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 06-24-2012, 08:48 AM
Ben de Groot
 
Default RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

On 24 June 2012 06:50, Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Le samedi 23 juin 2012 Ó 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a Úcrit :
>>
>> It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the gtk3
>> version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of "the gtk2
>> version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to bring in a
>> newer GCC and so on.
>
> I'm stopping my reading of this thread a minute to answer here.
>
> This is actually true when you think of it, gtk3 bindings are newer than
> gtk2.

Now you're playing with semantics. In the case of -r200/-r300 we
are talking about the *exact same* $PV, but for some reason
the revision numbers are confusingly abused for something
that we normally use useflags for (toggling support for specific
toolkits for example).

Please stop abusing revision numbers for something they are
not meant to convey. And please stop pushing developers to
drop perfectly legal usage of the gtk3 useflag.

--
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead
 
Old 06-24-2012, 10:17 AM
Gilles Dartiguelongue
 
Default RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 Ó 16:48 +0800, Ben de Groot a Úcrit :
> On 24 June 2012 06:50, Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Le samedi 23 juin 2012 Ó 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a Úcrit :
> >>
> >> It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the gtk3
> >> version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of "the gtk2
> >> version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to bring in a
> >> newer GCC and so on.
> >
> > I'm stopping my reading of this thread a minute to answer here.
> >
> > This is actually true when you think of it, gtk3 bindings are newer than
> > gtk2.
>
> Now you're playing with semantics. In the case of -r200/-r300 we
> are talking about the *exact same* $PV, but for some reason
> the revision numbers are confusingly abused for something
> that we normally use useflags for (toggling support for specific
> toolkits for example).
>
> Please stop abusing revision numbers for something they are
> not meant to convey. And please stop pushing developers to
> drop perfectly legal usage of the gtk3 useflag.
>

This is the same codebase, but they really are slotted libs (that
happens to have the same $PV):
* different include path
* different pkgconfig files
* different sonames
* ...

If the $PV wasn't the same, there would be no question about have a USE
flag or not, the answer would be obvious to anyone. So please stop
pretending this is a good case for USE flag.

Now if this is the only case (lib with support for two gtk+ versions but
slottable/slotted) that is causing a problem to anyone here, I propose
we go with the simplest fix, have a new package name. That will remember
me of debian packaging

--
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org>
Gentoo
 
Old 06-24-2012, 10:58 AM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:19:19 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Think || ( a:3 a:2 ).
>
> So now that you've stated the problem, maybe it's a good time to find
> a proper solution for it.

That isn't the problem. That's an example of an effect of the problem.
The problem is that -r and slots are being used to do something weird.

The proper solution is going to be long term, from the looks of things.
This is a short term damage control operation.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 06-24-2012, 11:21 AM
Michał Górny
 
Default RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:58:07 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:19:19 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > Think || ( a:3 a:2 ).
> >
> > So now that you've stated the problem, maybe it's a good time to
> > find a proper solution for it.
>
> That isn't the problem. That's an example of an effect of the problem.
> The problem is that -r and slots are being used to do something weird.

No? What will paludis do in the above case, if the newest version of a
has slot :4?


--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
 
Old 06-24-2012, 11:23 AM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:21:01 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:58:07 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:19:19 +0200
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > Think || ( a:3 a:2 ).
> > >
> > > So now that you've stated the problem, maybe it's a good time to
> > > find a proper solution for it.
> >
> > That isn't the problem. That's an example of an effect of the
> > problem. The problem is that -r and slots are being used to do
> > something weird.
>
> No? What will paludis do in the above case, if the newest version of a
> has slot :4?

That depends upon other dependencies and what options the user
specifies.

This isn't a Paludis issue, though. It's a "marking where crazy stuff
is being done" issue.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 06-24-2012, 05:25 PM
Alexis Ballier
 
Default RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:12:04 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:20:23 +0300
> Mart Raudsepp <leio@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > The 'standard' behaviour (which can be changed by the user) for
> > > Paludis when doing "complete" resolutions is that whenever there's
> > > a slot of something installed, it will try to bring in the newest
> > > version of that package, even if it's in a different slot. This is
> > > generally a good thing, since newer versions are supposed to be
> > > better than older versions. The problem is that now "newer"
> > > versions are being used to mean "with a different Ruby
> > > implementation" or "built in a different way", which screws up the
> > > meaning.
> >
> > Don't do that if the slotted package in question is not in the
> > @world, and all packages depending on it strictly require the older
> > SLOT.
>
> That is an option Paludis provides for users, but doing so leads to
> old versions of things lying around when an upgrade is preferred.

