revbump)?

I asked mgorny about it. He said it's not his playground. I was
dealing with MakeMKV, which is an awkward one, but in the end I simply
decided to drop the flags and install all the files. I'm not sure if
using the eclass makes sense any more as it revolves around keeping the
flags up-to-date. In most cases, you're not supposed to use the flags
any more and when you are, it's for optional language packs that
require additional downloads. The eclass can't help you there.

--
James Le Cuirot (chewi)
Gentoo Linux Developer

attachment0 (970 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asking for permission to update packages from LINGUAS to L10N

Ben de Groot-2
In reply to this post by NP-Hardass-2
On 11 August 2016 at 04:22, NP-Hardass <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Looks to me like we can't edit that eclass in place, so if we are to
> keep it, we should probably revbump it, update the -r1 to L10N, and add
> a deprecation warning to the old eclass to help maintainers migrate over.
>
> Any opinions?  I'd be happy work on the revbump for the eclass if we
> decide to go that route.  CC'ing yngwin since it is his eclass.

Feel free to revbump it and change it to whatever works for current needs.

--
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Asking for permission to update packages from LINGUAS to L10N

Ulrich Mueller-2
In reply to this post by NP-Hardass-2
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, NP-Hardass  wrote:

> I was going through my packages to make sure that I was compliant with
> this change, and found that I was not.  The l10n eclass makes use of the
> LINGUAS USE_EXPAND and isn't covered in the tracker bug.  I attempted to
> read through the old thread to see if someone mentioned that eclass, but
> I must have missed it if someone mentioned it.  Are we EOL'ing that
> eclass, or keeping it (update or revbump)?

> Looks to me like we can't edit that eclass in place, so if we are to
> keep it, we should probably revbump it, update the -r1 to L10N, and add
> a deprecation warning to the old eclass to help maintainers migrate over.

> Any opinions?  I'd be happy work on the revbump for the eclass if we
> decide to go that route.  CC'ing yngwin since it is his eclass.

I briefly looked at packages inheriting l10n.eclass and it seems that
a large fraction (or even most?) of them inherit it only for the
following snippet of global scope code but don't use any of its
functions:

   # Add linguas useflags
   for u in ${PLOCALES}; do
       IUSE+=" linguas_${u}"
   done

Note that this won't be needed any more once we remove LINGUAS from
USE_EXPAND.

Apart from that, the general rule for conversion should be that
packages whose upstream build system uses LINGUAS should stay with
LINGUAS (which in the ideal case should be transparently passed to the
build system). On the other hand, any downstream conditionals, e.g. in
*DEPEND or SRC_URI, should be migrated to L10N.

Ulrich

attachment0 (501 bytes) Download Attachment