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 01-25-2011, 11:13 AM
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
 
Default EAPI usage in main tree

On 1/25/11 12:20 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> I would like to upgrade tree-wide policy for EAPI usage in main tree.

I have a great idea for you.

How about creating a project (possibly a subproject of QA or something
else) that would help people do that? In case of no response from
maintainers just do your job, and that should get the tree converted
more quickly than setting a policy.

My main point is that said "X should be Y" does not automatically make
it so. We'd have to think about the migration plan anyway.

Paweł
 
Old 01-25-2011, 11:25 AM
Alex Alexander
 
Default EAPI usage in main tree

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:20:30PM +0100, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
> I would like to upgrade tree-wide policy for EAPI usage in main tree.
> Currently we say that developers can use any named version they wish or
> find sufficient.
> I would on other hand like to have all ebuilds to use Latest EAPI
> version possible (given the eclasses support it [hint hint maintainers
> of eclasses should always try to support latest :P]) with expection for
> base-system or more specialy depgraph for portage that needs to be
> EAPI0. [[ And here we need to find out some upgrade proccess that would
> work for everyone so we could somehow migrate them too ]]
>
> With this usually new developers should be aware only of latest EAPI and
> wont need to memorize what which EAPI support. Heck even I sometimes
> forget what i can do with some version and whatnot.
>
> Winner for being PITA in this race is python.eclass that HAS completely
> different behavior based on EAPI version used...

I agree with the idea, however, just creating the policy won't be
enough.

We should make repoman print a warning if an older EAPI is used, maybe
even refuse to commit (without -f), at least on version bumps, to get
the devs' attention. base-system excluded for now, obviously.

> Cheers
>
> Tomas
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk0+sf4ACgkQHB6c3gNBRYeR6wCeNKsc8LnLw3 ltkc1KKllzMP3u
> bXMAnRlbWZjGpQ7Zc2abdxtoJFKRVszS
> =lkXl
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Alex Alexander | wired
+ Gentoo Linux Developer
++ www.linuxized.com
 
Old 01-25-2011, 11:25 AM
Markos Chandras
 
Default EAPI usage in main tree

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 01:13:06PM +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 1/25/11 12:20 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> > I would like to upgrade tree-wide policy for EAPI usage in main tree.
>
> I have a great idea for you.
>
> How about creating a project (possibly a subproject of QA or something
> else) that would help people do that? In case of no response from
> maintainers just do your job, and that should get the tree converted
> more quickly than setting a policy.
Please don't! QA is way too understaffed. We ain't gonna convert any
ebuilds. This has nothing to do with QA. Let maintainers handle this
>
> My main point is that said "X should be Y" does not automatically make
> it so. We'd have to think about the migration plan anyway.
>
> Paweł
>
@Tomas, I don't follow. You mean migrate existing ebuilds or use the
latest EAPI from now on?

Regards,
--
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Key ID: B4AFF2C2
Key FP: 660A 0742 84EC 26F1 9EDB F00A FA83 5A15 B4AF F2C2
 
Old 01-25-2011, 11:29 AM
Tomáš Chvátal
 
Default EAPI usage in main tree

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dne 25.1.2011 13:13, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." napsal(a):
> On 1/25/11 12:20 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>> I would like to upgrade tree-wide policy for EAPI usage in main tree.
>
> I have a great idea for you.
>
> How about creating a project (possibly a subproject of QA or something
> else) that would help people do that? In case of no response from
> maintainers just do your job, and that should get the tree converted
> more quickly than setting a policy.
>
> My main point is that said "X should be Y" does not automatically make
> it so. We'd have to think about the migration plan anyway.
>
> Paweł
>
Why would we need subproject for this.
QA team itself is done to help developers with this tasks. So if someone
come to #gentoo-qa and ask us to help him with his shiny eclass we won't
sent him somewhere else where sun is not shining :P

And that apply even if developer itself is not maintainer and did not
get reply from the maintainer...

Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk0+wiIACgkQHB6c3gNBRYcXQwCgmnvpToj97h +P11ljcXjJiL3j
55UAn3FPehseXf8OkwoJvqbSp9dECdsK
=1zHu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 01-25-2011, 11:30 AM
Fabian Groffen
 
Default EAPI usage in main tree

On 25-01-2011 14:25:05 +0200, Alex Alexander wrote:
> We should make repoman print a warning if an older EAPI is used, maybe
> even refuse to commit (without -f), at least on version bumps, to get
> the devs' attention. base-system excluded for now, obviously.

How obvious is that if Python is already EAPI >0?


