| Summary: | x11-misc/x11vnc-0.9.15 version bump | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Alex Xu (Hello71) <alex_y_xu> |
| Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | No maintainer - Look at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Proxy_Maintainers if you want to take care of it <maintainer-needed> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | bkohler, dan, flyser42, jstein, mgorny, proctors |
| Priority: | Normal | Keywords: | EBUILD, PATCH |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Bug Depends on: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 609162, 610356, 611088, 611888, 648898 | ||
| Attachments: |
x11-misc-x11vnc-bump-to-_p20161013-r1-bug-611662.patch
x11-misc/x11vnc: bump to 0.9.15, bug 611662 |
||
|
Description
Alex Xu (Hello71)
2017-03-04 01:16:54 UTC
Created attachment 465890 [details, diff]
x11-misc-x11vnc-bump-to-_p20161013-r1-bug-611662.patch
Sorry that the ticket was so long in the cue. Thank you for your contribution. I had a short look on the ebuild. Here a few ideas: * Please test the ebuild with repoman https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Repoman * KEYWORDS need ~ after a version bump run ekeyword ~all YOUREBUILD * is vcs-snapshot needed? Please assign to proxy after updating. New official release 0.9.15, we should update the ebuild for that *** Bug 648950 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Created attachment 540552 [details, diff] x11-misc/x11vnc: bump to 0.9.15, bug 611662 I'm pretty sure it was repoman clean when it was created, it only broke much later with the xorg proto move. (In reply to Alex Xu (Hello71) from comment #5) > Created attachment 540552 [details, diff] [details, diff] > x11-misc/x11vnc: bump to 0.9.15, bug 611662 What's the deal with that SRC_URI? Looks unchanged from 0.9.14_p20161013. I think you want this: SRC_URI="https://github.com/LibVNC/x11vnc/archive/0.9.15.tar.gz -> ${P}.tar.gz" Or maybe even this: SRC_URI="https://github.com/LibVNC/x11vnc/archive/${PV}.tar.gz -> ${P}.tar.gz" so the same oversight doesn't occur in future version bumps. I blame proxy-maint being apparently completely dead. (In reply to Alex Xu (Hello71) from comment #8) > I blame proxy-maint being apparently completely dead. Blame yourself for not submitting it on supported channel. (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #9) > (In reply to Alex Xu (Hello71) from comment #8) > > I blame proxy-maint being apparently completely dead. > > Blame yourself for not submitting it on supported channel. I wasn't aware that GitHub had now become the official channel for all Gentoo contributions. I guess we should shut down all Gentoo infrastructure then. And when they screw up the repo, well, tough shit. Besides, they are small $7.5 billion indie company. You think that just because it's your baby it's perfect and everybody should be forced to use it or fuck off. But let's talk facts. In 2013-03, when this bug was filed (with attached patch), Project:Proxy Maintainers looked like https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Project:Proxy_Maintainers&oldid=612108, except with a lot more redlinks at the bottom. Note that there is no mention of GitHub, but there are two mentions of using Bugzilla for adopting packages. Project:Proxy Maintainers/User Guide *didn't exist*, and wouldn't be created (by you) for another 4 months. Even today, your *own text* says that "Patch submissions via bug reports are not processed timely", not that they are "not supported", whatever that means. Moreover, you put that in *10 days ago*, which is why jstein said 10 *months* ago: (Jonas Stein from comment #2 wrote) > Please assign to proxy after updating. So, in conclusion, don't give me that crap. And don't tell me "there is mailing list", there were zero patches submitted there until 2017-08, long after this bug. To be clear, I'm not blaming jstein personally. It was many months until I responded with a new patch, and he can reasonably move on after that much time. I'm complaining about the initial 9 month wait. Your words are insulting and inappropriate for public communication media. I started reviewing your patch. While it generally looks good, it would benefit from a more verbose comment w.r.t. the "threads" and "zlib" USE flags. They looked spurious until I looked at libvncserver's code and understood that the point was to ensure a x11vnc rebuild if threads or zblic USE flags changed in libvncserver. Bug 609162 doesn't explain this clearly either. Will continue review (and probably merge) soon. As Matt wrote in comment 6, SRC_URI is wrong, please update. We also can probably drop vcs-snapshot. Also, while you're at it, please address my remark at comment 13. (In reply to Virgil Dupras from comment #13) > I started reviewing your patch. While it generally looks good, it would > benefit from a more verbose comment w.r.t. the "threads" and "zlib" USE > flags. They looked spurious until I looked at libvncserver's code and > understood that the point was to ensure a x11vnc rebuild if threads or zblic > USE flags changed in libvncserver. > > Bug 609162 doesn't explain this clearly either. > > Will continue review (and probably merge) soon. Thank you for reviewing. At this point I'm not *totally* sure why I put those in. I'm pretty sure your explanation makes sense though. I'll fix the SRC_URI and look at vcs-snapshot some time. Hopefully it won't take me half a year this time. Thanks again. |
