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 06-20-2012, 08:35 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default My wishlist for EAPI 5

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400
Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
> The current binaries cause a great deal of pain, particularly
> when a user does not want to upgrade something. I had this problem
> with WINE and glibc because I wanted to avoid the reverse memcpy()
> fiasco on my systems. This situation would have been avoided entirely
> if the package manager supported multilib.

This one's unlikely to happen unless someone's prepared to put in the
work.

> POSIX Shell compliance
> There has been a great deal of work done to give the user
> full control of what is on his system and there is more that we can
> do there. In particular, I think a lean Gentoo Linux system should be
> able to use busybox sh and nothing else. That requires POSIX shell
> compliance. OpenRC init scripts support this and the configure
> scripts support this. The few exceptions are bugs that are addressed
> by the Gentoo BSD developers. As such, I think we should make EAPI=5
> use POSIX shell by default. If an ebuild requires bash, we can allow
> the ebuild to declare that (e.g. WANT_SH=bash), but that should be
> the exception and not the rule.

So far as I know, every PM relies heavily upon bash anyway (and can't
easily be made not to), so even if developers would accept having to
rewrite all their eclasses, it still wouldn't remove the dep.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 06-20-2012, 08:39 PM
Maxim Kammerer
 
Default My wishlist for EAPI 5

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Multilib (and/or multiarch) support

Sorry for a possibly ignorant question. Does multilib support include
the ability to build Busybox against uclibc (on a glibc system)?

--
Maxim Kammerer
Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte
 
Old 06-20-2012, 08:41 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default My wishlist for EAPI 5

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:39:42 +0300
Maxim Kammerer <mk@dee.su> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
>
> Sorry for a possibly ignorant question. Does multilib support include
> the ability to build Busybox against uclibc (on a glibc system)?

Nobody knows, since everyone you ask has a different idea of what
multilib is.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 06-20-2012, 08:50 PM
Richard Yao
 
Default My wishlist for EAPI 5

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

On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> Multilib (and/or multiarch) support The current binaries cause a
>> great deal of pain, particularly when a user does not want to
>> upgrade something. I had this problem with WINE and glibc because
>> I wanted to avoid the reverse memcpy() fiasco on my systems. This
>> situation would have been avoided entirely if the package manager
>> supported multilib.
>
> This one's unlikely to happen unless someone's prepared to put in
> the work.

The multilib-portage overlay already has this working.

>> POSIX Shell compliance There has been a great deal of work done
>> to give the user full control of what is on his system and there
>> is more that we can do there. In particular, I think a lean
>> Gentoo Linux system should be able to use busybox sh and nothing
>> else. That requires POSIX shell compliance. OpenRC init scripts
>> support this and the configure scripts support this. The few
>> exceptions are bugs that are addressed by the Gentoo BSD
>> developers. As such, I think we should make EAPI=5 use POSIX
>> shell by default. If an ebuild requires bash, we can allow the
>> ebuild to declare that (e.g. WANT_SH=bash), but that should be
>> the exception and not the rule.
>
> So far as I know, every PM relies heavily upon bash anyway (and
> can't easily be made not to), so even if developers would accept
> having to rewrite all their eclasses, it still wouldn't remove the
> dep.
>

Lets address POSIX compliance in the ebuilds first. Then we can deal
with the package managers.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJP4jeZAAoJECDuEZm+6Exkt6cP/jpDU3CQmCZlOJWHf2uLYPpg
+Ft2bN2JyMs1rquIrAd0PGtMXu8zrQC5U7Q0SAO1Vm+Ieu98aH knGMPWJYtV0PpU
X5/bFqk+LjaO/fFAo+x+IKET24hYXry9P27om/ZUgURKDbWvityQAeIKrZhT9U/r
LzPWgSu/v9wLDBVwZpIEjlMeYMD/uA868srBDK/dVjhZHFB6bzVK8h8xhI4zq/X3
UQYPXFuCgg2s7+g/2Z+pCvGVKwX/GdGXU8ZMRtEu3PF1hgBXBXb1qkaQRQoOGsEG
BRkOAp+MqI+/VClvxPFGGVfqvRZaqQhmg4VxYIELkPh4jzvfIJu/WC7CReOix574
hBhDXrPWwJ2r6Y1updNpWUg7yBQGRmAtmRd6AL4MVHG70j/6IlSrsGrQr8KrdxuP
BzQDTzN0rd5iDocO3bACluzxMSrd2wk73bvaAcWYsmIVVigVAS HIcdvMthgx/ctw
zSEOp7sIvXejbONeIwhcqu6M6qvFi6i2o/82Mk68JXH0BAIZ2cC8atn+mmZd0SMz
R49Wu9GSyNCAeubuxTxUaEatGmSGGNtXEACxGpvtyo8XbvYmfN vntsxorRvnWNXt
hhIQQYQwVOsSUSCHSqKS1/lD/8EIWoMD531IRKEyhP6eMoGZBUFCrc94zoGLwmz5
VlJuFNCU9ylfbEWMayLC
=I8nt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 06-20-2012, 08:51 PM
Richard Yao
 
Default My wishlist for EAPI 5

On 06/20/2012 04:39 PM, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
>
> Sorry for a possibly ignorant question. Does multilib support include
> the ability to build Busybox against uclibc (on a glibc system)?