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
 
Old 01-25-2011, 11:32 AM
Tomáš Chvátal
 
Default EAPI usage in main tree

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dne 25.1.2011 13:25, Markos Chandras napsal(a):
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 01:13:06PM +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
>> How about creating a project (possibly a subproject of QA or something
>> else) that would help people do that? In case of no response from
>> maintainers just do your job, and that should get the tree converted
>> more quickly than setting a policy.
> Please don't! QA is way too understaffed. We ain't gonna convert any
> ebuilds. This has nothing to do with QA. Let maintainers handle this
Pavel does not ask for us to migrate the ebuilds, but the eclasses, wich
we do anyway now
>>
>> My main point is that said "X should be Y" does not automatically make
>> it so. We'd have to think about the migration plan anyway.
>>
>> Paweł
>>
> @Tomas, I don't follow. You mean migrate existing ebuilds or use the
> latest EAPI from now on?
>
God no, when you do bump you use new eapi not retroactively revert
all ebuilds to latest.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk0+wtoACgkQHB6c3gNBRYe0lACeI/ir1DEcoxIpL/l0TEjDr5IZ
smQAn2ydpf013aaqR94t7A6MYb7nkslF
=j9iM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 01-25-2011, 11:37 AM
Markos Chandras
 
Default EAPI usage in main tree

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 01:32:27PM +0100, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dne 25.1.2011 13:25, Markos Chandras napsal(a):
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 01:13:06PM +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> >> How about creating a project (possibly a subproject of QA or something
> >> else) that would help people do that? In case of no response from
> >> maintainers just do your job, and that should get the tree converted
> >> more quickly than setting a policy.
> > Please don't! QA is way too understaffed. We ain't gonna convert any
> > ebuilds. This has nothing to do with QA. Let maintainers handle this
> Pavel does not ask for us to migrate the ebuilds, but the eclasses, wich
> we do anyway now
Then I am sorry
> >>
> >> My main point is that said "X should be Y" does not automatically make
> >> it so. We'd have to think about the migration plan anyway.
> >>
> >> Paweł
> >>
> > @Tomas, I don't follow. You mean migrate existing ebuilds or use the
> > latest EAPI from now on?
> >
> God no, when you do bump you use new eapi not retroactively revert
> all ebuilds to latest.
Ok that works for me. As Alex said, maybe a repoman warning would be a
good start

>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk0+wtoACgkQHB6c3gNBRYe0lACeI/ir1DEcoxIpL/l0TEjDr5IZ
> smQAn2ydpf013aaqR94t7A6MYb7nkslF
> =j9iM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

--
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Key ID: B4AFF2C2
Key FP: 660A 0742 84EC 26F1 9EDB F00A FA83 5A15 B4AF F2C2
 
Old 01-25-2011, 12:33 PM
Thomas Sachau
 
Default EAPI usage in main tree

Am 25.01.2011 12:20, schrieb Tomáš Chvátal:
> Hi,
> I would like to upgrade tree-wide policy for EAPI usage in main tree.
> Currently we say that developers can use any named version they wish or
> find sufficient.
> I would on other hand like to have all ebuilds to use Latest EAPI
> version possible (given the eclasses support it [hint hint maintainers
> of eclasses should always try to support latest :P]) with expection for
> base-system or more specialy depgraph for portage that needs to be
> EAPI0. [[ And here we need to find out some upgrade proccess that would
> work for everyone so we could somehow migrate them too ]]
>
> With this usually new developers should be aware only of latest EAPI and
> wont need to memorize what which EAPI support. Heck even I sometimes
> forget what i can do with some version and whatnot.

Do you have some more arguments for your request? Most new developers will have to know about all
EAPi versions anyway since they join an existing team with existing ebuilds, which will mostly not
use the newest EAPI.

As an argument againt this: Noone forces you to keep older EAPI versions of the ebuilds you
maintain, you can always bump them to the latest EAPI. But why do you want to force this on all
developers? If i have an EAPI-0 ebuild and am fine with it, why should i convert it to the latest EAPI?

>
> Winner for being PITA in this race is python.eclass that HAS completely
> different behavior based on EAPI version used...

The python eclass issues are not just EAPI related, the complete eclass is very complex and hard to
read/understand. And just because the eclass has additional EAPI-specific behaviour, this is
specific to this eclass and should not be an argument for the general EAPI discussion.

