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 09-25-2012, 03:25 PM
Alexis Ballier
 
Default Optional runtime dependencies via runtime-switchable USE flags

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:17:07 +0200
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/25/2012 05:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:04:55 +0200 hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:
> >> Do we need an implementation beforehand? Afaik zac said that the
> >> implementation would not be very complicated, so why not vote on
> >> this now/soon?
> >
> > Well we can't really compare it to SDEPEND (which is implemented
> > in Paludis, for kdebuild-1 and exheres-0) without at least a
> > half-arsed implementation.
> >
> > Also, speaking as someone who *has* implemented this kind of thing,
> > I have extreme doubts as to the viability of the proposal. So I'd
> > be extremely wary of voting in favour of it until we've been able
> > to have a play with an implementation.
> >
>
> sorry?
>
> I don't see an answers to any of my questions.

he wants an implementation beforehand
 
Old 09-25-2012, 03:30 PM
hasufell
 
Default Optional runtime dependencies via runtime-switchable USE flags

On 09/25/2012 05:25 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:17:07 +0200
> hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 09/25/2012 05:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:04:55 +0200 hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Do we need an implementation beforehand? Afaik zac said that the
>>>> implementation would not be very complicated, so why not vote on
>>>> this now/soon?
>>>
>>> Well we can't really compare it to SDEPEND (which is implemented
>>> in Paludis, for kdebuild-1 and exheres-0) without at least a
>>> half-arsed implementation.
>>>
>>> Also, speaking as someone who *has* implemented this kind of thing,
>>> I have extreme doubts as to the viability of the proposal. So I'd
>>> be extremely wary of voting in favour of it until we've been able
>>> to have a play with an implementation.
>>>
>>
>> sorry?
>>
>> I don't see an answers to any of my questions.
>
> he wants an implementation beforehand
>

Is he a council member?
 
Old 09-25-2012, 03:36 PM
Alexis Ballier
 
Default Optional runtime dependencies via runtime-switchable USE flags

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:30:07 +0200
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 09/25/2012 05:25 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:17:07 +0200
> > hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> On 09/25/2012 05:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:04:55 +0200 hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Do we need an implementation beforehand? Afaik zac said that the
> >>>> implementation would not be very complicated, so why not vote on
> >>>> this now/soon?
> >>>
> >>> Well we can't really compare it to SDEPEND (which is implemented
> >>> in Paludis, for kdebuild-1 and exheres-0) without at least a
> >>> half-arsed implementation.
> >>>
> >>> Also, speaking as someone who *has* implemented this kind of
> >>> thing, I have extreme doubts as to the viability of the proposal.
> >>> So I'd be extremely wary of voting in favour of it until we've
> >>> been able to have a play with an implementation.
> >>>
> >>
> >> sorry?
> >>
> >> I don't see an answers to any of my questions.
> >
> > he wants an implementation beforehand
> >
>
> Is he a council member?
>

That doesn't prevent him from talking from past experiences and giving
his opinion. Council is free to ignore his request also.
 
Old 09-25-2012, 03:43 PM
Alexis Ballier
 
Default Optional runtime dependencies via runtime-switchable USE flags

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:10:56 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Also, speaking as someone who *has* implemented this kind of thing, I
> have extreme doubts as to the viability of the proposal. So I'd be
> extremely wary of voting in favour of it until we've been able to have
> a play with an implementation.


Could you please elaborate on what kind of problems may arise ? The
proposal seems pretty simple and sane to me: PM only has to switch the
useflags that are IUSE_RUNTIME in his installed packages db after
installing the deps and without triggering a rebuild of said package.
 
