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 12-03-2010, 07:54 PM
Cyprien Nicolas
 
Default eclass review for Gnome 2.32 and waf ebuilds

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 21:25, Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Please also find in these patches a proposal of a waf-utils eclass in
> order to put waf related build management into an eclass. There is a
> couple of ebuilds already in tree all doing things on their own and I
> had a prototype laying around that I had to complete in order to have
> hamster-applet-2.32.

I took a look at the src_compile function from the proposed
waf-utils.eclass, and the sed expression you use is not correct, if
your objective is to filter everything but the -j/--jobs part of the
MAKEOPTS variable.
My current setting is MAKEOPTS="--jobs=3 --load-average=3.5", and it
is left unchanged by the current sed expression.

I had a issue with waf, with that MAKEOPTS thing [1]
Maybe you could take the expression referred in comment #3 [1], as
Samuli did, or maybe someone else have a better proposition.

1 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=335119

--
Cyprien Nicolas
Gentoo Lisp Project contributor
Fulax on #gentoo-lisp
 
Old 12-03-2010, 09:25 PM
Gilles Dartiguelongue
 
Default eclass review for Gnome 2.32 and waf ebuilds

Le vendredi 03 décembre 2010 à 21:54 +0100, Cyprien Nicolas a écrit :
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 21:25, Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Please also find in these patches a proposal of a waf-utils eclass in
> > order to put waf related build management into an eclass. There is a
> > couple of ebuilds already in tree all doing things on their own and I
> > had a prototype laying around that I had to complete in order to have
> > hamster-applet-2.32.
>
> I took a look at the src_compile function from the proposed
> waf-utils.eclass, and the sed expression you use is not correct, if
> your objective is to filter everything but the -j/--jobs part of the
> MAKEOPTS variable.
> My current setting is MAKEOPTS="--jobs=3 --load-average=3.5", and it
> is left unchanged by the current sed expression.
>
> I had a issue with waf, with that MAKEOPTS thing [1]
> Maybe you could take the expression referred in comment #3 [1], as
> Samuli did, or maybe someone else have a better proposition.
>
> 1 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=335119
>

The sed expression in the proposed eclass is indeed too weak, I'll look
after the one in this bug.
--
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org>
Gentoo
 
Old 12-04-2010, 12:46 AM
Ryan Hill
 
Default eclass review for Gnome 2.32 and waf ebuilds

On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 23:25:21 +0100
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Le vendredi 03 décembre 2010 à 21:54 +0100, Cyprien Nicolas a écrit :
> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 21:25, Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > Please also find in these patches a proposal of a waf-utils eclass in
> > > order to put waf related build management into an eclass. There is a
> > > couple of ebuilds already in tree all doing things on their own and I
> > > had a prototype laying around that I had to complete in order to have
> > > hamster-applet-2.32.
> >
> > I took a look at the src_compile function from the proposed
> > waf-utils.eclass, and the sed expression you use is not correct, if
> > your objective is to filter everything but the -j/--jobs part of the
> > MAKEOPTS variable.
> > My current setting is MAKEOPTS="--jobs=3 --load-average=3.5", and it
> > is left unchanged by the current sed expression.
> >
> > I had a issue with waf, with that MAKEOPTS thing [1]
> > Maybe you could take the expression referred in comment #3 [1], as
> > Samuli did, or maybe someone else have a better proposition.
> >
> > 1 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=335119
> >
>
> The sed expression in the proposed eclass is indeed too weak, I'll look
> after the one in this bug.

This has come up enough times that we should write some common code.

--
fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense
toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime
@ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
 
Old 12-04-2010, 01:29 AM
Diego Elio Pettenò
 
Default eclass review for Gnome 2.32 and waf ebuilds

Il giorno ven, 03/12/2010 alle 19.46 -0600, Ryan Hill ha scritto:
>
> This has come up enough times that we should write some common code.

Or resume the idea to simply provide a separate variable for
number-of-jobs rather than relying purely on MAKEOPTS.

--
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/
 
Old 12-04-2010, 04:02 AM
Ryan Hill
 
Default eclass review for Gnome 2.32 and waf ebuilds

On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 03:29:45 +0100
Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@gmail.com> wrote:

> Il giorno ven, 03/12/2010 alle 19.46 -0600, Ryan Hill ha scritto:
> >
> > This has come up enough times that we should write some common code.
>
> Or resume the idea to simply provide a separate variable for
> number-of-jobs rather than relying purely on MAKEOPTS.

That's not a bad idea, but I think we'd still need to fall back to MAKEOPTS
parsing if that variable was not set.

