FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-10-2007, 06:44 AM
"Nirbheek Chauhan"
 
Default scm package version suffix

On Dec 10, 2007 12:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Feature as opposed to release branches would still have to be separate
> packages, especially if you need to depend upon a particular feature.

I don't understand how having to depend on a particular feature causes
one to need a separate package. Infact, if a branch has a new feature
that I want to test against a lot of packages, having a separate
package means I have to either || ( sys-apps/package
sys-apps/package-branch ) for all packages that I want to test it
against, or make a virtual package sys-apps/package-9999 which just
depends on sys-apps/package-branch. The former is too much work
sometimes, and the latter just brings us full circle.

Why not just have something like
sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3_p20071127-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1 ?
It should be easy to parse since it'll always be after "scm" and will
be the last portion of the version string before "-rN".
In case ${BRANCHNAME} itself ends in "-rN" (highly unlikely), the
entire version string could be made to end with "-r0" to signify that
it's revision 0 and not revision N.

Also, releases are often tagged rather than being branched out, which
would have to be kept in mind as well.

--
~Nirbheek Chauhan
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 12-10-2007, 07:24 AM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default scm package version suffix

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:14:56 +0530
"Nirbheek Chauhan" <nirbheek.chauhan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2007 12:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <ciaran.mccreesh@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > Feature as opposed to release branches would still have to be
> > separate packages, especially if you need to depend upon a
> > particular feature.
>
> I don't understand how having to depend on a particular feature causes
> one to need a separate package.

Because depending on a particular feature is a whole different kettle
of fish to having a sane alternative to -9999 or -cvs packages.

> Why not just have something like
> sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3_p20071127-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1 ?

Because it breaks deps. Simplest example: if I
block !=sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3* because of a bug (and gcc isn't an ideal
example here), I'm also blocking branches that don't have said bug.
When this is extended with long-lasting feature branches the situation
gets very very messy.

> Also, releases are often tagged rather than being branched out, which
> would have to be kept in mind as well.

No, for releases you follow the normal version mechanism.

Incidentally, I suspect the gcc example with _p is confusing people. The
normal use for an -scm suffix will be as follows:

mypkg-1.2.3
mypkg-1.2.4
mypkg-scm

Where -scm is a live ebuild that's been package.masked. However, some
packages have several active branches, so you'd get:

mypkg-1.2.3
mypkg-1.2.4
mypkg-1-scm
mypkg-2.0.1
mypkg-scm

Where -1-scm is a live ebuild for branches/1/ and -scm is a live ebuild
for trunk/. In particular, observe how 1-scm is < 2.0.1.

The whole _p thing only comes up for those very rare (or possibly
non-existent) projects that have patchset branches that are themselves
live. I highly doubt that many people will make use of anything other
than -scm or -number(.number)-scm. There's no reason to shove an -scm
suffix onto a package made from a static tarball, and the -scm suffix
does not replace existing mechanisms for indicating snapshots.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 12-10-2007, 07:26 AM
"Robin H. Johnson"
 
Default scm package version suffix

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 07:18:26AM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:31:46 -0800
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On 18:57 Sun 09 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:45:27 +0100
> > > Jan Kundr??t <jkt@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > What is the point of using version information along the scm
> > > > suffix?
> > >
> > > Branches.
> >
> > How would I handle branches that aren't numbers but are instead
> > strings, which seems to grow increasingly more common as VCSs can
> > handle it? Just give them arbitrary numbers?
> Feature as opposed to release branches would still have to be separate
> packages, especially if you need to depend upon a particular feature.
What I've got for my Xorg testing setup, is foo-9999-rX, with a number
of different -X values that I just select from via package.{un,}mask
while testing - this saves altering everything else in the tree to pick
some package that has a different name just to satisfy a branch (which
also requires lots of ${MY_PN} mockery for some packages.
You'd also need to put '!cat/pn-feat' in the base cat/pn package and
vice-versa.

Are SCM packages that heavily used that we need to support multiple
branches with dependencies between them?

There's two cases of branches I see (irrelevant of the names used):
Major version branches - eg CVS "cvs-1.11.x" and "cvs-1.12.x"
(those are the actual upstream branch names, I've seen other packages
using the branch names of 'STABLE', 'OLDSTABLE', 'FEATURE').
Feature-development branches - short-lived branches for the
development of a specific feature - eg the 'atombios-support' branch of
the xorg-video-ati driver (Heavily used in Git repos, where they are
deleted on completion).

Any more styles of branches that other folk have seen?

--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy
E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
 
Old 12-10-2007, 07:34 AM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default scm package version suffix

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:26:21 -0800
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> There's two cases of branches I see (irrelevant of the names used):
> Major version branches - eg CVS "cvs-1.11.x" and "cvs-1.12.x"
> (those are the actual upstream branch names, I've seen other packages
> using the branch names of 'STABLE', 'OLDSTABLE', 'FEATURE').

Right. These map to cvs-1.11-scm and cvs-1.12-scm (or you can use
cvs-scm to point to whatever the newest branch is -- whichever is
more convenient).

> Feature-development branches - short-lived branches for the
> development of a specific feature - eg the 'atombios-support' branch
> of the xorg-video-ati driver (Heavily used in Git repos, where they
> are deleted on completion).

