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 04-23-2011, 06:05 AM
Eray Aslan
 
Default RDEPENDing on packages from overlays?

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364445
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364401

Basically, there are requests to add packages to RDEPEND in virtual/mda
and virtual/mta that are not in the official tree but in sunrise.

On one side, *DEPENDing on a package outside the tree doesn't seem
right. Additionally, keeping track of all the overlays and their
package versions, USE flags and flag changes are potentially too much to
track. We will be making changes to a virtual package without testing
whether it works.

On the other hand, we are making life (unneccesarily?) difficult for
overlay users by not incorporating the requested changes to the official
tree.

Comments on how to proceed? Is it OK for a virtual to list a package
which is in an overlay in RDEPEND?

--
Eray Aslan
Developer, Gentoo Linux eras <at> gentoo.org
 
Old 04-23-2011, 11:02 AM
Zac Medico
 
Default RDEPENDing on packages from overlays?

On 04/22/2011 11:05 PM, Eray Aslan wrote:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364445
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364401
>
> Basically, there are requests to add packages to RDEPEND in virtual/mda
> and virtual/mta that are not in the official tree but in sunrise.
>
> On one side, *DEPENDing on a package outside the tree doesn't seem
> right. Additionally, keeping track of all the overlays and their
> package versions, USE flags and flag changes are potentially too much to
> track. We will be making changes to a virtual package without testing
> whether it works.

I would assume that it's the overlay maintainers' responsibility to test
and report any problems. Any such problems would should affect the
overlay users, so it shouldn't cause any regression for users who don't
choose to use the overlay.

> On the other hand, we are making life (unneccesarily?) difficult for
> overlay users by not incorporating the requested changes to the official
> tree.

I don't imagine it's that much work to maintain a fork of the virtual.
It's just an inconvenience for users since the version from the overlay
might become temporarily outdated and cause problems with dependency
resolution.

> Comments on how to proceed?

Either way is fine. It's just a matter of whether or not collaboration
with the overlay is worthy of your time.

> Is it OK for a virtual to list a package
> which is in an overlay in RDEPEND?

Yes, that's fine. For || dependencies, repoman will be satisfied as long
as there at least one provider available for a given profile.
--
Thanks,
Zac
 
Old 04-23-2011, 11:03 AM
William Hubbs
 
Default RDEPENDing on packages from overlays?

On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 09:05:48AM +0300, Eray Aslan wrote:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364445
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364401
>
> Basically, there are requests to add packages to RDEPEND in virtual/mda
> and virtual/mta that are not in the official tree but in sunrise.
>
> On one side, *DEPENDing on a package outside the tree doesn't seem
> right. Additionally, keeping track of all the overlays and their
> package versions, USE flags and flag changes are potentially too much to
> track. We will be making changes to a virtual package without testing
> whether it works.
>
> On the other hand, we are making life (unneccesarily?) difficult for
> overlay users by not incorporating the requested changes to the official
> tree.
>
> Comments on how to proceed? Is it OK for a virtual to list a package
> which is in an overlay in RDEPEND?

I would say no for the reasons you list above.

I'm not an overlay user, but I'm thinking that an overlay user might be
able to get around this by putting the virtual in package.provided.

William
 
Old 04-23-2011, 11:08 AM
Diego Elio Pettenò
 
Default RDEPENDing on packages from overlays?

Il giorno sab, 23/04/2011 alle 09.05 +0300, Eray Aslan ha scritto:
>
> On one side, *DEPENDing on a package outside the tree doesn't seem
> right. Additionally, keeping track of all the overlays and their
> package versions, USE flags and flag changes are potentially too much
> to
> track. We will be making changes to a virtual package without testing
> whether it works.

Okay this is tricky.

From one side, we've done this before. Do note: we are _not_ going to
accept forced or non-use-masked dependencies for packages that are not
in tree, but || () dependencies on non-existing packages have been used
before, for instance while Gentoo/FreeBSD was still in its original
development.

On the other hand handling the current new-style virtual mess is enough
of a task without having to bend over backward to overlays.

As long as _somebody_ feels like doing the work, I suppose it's fine.