Old 09-25-2012, 03:43 PM
hasufell
 
Default Optional runtime dependencies via runtime-switchable USE flags

On 09/25/2012 05:36 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:30:07 +0200
> hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> On 09/25/2012 05:25 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:17:07 +0200
>>> hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 09/25/2012 05:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:04:55 +0200 hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Do we need an implementation beforehand? Afaik zac said that the
>>>>>> implementation would not be very complicated, so why not vote on
>>>>>> this now/soon?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well we can't really compare it to SDEPEND (which is implemented
>>>>> in Paludis, for kdebuild-1 and exheres-0) without at least a
>>>>> half-arsed implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, speaking as someone who *has* implemented this kind of
>>>>> thing, I have extreme doubts as to the viability of the proposal.
>>>>> So I'd be extremely wary of voting in favour of it until we've
>>>>> been able to have a play with an implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> sorry?
>>>>
>>>> I don't see an answers to any of my questions.
>>>
>>> he wants an implementation beforehand
>>>
>>
>> Is he a council member?
>>
>
> That doesn't prevent him from talking from past experiences and giving
> his opinion. Council is free to ignore his request also.
>

Yeah, I thank him for that, but the time for user opinions has passed. I
am asking what is preventing the _council_ from reviewing this or why
the _author_ of that GLEP hasn't requested it for the next council meeting.
 
Old 09-25-2012, 03:57 PM
Fabian Groffen
 
Default Optional runtime dependencies via runtime-switchable USE flags

On 25-09-2012 17:43:46 +0200, hasufell wrote:
> > That doesn't prevent him from talking from past experiences and giving
> > his opinion. Council is free to ignore his request also.
>
> Yeah, I thank him for that, but the time for user opinions has passed. I
> am asking what is preventing the _council_ from reviewing this or why
> the _author_ of that GLEP hasn't requested it for the next council meeting.

I guess nothing is preventing them from reviewing it. However, it's
just a waste of time if you're just asking those guys to review the
GLEP, isn't it?


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
 
Old 09-25-2012, 04:00 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default Optional runtime dependencies via runtime-switchable USE flags

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:43:00 -0300
Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Could you please elaborate on what kind of problems may arise ? The
> proposal seems pretty simple and sane to me: PM only has to switch the
> useflags that are IUSE_RUNTIME in his installed packages db after
> installing the deps and without triggering a rebuild of said package.

a) How do we provide a good user interface for it? It took an awful lot
of experimenting to get the exheres-0 suggestions user interface to be
good, and it requires quite a bit more information from the package
side than this proposal is providing. We want to avoid a REQUIRED_USE
here...

b) How is consistency checking to be done? Related, what happens when a
runtime switch introduces a dependency that then requires a non-runtime
rebuild of the original package?

c) How do we deal with flag? ( cat/dep[foo] ) or flag? ( >=cat/dep-2.1 )
cases where cat/dep[-foo] or =cat/dep-2.0 is installed and flag is off?
From experience, quite a few places where you'd want to use suggestions
will break if their suggested package is installed but doesn't meet
version or use requirements.

However, addressing these probably isn't enough, since this is just
the things we had to think about for SDEPEND-style suggestions... There
are likely to be things I've not thought of specific to this method
that won't crop up until someone tries to deliver a decent
implementation. This isn't a trivial feature.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 09-25-2012, 04:02 PM
hasufell
 
Default Optional runtime dependencies via runtime-switchable USE flags

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

On 09/25/2012 05:57 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>
> I guess nothing is preventing them from reviewing it. However,
> it's just a waste of time if you're just asking those guys to
> review the GLEP, isn't it?
>
>

That's what the GLEP workflow states, no? It's currently not accepted.

On 09/25/2012 05:23 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> Really? I thought it was pretty clearly. Yes, you need an
> implementation beforehand.
>

Maybe you should read:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0001.html


"The reference implementation must be completed before any GLEP is
given status "Final", but it need not be completed before the GLEP is
accepted."