And these aren't considered by the proposal. The rationale is as
follows:

If a branch is short lived (your typical git branch), there's no point
having an ebuild for it. If it's long lived, we get into the whole
"which features have been merged into which branch?" mess that can't be
solved by something as simple as version suffixes.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 12-10-2007, 07:36 AM
"Robin H. Johnson"
 
Default scm package version suffix

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 08:24:27AM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> mypkg-scm
One devil's advocate question for now.
Regardless of which suffix we pick, given that it is a well-known
suffix, what will be the expected behavior when PN = 'foo-scm'?

There's at least one package on Freshmeat with that name (vrml-scm), and
I have seen another one elsewhere when researching Git conversion tools.

--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy
E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
 
Old 12-10-2007, 07:44 AM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default scm package version suffix

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:36:04 -0800
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 08:24:27AM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > mypkg-scm
> One devil's advocate question for now.
> Regardless of which suffix we pick, given that it is a well-known
> suffix, what will be the expected behavior when PN = 'foo-scm'?

There isn't a problem. There is never any need to work out whether
something is a cat/pkg or a cat/pkg-ver (things have been carefully
designed that way -- in cases where either is valid, the -ver form
always has an operator too, and all operators require a version). You'd
simply have foo-scm-scm.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 12-10-2007, 11:59 AM
Robert Buchholz
 
Default scm package version suffix

On Monday, 10. December 2007, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> Why not just have something like
> sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3_p20071127-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1 ?

1) You cannot define a total order on those names:
Is
maa/moo-3-scm_bONECOOLFEATURE
<
maa/moo-3-scm_bOTHERCOOLFEATURE
?


2) It will break updating from the feature branch, once you installed:
sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3_p20071127-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1

and
sys-devel/gcc-4.2.4

comes out, it'll update to that, regardless of the inclusion of
${BRANCHNAME}'s feature.

Regards,
Robert
 
Old 12-10-2007, 01:24 PM
"Nirbheek Chauhan"
 
Default scm package version suffix

On Dec 10, 2007 6:29 PM, Robert Buchholz <rbu@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 1) You cannot define a total order on those names:
> Is
> maa/moo-3-scm_bONECOOLFEATURE
> <
> maa/moo-3-scm_bOTHERCOOLFEATURE
> ?

Why not have them block each other such that only one branch can be
installed at a time? There can be no concept of "upgrading" between
branches since they all have different features.

> 2) It will break updating from the feature branch, once you installed:
> sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3_p20071127-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1
>
> and
> sys-devel/gcc-4.2.4
>
> comes out, it'll update to that, regardless of the inclusion of
> ${BRANCHNAME}'s feature.

Well, first off, most cases will assume that the branch has been
merged by 4.2.4. Secondly, if the branch has not been merged, and is
continuing independent of the releases, why give it a version number
at all? Just call it sys-devel/gcc-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1

--
~Nirbheek Chauhan
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 12-10-2007, 02:14 PM
Robert Buchholz
 
Default scm package version suffix

On Monday, 10. December 2007, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2007 6:29 PM, Robert Buchholz <rbu@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 1) You cannot define a total order on those names:
> > Is
> > maa/moo-3-scm_bONECOOLFEATURE
> > <
> > maa/moo-3-scm_bOTHERCOOLFEATURE
> > ?
>
> Why not have them block each other such that only one branch can be
> installed at a time? There can be no concept of "upgrading" between
> branches since they all have different features.

That would still mean everything relies on n ebuilds with mutual blocks.
Even if that would work and it block upgrades, it is still not a
solution in terms of how to display a list of ebuilds in one tree in an
ordered list.

> > 2) It will break updating from the feature branch, once you
> > installed: sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3_p20071127-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1
> >
> > and
> > sys-devel/gcc-4.2.4
> >
> > comes out, it'll update to that, regardless of the inclusion of
> > ${BRANCHNAME}'s feature.
>
> Well, first off, most cases will assume that the branch has been
> merged by 4.2.4. Secondly, if the branch has not been merged, and is
> continuing independent of the releases, why give it a version number
> at all? Just call it sys-devel/gcc-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1

You are right. But this just shows that named feature branches do not
fit the context of this GLEP, as you usually cannot know when a feature
will be merged at the time one version is branched.


Regards,
Robert
 
Old 12-10-2007, 06:44 PM
"Nirbheek Chauhan"
 
Default scm package version suffix

On Dec 10, 2007 8:44 PM, Robert Buchholz <rbu@gentoo.org> wrote:
> That would still mean everything relies on n ebuilds with mutual blocks.
> Even if that would work and it block upgrades, it is still not a
> solution in terms of how to display a list of ebuilds in one tree in an
> ordered list.

The mutual blocks can be via the very nature of the name of the ebuild
(ie, the scm_bbranch), and not via unmaintainable dep blocks in the
ebuilds. This could be similar to the way SLOTS are handled. In fact,
as Donnie and Santiago discussed in the other "branch string" thread,
the concept of SLOTS could be extended to branches with no concept of
an "upgrade" between them, and them being mutually blocking and
perhaps blocking the actual package as well.
Of course this could be extended to apply only to branch ebuilds
without a version number (where you know when the branch will be
merged), etc.

> You are right. But this just shows that named feature branches do not
> fit the context of this GLEP, as you usually cannot know when a feature
> will be merged at the time one version is branched.

Completely removing the concept of an "upgrade" from (unversioned?)
branch ebuilds and making them block all other versions of the package
will give the task of knowing when a feature has been merged to the
user itself. Which is after all what one does manually while working
on branches.

--
~Nirbheek Chauhan
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:16 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org