When exactly ? You took the gcc example, but it does not have a slot
specified in the 'packages' file so should be upgraded regardless of
slot.

> It's also incorrect behaviour when multiple slots are capable of
> satisfying a dependency.

I suppose that is what Mart meant with 'strictly require'.

I do not know about ruby stuff, but the gtk2/gtk3 case seems a
non-issue to me.

- No slot specified -> best version available, slot independent.
- Slot specified -> best version in said slot.
- Upgrade to new version in a different slot iff something brings in the
new slot.

If your heuristic brings in gtk3 when everything depends on gtk2, you
should probably rethink your heuristic.

A.
 
Old 06-27-2012, 07:44 AM
Gilles Dartiguelongue
 
Default RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

Le samedi 23 juin 2012 Ó 21:37 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a Úcrit :
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:36:14 +0200
> Marien Zwart <marienz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On za, 2012-06-23 at 17:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse
> > > dependency
> > > > explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me.
> > >
> > > No, it's that if a user requests a "complete" resolution, Paludis
> > > installs the newest version of things that it can. Extensive
> > > consultation with users has shown that this is a good behaviour,
> > > except
> > > in the small number of situations that have recently arisen where
> > > people are doing weird things with versions and slots.
> >
> > It surprises me that this behavior is normally desirable for packages
> > where all dependencies (including any in the world set or the like)
> > are slotted.
>
> Think || ( a:3 a:2 ).
>
I would say this is not possible with gtk+

To build a gtk+3 app, you need gtk+3 based libs only, same for gtk+2.
Mixing will not work because of symbols conflict iirc.

Anyway, I think that we got off track on the basics of the problem. The
problem is that you cannot have two ebuilds of the same ${CAT}/${PN}
with the same version simply because the files would have the same name.
Adding a new property or whatever does not solve this problem unless we
propose a way of naming such ebuilds to start with, right ?

--
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org>
Gentoo
 
Old 06-28-2012, 05:03 AM
Matt Turner
 
Default RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
>> Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the
>> > > gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of
>> > > "the gtk2 version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to
>> > > bring in a newer GCC and so on.
>> >
>> > And what problems is that causing for you?
>>
>> The problem is that there's no way of knowing that -r300 is not "a
>> newer version" than -r200

It's actually not though, is it? I think -r300 is simply the same
thing as -r200 except that it uses gtk3 instead of gtk2.
 
Old 06-28-2012, 06:24 AM
Ben de Groot
 
Default RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

On 28 June 2012 13:03, Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100
>> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
>>> Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the
>>> > > gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of
>>> > > "the gtk2 version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to
>>> > > bring in a newer GCC and so on.
>>> >
>>> > And what problems is that causing for you?
>>>
>>> The problem is that there's no way of knowing that -r300 is not "a
>>> newer version" than -r200
>
> It's actually not though, is it? I think -r300 is simply the same
> thing as -r200 except that it uses gtk3 instead of gtk2.

What it means is that it's the same package and version,
but a 100 revisions of the ebuild later. It makes one wonder
what the heck is going on there...

--
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead
 
Old 09-03-2012, 02:08 PM
Mark Bateman
 
Default RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

Patrick Lauer <patrick <at> gentoo.org> writes:

>
> On 06/23/12 21:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > There's been a move towards using slots for "clever" things that don't
> > fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new
> > gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals.
> >
> > Aside from being abusive,
> No, it solves a real problem.
> > this screws things up for Paludis users.
> -EDONTCARE, use a supported package manager



So if the packagemanager is struggling to resolve whether a package belongs in a
slot or not, would this be a case for encoding such metadata in the ebuild
filename.

foo-slot2-3.2.1.ebuild

This way the PM would be able to determine exactly what it has todo before it
starts to parse the ebuild
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:54 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ę2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org