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 11-01-2010, 04:33 PM
Fabian Groffen
 
Default EAPI versioning of files in profiles

On 01-11-2010 18:06:19 +0100, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> I would like to suggest improvement in handling of EAPI in profiles:
> Some files could optionally end with ":${EAPI}", which would be used to specify, which EAPI

Please don't use ':', neither any other special characters. It's likely
to give problems with filesystems, and much more, such as scripts
looking at grep's output for instance.


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
 
Old 11-01-2010, 04:44 PM
Roy Bamford
 
Default EAPI versioning of files in profiles

On 2010.11.01 17:06, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> I would like to suggest improvement in handling of EAPI in profiles:
> Some files could optionally end with ":${EAPI}",

[snip]
>
> --
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
>

Why does this remind me of GLEP55 ?

If we are going to add metadata like this, or some other way, lets make
it consistent throughout the tree.

--
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees
 
Old 11-03-2010, 04:18 AM
Zac Medico
 
Default EAPI versioning of files in profiles

On 11/01/2010 10:06 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> I would like to suggest improvement in handling of EAPI in profiles:
> Some files could optionally end with ":${EAPI}", which would be used to specify, which EAPI
> should be used for parsing of given file. It would concern at least the following files:
> package.mask
> package.use
> use.force
> use.mask
> package.use.force
> package.use.mask
> And maybe also use.unsatisfiable and package.use.unsatisfiable.
>
> Examples:
> profiles/package.mask:5 could be used to mask dependency atoms with "-scm" or "-live" suffix
> (if EAPI="5" supports this suffix).
>
> profiles/base/use.mask:4 could be used to mask USE flags (which use EAPI="4"-specific syntax)
> on all profiles inheriting from base profile.
>
> Without support for EAPI-versioned files, such actions from above examples might require copying
> of whole tree of profiles, adding eapi file to new profiles etc.
>
> eapi files would still be used to specify EAPI for EAPI-unversioned files in given profiles.
>

When you need to use a new EAPI, why not just create a sub-profile that
uses the existing 'eapi' file support? For example, you could create
10.1 profiles that inherit from the 10.0 profiles, and put anything
requiring the new EAPI in the 10.1 sub-profiles.
--
Thanks,
Zac
 
Old 11-15-2010, 05:23 PM
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
 
Default EAPI versioning of files in profiles

2010-11-03 06:18:01 Zac Medico napisał(a):
> When you need to use a new EAPI, why not just create a sub-profile that
> uses the existing 'eapi' file support? For example, you could create
> 10.1 profiles that inherit from the 10.0 profiles, and put anything
> requiring the new EAPI in the 10.1 sub-profiles.

Your suggestion would require that hundreds of packages are manually masked in base profile
and unmasked in this new subprofile.
E.g. it is planned that dev-python/setuptools will have "python_abis_2.5-jython" USE flag.
This flag should be masked on architectures, which don't support Java/Jython. use.mask and
package.use.mask files in base profile don't support such a USE flag, so dev-python/setuptools
and all its (at least indirect) reverse dependencies would have to be masked in base profile.

If a future EAPI allows a new character in package names, then my suggestion would allow to
handle such packages.

--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
 
Old 11-15-2010, 05:32 PM
Zac Medico
 
Default EAPI versioning of files in profiles

On 11/15/2010 10:23 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2010-11-03 06:18:01 Zac Medico napisał(a):
>> When you need to use a new EAPI, why not just create a sub-profile that
>> uses the existing 'eapi' file support? For example, you could create
>> 10.1 profiles that inherit from the 10.0 profiles, and put anything
>> requiring the new EAPI in the 10.1 sub-profiles.
>
> Your suggestion would require that hundreds of packages are manually masked in base profile
> and unmasked in this new subprofile.
> E.g. it is planned that dev-python/setuptools will have "python_abis_2.5-jython" USE flag.
> This flag should be masked on architectures, which don't support Java/Jython. use.mask and
> package.use.mask files in base profile don't support such a USE flag, so dev-python/setuptools
> and all its (at least indirect) reverse dependencies would have to be masked in base profile.

Why would they have to be masked, just to make repoman happy?
Alternatively, we could simply deprecate the older profile and remove it
from profiles.desc so that repoman doesn't check it anymore. It's
desirable to remove old profiles from profiles.desc anyway, since we
don't want them to slow down repoman.