--
fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense
toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime
@ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
 
Old 12-04-2010, 07:32 AM
Michał Górny
 
Default eclass review for Gnome 2.32 and waf ebuilds

On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 19:46:37 -0600
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 23:25:21 +0100
> Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > Le vendredi 03 décembre 2010 Ã* 21:54 +0100, Cyprien Nicolas a
> > écrit :
> > > I had a issue with waf, with that MAKEOPTS thing [1]
> > > Maybe you could take the expression referred in comment #3 [1], as
> > > Samuli did, or maybe someone else have a better proposition.
> > >
> > > 1 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=335119
> >
> > The sed expression in the proposed eclass is indeed too weak, I'll
> > look after the one in this bug.
>
> This has come up enough times that we should write some common code.

Well, if we're to commonize out some code, I'd suggest starting with
scons_clean_makeopts() from scons-utils.eclass -- it's pretty *readable*
and working variant of MAKEOPTS cleaning, in pure bash.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
 
Old 12-04-2010, 09:17 AM
Cyprien Nicolas
 
Default eclass review for Gnome 2.32 and waf ebuilds

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 06:02, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 03:29:45 +0100
> Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Il giorno ven, 03/12/2010 alle 19.46 -0600, Ryan Hill ha scritto:
>> >
>> > This has come up enough times that we should write some common code.
>>
>> Or resume the idea to simply provide a separate variable for
>> number-of-jobs rather than relying purely on MAKEOPTS.
>
> That's not a bad idea, but I think we'd still need to fall back to MAKEOPTS
> parsing if that variable was not set.

This has been discussed here two years ago, to the day. But
unfortunately the discussion didn't when to a decision [1].
I filled a QA tracker bug [2] to summarize the proposed solutions, and
re-open the discussion.
In my opinion, just filtering out the --load-average option, and
keeping the --jobs value is *bad*, as I putted it with serious reasons
(detailed in the tracker). So I wonder if I can have a setting saying
"if that build system cannot adapt to the current load, then I want a
--jobs value of 1, or 2, but not 4"?
As having SCONSOPTS WAFOPTS ANTOPTS CMAKEOPTS and so on variables is a
ugly solution, and would require a lot of eclasses to be changed, I
chose the fallback of having a empty MAKEOPTS, and to rely on
portage's --jobs and --load-average options.

1 http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_750e33f68b16d971dff1f40dd9145e56.xml
2 https://bugs.gentoo.org/337831

--
Cyprien Nicolas
Gentoo Lisp Project contributor
Fulax on #gentoo-lisp
 
Old 12-05-2010, 10:48 AM
Gilles Dartiguelongue
 
Default eclass review for Gnome 2.32 and waf ebuilds

Le samedi 04 décembre 2010 Ã* 09:32 +0100, Michał Górny a écrit :
>
> Well, if we're to commonize out some code, I'd suggest starting with
> scons_clean_makeopts() from scons-utils.eclass -- it's pretty
> *readable*
> and working variant of MAKEOPTS cleaning, in pure bash.

maybe it should be moved to eutils or some similar eclass then ?
--
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org>
Gentoo
 
Old 12-07-2010, 05:47 AM
Gilles Dartiguelongue
 
Default eclass review for Gnome 2.32 and waf ebuilds

Le samedi 04 décembre 2010 Ã* 09:32 +0100, Michał Górny a écrit :
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 19:46:37 -0600
> Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 23:25:21 +0100
> > Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Le vendredi 03 décembre 2010 Ã* 21:54 +0100, Cyprien Nicolas a
> > > écrit :
> > > > I had a issue with waf, with that MAKEOPTS thing [1]
> > > > Maybe you could take the expression referred in comment #3 [1], as
> > > > Samuli did, or maybe someone else have a better proposition.
> > > >
> > > > 1 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=335119
> > >
> > > The sed expression in the proposed eclass is indeed too weak, I'll
> > > look after the one in this bug.
> >
> > This has come up enough times that we should write some common code.
>
> Well, if we're to commonize out some code, I'd suggest starting with
> scons_clean_makeopts() from scons-utils.eclass -- it's pretty *readable*
> and working variant of MAKEOPTS cleaning, in pure bash.
>

For the record, I chose using the same expression than the one in
perl-module eclass since the waf can only make use of -j and -k options
for the time being as far as my search goes.

Anyway, if any waf using maintainer wants to help maintaining the
eclass, feel free to add yourself to eclass headers, gnome is only there
because we need it for hamster-applet for now.

--
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org>
Gentoo
 
Old 12-07-2010, 07:46 AM
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
 
Default eclass review for Gnome 2.32 and waf ebuilds

Why does waf-utils_pkg_setup() call 'python_set_active_version 2'?
What do you plan to do when there are packages using waf and supporting Python 3?

http://code.google.com/p/waf/ says:
"compatibility from Python 2.3 to 3.1 is maintained (and Jython 2.5)"

--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:33 PM.

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