>
> Cheers
>
> Tomas

--
Thomas Sachau

Gentoo Linux Developer
 
Old 01-25-2011, 01:09 PM
Tomáš Chvátal
 
Default EAPI usage in main tree

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dne 25.1.2011 14:33, Thomas Sachau napsal(a):
> Do you have some more arguments for your request? Most new developers will have to know about all
> EAPi versions anyway since they join an existing team with existing ebuilds, which will mostly not
> use the newest EAPI.
>
> As an argument againt this: Noone forces you to keep older EAPI versions of the ebuilds you
> maintain, you can always bump them to the latest EAPI. But why do you want to force this on all
> developers? If i have an EAPI-0 ebuild and am fine with it, why should i convert it to the latest EAPI?
>
1) less stuff to memorize:
seriously mostly if you just use latest EAPI and 0 you can make yourself
not to bother for example with quirks required to use prefix properly in
EAPI2
2) easier migration and deprecation of old EAPIs:
If we enforce latest EAPI to be used EAPIs will be phased out by
automatic upgrade process where we can migrate them.
3) using less codepaths:
so we can find out what the heck is wrong easier in both eclasses and
portage if we know that it was hit with the latest code
4) eapis are done to bring shiny features:
usually ebuilds using new EAPI should be cleaner and easier to read than
the old EAPI ones, by worst case scenario you just add the EAPI=Version
line to the ebuild which makes it bit larger.

>>
>> Winner for being PITA in this race is python.eclass that HAS completely
>> different behavior based on EAPI version used...
>
> The python eclass issues are not just EAPI related, the complete eclass is very complex and hard to
> read/understand. And just because the eclass has additional EAPI-specific behaviour, this is
> specific to this eclass and should not be an argument for the general EAPI discussion.
>

I just said that the eclass has different behaviour for each eapi. Which
is true, nothing more nothing less. And you have to memorize it and
check the behavior in reported bug with various EAPIs.

Tomas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk0+2YIACgkQHB6c3gNBRYdW/gCbB/Ki35r13CfUJPiaDNhgoAEO
BfUAn3b/t9BEpU6Cd26btvCReTsizv66
=qFH3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 01-25-2011, 01:34 PM
Thomas Sachau
 
Default EAPI usage in main tree

Am 25.01.2011 15:09, schrieb Tomáš Chvátal:
> Dne 25.1.2011 14:33, Thomas Sachau napsal(a):
>> Do you have some more arguments for your request? Most new developers will have to know about all
>> EAPi versions anyway since they join an existing team with existing ebuilds, which will mostly not
>> use the newest EAPI.
>
>> As an argument againt this: Noone forces you to keep older EAPI versions of the ebuilds you
>> maintain, you can always bump them to the latest EAPI. But why do you want to force this on all
>> developers? If i have an EAPI-0 ebuild and am fine with it, why should i convert it to the latest EAPI?
>
> 1) less stuff to memorize:
> seriously mostly if you just use latest EAPI and 0 you can make yourself
> not to bother for example with quirks required to use prefix properly in
> EAPI2

You are free to only use latest EAPI and EAPI-0 in your ebuilds. So you dont have to memorize the
changes in the other EAPI versions. But why do you want to force this on me too? I have to maintain
my ebuilds and have to debug the bugs for it, so why not give me the choice to use whatever i prefer
to use?

> 2) easier migration and deprecation of old EAPIs:
> If we enforce latest EAPI to be used EAPIs will be phased out by
> automatic upgrade process where we can migrate them.

Why would any migration be easier? You always have to check the difference between current and
planned EAPI during a migration, this wont change with the policy. And why do you want to deprecate
older EAPI versions?

> 3) using less codepaths:
> so we can find out what the heck is wrong easier in both eclasses and
> portage if we know that it was hit with the latest code

As i said for the previous points: If you maintain something, you can use whatever you like,
including the latest versions, so this is no issue i can see.

> 4) eapis are done to bring shiny features:
> usually ebuilds using new EAPI should be cleaner and easier to read than
> the old EAPI ones, by worst case scenario you just add the EAPI=Version
> line to the ebuild which makes it bit larger.

Sure, but if it is just another line and nothing else changes, why should i then even add that line?
I prefer to keep things to the minimum required and if it works fine for me without the additional
line, why should i add it?

>
>>>
>>> Winner for being PITA in this race is python.eclass that HAS completely
>>> different behavior based on EAPI version used...
>
>> The python eclass issues are not just EAPI related, the complete eclass is very complex and hard to
>> read/understand. And just because the eclass has additional EAPI-specific behaviour, this is
>> specific to this eclass and should not be an argument for the general EAPI discussion.
>
>
> I just said that the eclass has different behaviour for each eapi. Which
> is true, nothing more nothing less. And you have to memorize it and
> check the behavior in reported bug with various EAPIs.

This means, that you either have to convince the python eclass maintainers to reduce the complexity
of their eclass or you dont maintain ebuilds, which have to use their eclasses.

Alternatively you can just remember the behaviour for the latest EAPI and use that in your ebuilds,
so how does the different behaviour for previous EAPI versions create issues for you?

>
> Tomas

--
Thomas Sachau

Gentoo Linux Developer
 

Thread Tools




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

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