--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
 
Old 04-23-2011, 11:34 AM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default RDEPENDing on packages from overlays?

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 09:05:48 +0300
Eray Aslan <eras@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Comments on how to proceed? Is it OK for a virtual to list a package
> which is in an overlay in RDEPEND?

The way || ( ) dependencies are defined means doing so doesn't cause
any problems.

Having said that, overlays can always supply their own version of the
virtual package if they prefer. It's not ideal, but it does mean that
overlays aren't subjected to the whim of whoever's handling the virtual
in the main tree.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 04-23-2011, 11:59 AM
Thomas Sachau
 
Default RDEPENDing on packages from overlays?

Am 23.04.2011 08:05, schrieb Eray Aslan:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364445
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364401
>
> Basically, there are requests to add packages to RDEPEND in virtual/mda
> and virtual/mta that are not in the official tree but in sunrise.
>
> On one side, *DEPENDing on a package outside the tree doesn't seem
> right. Additionally, keeping track of all the overlays and their
> package versions, USE flags and flag changes are potentially too much to
> track. We will be making changes to a virtual package without testing
> whether it works.

"Doesnt seem right" sounds like a feeling, but is no real argument for me.

Afaik you dont need to track package versions, USE flags or flag changes at all for those requested
additions, so i dont see any potential additional work in the first place. If an overlay package
changes and requires an adjustment in the virtual, the overlay maintainer has to track it and has to
request the changes, not much to do on the virtual maintainer side. And since there always is at
least one choice in the main tree, it would not even harm other people, if the overlay package is
broken at any time.

>
> On the other hand, we are making life (unneccesarily?) difficult for
> overlay users by not incorporating the requested changes to the official
> tree.
>
> Comments on how to proceed? Is it OK for a virtual to list a package
> which is in an overlay in RDEPEND?
>


--
Thomas Sachau

Gentoo Linux Developer
 
Old 04-23-2011, 12:01 PM
Nathan Phillip Brink
 
Default RDEPENDing on packages from overlays?

On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 04:02:24AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 04/22/2011 11:05 PM, Eray Aslan wrote:
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364445
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364401
> >
> > Basically, there are requests to add packages to RDEPEND in virtual/mda
> > and virtual/mta that are not in the official tree but in sunrise.
> >
> > On one side, *DEPENDing on a package outside the tree doesn't seem
> > right. Additionally, keeping track of all the overlays and their
> > package versions, USE flags and flag changes are potentially too much to
> > track. We will be making changes to a virtual package without testing
> > whether it works.
>
> I would assume that it's the overlay maintainers' responsibility to test
> and report any problems. Any such problems would should affect the
> overlay users, so it shouldn't cause any regression for users who don't
> choose to use the overlay.
>
> > On the other hand, we are making life (unneccesarily?) difficult for
> > overlay users by not incorporating the requested changes to the official
> > tree.
>
> I don't imagine it's that much work to maintain a fork of the virtual.
> It's just an inconvenience for users since the version from the overlay
> might become temporarily outdated and cause problems with dependency
> resolution.

I would prefer that the virtual maintenance still happen in the main
tree whenever possible. In this case, the virtual's maintainer seems
willing to add the package atoms to the virtual -- the only concern
was whether or not it was allowed to *DEPEND on atoms known not to be
in gentoo-x86. So the answers I've read all add up to a "yes, go
ahead".

Encouraging overlays to maintain their own virtual replacements would
be encouraging more people who are not familiar with a particular
virtual to mess with it in their own repositories. Also, if multiple
overlays each need to add a single but different DEPEND to a
particular virtual, the user will end up with only one of these
virtual overrides. Someone who overrides a virtual in an overlay would
thus be expected to take into account other overlays which provide
candidates for that virtual. Having overlay maintainers do this would
be much more of a mess than letting one person manage the gentoo-x86
virtual and get everything done right once and without duplication of
effort.

--
binki

Look out for missing or extraneous apostrophes!
 
Old 04-23-2011, 12:07 PM
Thomas Sachau
 
Default RDEPENDing on packages from overlays?