It includes it no more than portage does currently.
 
Old 06-20-2012, 08:52 PM
Luca Barbato
 
Default My wishlist for EAPI 5

On 06/20/2012 10:25 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> Here is my wishlist for EAPI 5:
>
> Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
> Automated epatch_user support
> Parallel make checks
> POSIX Shell compliance
>
> Here are some explanations:
>
> Multilib (and/or multiarch) support
> The current binaries cause a great deal of pain, particularly when a
> user does not want to upgrade something. I had this problem with WINE
> and glibc because I wanted to avoid the reverse memcpy() fiasco on my
> systems. This situation would have been avoided entirely if the package
> manager supported multilib.
>
> Automated epatch_user support
> Users should be able to test patches without modifying their ebuilds.
> This also saves developer time because we don't need to navigate the
> portage tree (or an overlay), make a change and test it. We could just
> dump the patch in the appropriate directory and build.
>
> Parallel make checks
> As it stands, `make check` is so slow that few people actually run it
> and QA suffers as a result. We have the ability to do parallel checks,
> but we need to explicitly put `emake check` into the ebuild and use
> autoconf 1.12 to get that. It would be best if this behavior were the
> default, not the exception.
>
> POSIX Shell compliance
> There has been a great deal of work done to give the user full control
> of what is on his system and there is more that we can do there. In
> particular, I think a lean Gentoo Linux system should be able to use
> busybox sh and nothing else. That requires POSIX shell compliance.
> OpenRC init scripts support this and the configure scripts support this.
> The few exceptions are bugs that are addressed by the Gentoo BSD developers.
> As such, I think we should make EAPI=5 use POSIX shell by default. If
> an ebuild requires bash, we can allow the ebuild to declare that (e.g.
> WANT_SH=bash), but that should be the exception and not the rule.

It is more likely to succeed either adding to busybox the missing bits
of bash we use or forking bash (so eventually it could be developed on a
source repo) and making it lean and fast for our specific purposes.

lu

--

Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
 
Old 06-20-2012, 08:54 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default My wishlist for EAPI 5

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

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400
Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:
> >> Multilib (and/or multiarch) support The current binaries cause a
> >> great deal of pain, particularly when a user does not want to
> >> upgrade something. I had this problem with WINE and glibc because
> >> I wanted to avoid the reverse memcpy() fiasco on my systems. This
> >> situation would have been avoided entirely if the package manager
> >> supported multilib.
> >
> > This one's unlikely to happen unless someone's prepared to put in
> > the work.
>
> The multilib-portage overlay already has this working.

But there is no spec, nor is there a developer-centric description of
it.

> > So far as I know, every PM relies heavily upon bash anyway (and
> > can't easily be made not to), so even if developers would accept
> > having to rewrite all their eclasses, it still wouldn't remove the
> > dep.
>
> Lets address POSIX compliance in the ebuilds first. Then we can deal
> with the package managers.

Why? It's highly doubtful the package manglers could switch shells even
if they wanted to, and even if every ebuild started using EAPI 5. It's
wasted effort.

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

iEYEARECAAYFAk/iOG8ACgkQ96zL6DUtXhG5FgCgw3V9qz3o1d0A4TUw5y83lfCE
LWkAnRbY4WKJz1xribnhUat0YL1XEwHR
=dYt+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 06-20-2012, 09:02 PM
Richard Yao
 
Default My wishlist for EAPI 5

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

On 06/20/2012 04:54 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao
>>> <ryao@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> Multilib (and/or multiarch) support The current binaries
>>>> cause a great deal of pain, particularly when a user does not
>>>> want to upgrade something. I had this problem with WINE and
>>>> glibc because I wanted to avoid the reverse memcpy() fiasco
>>>> on my systems. This situation would have been avoided
>>>> entirely if the package manager supported multilib.
>>>
>>> This one's unlikely to happen unless someone's prepared to put
>>> in the work.
>
>> The multilib-portage overlay already has this working.
>
> But there is no spec, nor is there a developer-centric description
> of it.
>
>>> So far as I know, every PM relies heavily upon bash anyway
>>> (and can't easily be made not to), so even if developers would
>>> accept having to rewrite all their eclasses, it still wouldn't
>>> remove the dep.
>
>> Lets address POSIX compliance in the ebuilds first. Then we can
>> deal with the package managers.
>
> Why? It's highly doubtful the package manglers could switch shells
> even if they wanted to, and even if every ebuild started using EAPI
> 5. It's wasted effort.
>

Source the ebuild using the system shell, check for WANT_SH. If it
does not exist, proceed. If it does, start over with a different shell.