As for older package managers, the ebuilds with newer EAPIs are already
automatically masked, so repoman is the only reason I can imagine that
you'd want to mask them.

> If a future EAPI allows a new character in package names, then my suggestion would allow to
> handle such packages.
>


--
Thanks,
Zac
 
Old 11-15-2010, 05:40 PM
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
 
Default EAPI versioning of files in profiles

Some updates to my suggestion:
- Files would optionally end with "-${EAPI}" suffix.
- The following files would be affected:
package.mask
package.unmask
package.keywords
package.accept_keywords
package.use
package.provided
use.force
use.mask
use.unsatisfiable
package.use.force
package.use.mask
package.use.unsatisfiable
packages
virtuals

(Some of these files aren't documented in PMS.)

I would like to suggest that this feature be included in EAPI="4".
I have a patch, which implements this feature in Portage.

--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
 
Old 11-15-2010, 06:01 PM
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
 
Default EAPI versioning of files in profiles

2010-11-15 19:32:28 Zac Medico napisał(a):
> On 11/15/2010 10:23 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > 2010-11-03 06:18:01 Zac Medico napisał(a):
> >> When you need to use a new EAPI, why not just create a sub-profile that
> >> uses the existing 'eapi' file support? For example, you could create
> >> 10.1 profiles that inherit from the 10.0 profiles, and put anything
> >> requiring the new EAPI in the 10.1 sub-profiles.
> >
> > Your suggestion would require that hundreds of packages are manually masked in base profile
> > and unmasked in this new subprofile.
> > E.g. it is planned that dev-python/setuptools will have "python_abis_2.5-jython" USE flag.
> > This flag should be masked on architectures, which don't support Java/Jython. use.mask and
> > package.use.mask files in base profile don't support such a USE flag, so dev-python/setuptools
> > and all its (at least indirect) reverse dependencies would have to be masked in base profile.
>
> Why would they have to be masked, just to make repoman happy?

Yes.

> Alternatively, we could simply deprecate the older profile and remove it
> from profiles.desc so that repoman doesn't check it anymore. It's
> desirable to remove old profiles from profiles.desc anyway, since we
> don't want them to slow down repoman.

The advantage of my suggestion is that it's fully backward compatible and doesn't require such
changes in profiles.desc.

--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
 
Old 11-15-2010, 10:41 PM
Alex Alexander
 
Default EAPI versioning of files in profiles

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 07:40:44PM +0100, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> Some updates to my suggestion:
> - Files would optionally end with "-${EAPI}" suffix.
> - The following files would be affected:
> package.mask
> package.unmask
> package.keywords
> package.accept_keywords
> package.use
> package.provided
> use.force
> use.mask
> use.unsatisfiable
> package.use.force
> package.use.mask
> package.use.unsatisfiable
> packages
> virtuals
>
> (Some of these files aren't documented in PMS.)
>
> I would like to suggest that this feature be included in EAPI="4".
> I have a patch, which implements this feature in Portage.

The council has already decided that a filename suffix is not a
desirable way to fix issues like this.

We really need another solution..
--
Alex Alexander | wired
+ Gentoo Linux Developer
++ www.linuxized.com
 
Old 11-28-2010, 05:07 PM
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
 
Default EAPI versioning of files in profiles

2010-11-16 00:41:35 Alex Alexander napisał(a):
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 07:40:44PM +0100, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > Some updates to my suggestion:
> > - Files would optionally end with "-${EAPI}" suffix.
> > - The following files would be affected:
> > package.mask
> > package.unmask
> > package.keywords
> > package.accept_keywords
> > package.use
> > package.provided
> > use.force
> > use.mask
> > use.unsatisfiable
> > package.use.force
> > package.use.mask
> > package.use.unsatisfiable
> > packages
> > virtuals
> >
> > (Some of these files aren't documented in PMS.)
> >
> > I would like to suggest that this feature be included in EAPI="4".
> > I have a patch, which implements this feature in Portage.
>
> The council has already decided that a filename suffix is not a
> desirable way to fix issues like this.

GLEP 55 changes established filename extension, while my proposition affects files,
which don't have any common extension.

--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:10 AM.

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