Am 23.04.2011 13:02, schrieb Zac Medico:
> On 04/22/2011 11:05 PM, Eray Aslan wrote:
>> On the other hand, we are making life (unneccesarily?) difficult for
>> overlay users by not incorporating the requested changes to the official
>> tree.
>
> I don't imagine it's that much work to maintain a fork of the virtual.
> It's just an inconvenience for users since the version from the overlay
> might become temporarily outdated and cause problems with dependency
> resolution.

It may be no issue as long as the virtual does not change that much or as long as not more than 1
overlay forks the virtual. But as already written in Bugzilla, you create an issue for users, if you
have 2 overlays added, which both provide the package. Simple example, which i presented in Bugzilla:

If e.g. kde and sunrise overlay both provide an mta, they would both need a fork of virtual/mta. Now
one of those forks will be preferred and used, e.g. the kde one. This means, that you cannot install
the mta from sunrise to satisfy the virtual without additional manual work. The only way to solve
this properly without asking the user to manually adjust things is to just add all mtas from
overlays (maybe restricted to dev-controlled or -managed overlays) to virtual/mta in the main tree.


--
Thomas Sachau

Gentoo Linux Developer
 
Old 04-23-2011, 12:08 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default RDEPENDing on packages from overlays?

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:07:21 +0200
Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> wrote:
> It may be no issue as long as the virtual does not change that much
> or as long as not more than 1 overlay forks the virtual. But as
> already written in Bugzilla, you create an issue for users, if you
> have 2 overlays added, which both provide the package. Simple
> example, which i presented in Bugzilla:

That's solved by giving Portage proper multi-repository support. Wasn't
that one of last year's Summer of Code projects?

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 04-23-2011, 01:05 PM
Ulrich Mueller
 
Default RDEPENDing on packages from overlays?

>>>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011, Thomas Sachau wrote:

> If e.g. kde and sunrise overlay both provide an mta, they would both
> need a fork of virtual/mta. Now one of those forks will be preferred
> and used, e.g. the kde one. This means, that you cannot install the
> mta from sunrise to satisfy the virtual without additional manual
> work.

So far this is only a hypothetical example, as there is no MTA package
in the KDE overlay. As long as sunrise is the only overlay providing
such a package, I don't see how maintaining a fork of the virtual
would be problematic. Any collision scenarios can be solved when they
really arise (if ever).

> The only way to solve this properly without asking the user to
> manually adjust things is to just add all mtas from overlays (maybe
> restricted to dev-controlled or -managed overlays) to virtual/mta in
> the main tree.

The additional entries in the any-of-many dependency are not an issue.
But the problem that I see with this approach is that a maintainer of
a package depending on the virtual would have to test if his package
works with those additional dependencies from overlays. I'd rather not
impose such an additional burden upon maintainers of main tree
packages.

Ulrich


Sat Apr 23 15:30:02 2011
Return-path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-45396-tom=linux-archive.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Envelope-to: tom@linux-archive.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:52:54 +0300
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80]:58847 helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by s2.java-tips.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-45396-tom=linux-archive.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1QDbOQ-0000BS-MK
for tom@linux-archive.org; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:52:54 +0300
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0A1D01C04B;
Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:10:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Delivered-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4384E0509
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:08:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (hnvr-4d07906c.pool.mediaWays.net [77.7.144.108])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: chithanh)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1826B1B4017
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:08:27 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4DB2CF26.80500@gentoo.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:07:50 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2jDrS1UaGFuaCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBOZ3V54buFbg==?=
<chithanh@gentoo.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.18) Gecko/20110403 Gentoo/2.0.13 SeaMonkey/2.0.13
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RDEPENDing on packages from overlays?
References: <4DB26C3C.8090602@gentoo.org> <20110423110343.GA17456@linux1>
In-Reply-To: <20110423110343.GA17456@linux1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

William Hubbs schrieb:

> I'm not an overlay user, but I'm thinking that an overlay user might be
> able to get around this by putting the virtual in package.provided.
>

Why must the user do it? Can't the package manager do it?


Regards,
Chi-Thanh Christopher Nguyen
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:59 AM.

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