I do not see any technical problem.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJP4jpSAAoJECDuEZm+6ExkBqgQAJjLoTfIgS UAVk6aLzC34Pkh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 LEGDRfoN4BkfXZ
jjL5kT0tM9uEjt7SanG7EdJi2x0xZQolXdsaYOOgUOH1g35s0u uuQE69hEpe/TXP
wk2bZWtEPc1wDcty1/RN
=nGyi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 06-20-2012, 09:05 PM
Richard Yao
 
Default My wishlist for EAPI 5

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

On 06/20/2012 04:54 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:50:33 -0400 Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> On 06/20/2012 04:35 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:30 -0400 Richard Yao
>>> <ryao@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> Multilib (and/or multiarch) support The current binaries
>>>> cause a great deal of pain, particularly when a user does not
>>>> want to upgrade something. I had this problem with WINE and
>>>> glibc because I wanted to avoid the reverse memcpy() fiasco
>>>> on my systems. This situation would have been avoided
>>>> entirely if the package manager supported multilib.
>>>
>>> This one's unlikely to happen unless someone's prepared to put
>>> in the work.
>
>> The multilib-portage overlay already has this working.
>
> But there is no spec, nor is there a developer-centric description
> of it.

I missed this tibbit. I am not sure what you expect me to do this
about this. Thomas Sachau developed the multilib overlay, he has put a
great deal of work into it and he likely has a specification. You are
more than welcome to talk to him about the specification. If it not
well defined, feel free to share your ideas on how it could be better
defined.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJP4jszAAoJECDuEZm+6Exk5EMP/0xRHW2PjOzb4xIEwW2ve+qM
BJNEk5lMJfL2N8x5CM30n+uUOH665fSw26o6H6mkh397F7UO+B GCctQuBgSo0q3V
s+bA3yFp5mZwr326RnnNKkgY5vKNHUjd7MH568i1ARHJdCx7Ep n5Ep2o95msz0XG
yzfxFkKT1O5BXKYXyLeTNfHvyS6cRx4qIaq394u0iLOZbH8eIz ZT4GPhy0KkPc0S
yeLLULtaSLQfO+F0QF/IDBC7Dupl0nxGp5cOBfsBC8Eg+mBOEHHemmKkRqv4Cv7X
kddw9bx+wjSYx0unDztyoLQ34c1XklIteOjzU+gLZtQkJ0W7+z 3XQ42RwlIGPUbM
dUKsYZ2rPsKjUl0gh4Gux0PyEMkokmpygqbxd8vmE1lnAJaRR4 jMgcG45jv7eSLp
ToGPNRVvuQUypmqkyIgVSCzBoplC4DkymS5oVy96GbNGNPypx3 AhuAMpo8NwsH58
TNqetlVI9RQp2Yq4S930pSDmeqtel4G3zm6yJhmRfhpc28fnyr h7yzNwERKAqbpU
rExTfGd6BJul0cirkujo9ni9OOV1ue2WjBTqhp74BsBWjse5Q9 J92zWmbZ9umcu0
JNJHr3wq/Fx1E4ozoYcVIKRor7T5mj7JuZpm+cyH5/GPfPZTzb0zuJy4JqbIKqHp
RfpE5eCLf16fZrB94NYz
=02/m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 06-20-2012, 09:10 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default My wishlist for EAPI 5

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

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:02:10 -0400
Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> Lets address POSIX compliance in the ebuilds first. Then we can
> >> deal with the package managers.
> >
> > Why? It's highly doubtful the package manglers could switch shells
> > even if they wanted to, and even if every ebuild started using EAPI
> > 5. It's wasted effort.
> >
>
> Source the ebuild using the system shell, check for WANT_SH. If it
> does not exist, proceed. If it does, start over with a different
> shell.
>
> I do not see any technical problem.

Package managers don't "source the ebuild"... You should take a look at
the amount of horrible bash code the three PMs have, and see why it's
there.

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

iEYEARECAAYFAk/iPC8ACgkQ96zL6DUtXhH6rQCghGeOb2N8iOm9F5u7k9jJkn2s
hcwAoKLB4kSHq7KaVh9D7mllQnU3U78Z
=DLvZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:48 PM.

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