This is not about some EAPI stuff, this is about getting it _accepted_
not _implemented_.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQYdWfAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzjjIH/218/i8cD6jzdTOFskLQr8O8
PxOZAPDsRxKz9sVBLcN5I01RRATnr/xbhcomDa+/rLGP8Zz1ljk7mEwaXhXGg6fN
l/lV0I62cjfWx1OJj9nqgq847TLLw1w+TKM/jfDvu2VXtMwBqiyg1U7+CeN7RWVH
YdFOzKi3lJ1zH5oryT98htr6s+hceFie4JERlveODQn56vGG45 c5c9vM0x7xxDce
d+7lRozoEwp4AJA70zNskpEojYrJpBJNES/dt7GYO/Rt+sIqac4S8tUvNV3ro2a9
LV+Lr+qLvughdLtpewt95U63zeQJvfVbGIGwRlAaaUWYEI1IlO ED6X25Zv3rQXo=
=yexa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 09-25-2012, 04:17 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default Optional runtime dependencies via runtime-switchable USE flags

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

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:02:39 +0200
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Really? I thought it was pretty clearly. Yes, you need an
> > implementation beforehand.
>
> Maybe you should read:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0001.html
>
>
> "The reference implementation must be completed before any GLEP is
> given status "Final", but it need not be completed before the GLEP is
> accepted."
>
> This is not about some EAPI stuff, this is about getting it _accepted_
> not _implemented_.

"Need not" does not mean "should not", and "completed" is not the same
as "exists". In this case, any reasonable observer will conclude that
for this particular problem, having a reasonable reference
implementation and a bunch of ebuilds to play with before we spend any
more time on discussion would be extremely helpful.

- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlBh2SwACgkQ96zL6DUtXhGw5ACg06dBcpHZ3Z fq5bQL7I8x7WPT
+WAAn1xpLtjISzwU1onKiZgG6jLpXV7J
=j+q2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 09-25-2012, 04:19 PM
Ian Stakenvicius
 
Default Optional runtime dependencies via runtime-switchable USE flags

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 25/09/12 12:00 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:43:00 -0300 Alexis Ballier
> <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Could you please elaborate on what kind of problems may arise ?
>> The proposal seems pretty simple and sane to me: PM only has to
>> switch the useflags that are IUSE_RUNTIME in his installed
>> packages db after installing the deps and without triggering a
>> rebuild of said package.
>
> a) How do we provide a good user interface for it? It took an awful
> lot of experimenting to get the exheres-0 suggestions user
> interface to be good, and it requires quite a bit more information
> from the package side than this proposal is providing. We want to
> avoid a REQUIRED_USE here...

Standard USE flag interface. This doesn't need anything special. Why
will a user care if the flag doesn't trigger a package rebuild?

>
> b) How is consistency checking to be done? Related, what happens
> when a runtime switch introduces a dependency that then requires a
> non-runtime rebuild of the original package?

flag needs to be dropped from IUSE_RUNTIME, so the rebuild would occur.


> c) How do we deal with flag? ( cat/dep[foo] ) or flag? (
> >=cat/dep-2.1 ) cases where cat/dep[-foo] or =cat/dep-2.0 is
> installed and flag is off? From experience, quite a few places
> where you'd want to use suggestions will break if their suggested
> package is installed but doesn't meet version or use requirements.

Use flag deps are dealt with identically to the way they are now. the
only difference , again, is that the package doesn't get re-emerged.
The VDB would still update imo as if the package did get re-emerged
(ie: USE and RDEPEND would update), to handle the use flag change
info in metadata but from what I can tell nothing else would need to
be touched.



>
> However, addressing these probably isn't enough, since this is
> just the things we had to think about for SDEPEND-style
> suggestions... There are likely to be things I've not thought of
> specific to this method that won't crop up until someone tries to
> deliver a decent implementation. This isn't a trivial feature.
>

..it really is. It piggy backs entirely on the current USE
implementation, and only skips triggering rebuilds because the
files-on-disk for a package don't need to change.


Now, I do realize that the potential for abuse here is large, and it
will be up to dev's to ensure that these use flags (or groups of use
flag conditions) added to IUSE_RUNTIME will not result in any
files-changed-on-disk. However that to me doesn't seem to be a good
enough reason to exclude it from a future EAPI.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlBh2YkACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCrzwD/YhavLfXOjjpivCDZ5gbRFI9V
/LBObF/haI2tMZ2CN4cA+wYBxFH1S2Az6zpSLLfAxWnDtPTe22wHb4nMU Z43uIV3
=r8ld
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:32 AM.

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