[gentoo-dev] GLEP 5 status?

[gentoo-dev] GLEP 5 status?

[Eric Olinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 521 bytes --]

Hey All,
	I'm just wondering whats the status on GLEP 5 [1]. If its still
going to be implemented, what is needed and what can be done to push
it forward. Do we need reference implementations or code changes to
portage.

[1] http://glep.gentoo.org/glep-0005.html


-- 
Eric Olinger

Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF90FBBC1
Key fingerprint: B678 9E22 1161 51CF 6664 7591 6767 5BDB F90F BBC1

Give a man a password, he'll log in for a day. Teach him to code, and he
will hack his way in...

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 187 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 5 status?

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 669 bytes --]

On 06/29/04  Eric Olinger wrote:

> Hey All,
> 	I'm just wondering whats the status on GLEP 5 [1]. If its still
> going to be implemented, what is needed and what can be done to push
> it forward. Do we need reference implementations or code changes to
> portage.

Well, this would require some substantial changes in portage (atm
portage doesn't use metadata.xml for anything) as well as changes to the
whole tree, so I don't think this will be accepted anytime soon.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 5 status?

[pclouds]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 985 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 01:54:30AM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On 06/29/04  Eric Olinger wrote:
> 
> > Hey All,
> > 	I'm just wondering whats the status on GLEP 5 [1]. If its still
> > going to be implemented, what is needed and what can be done to push
> > it forward. Do we need reference implementations or code changes to
> > portage.
> 
> Well, this would require some substantial changes in portage (atm
> portage doesn't use metadata.xml for anything) as well as changes to the
> whole tree, so I don't think this will be accepted anytime soon.

I'm trying to modify portage.py using Metadata_XML.py. It needs some small
changes in portdbapi.aux_get(). Others that need to be modified are
repoman and gentoolkit IMO. gentoolkit will be harder to modify. Is there
anything else to be modified?
Setting license, description, homepage in ebuild should take
precedence over metadata.xml so we don't need to change the whole tree
immediately. 

-- 
Bi Cờ Lao

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 5 status?

[Stuart Herbert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1796 bytes --]

On Tuesday 29 June 2004 19:04, Eric Olinger wrote:
> Hey All,
> 	I'm just wondering whats the status on GLEP 5 [1]. If its still
> going to be implemented, what is needed and what can be done to push
> it forward. Do we need reference implementations or code changes to
> portage.
>
> [1] http://glep.gentoo.org/glep-0005.html

GLEP 5 *must* be rejected in its current form.

Homepage and license are pieces of data that are specific to individual 
ebuilds, rather than to individual packages.  We definitely have packages in 
the tree today where different versions of the same package are published 
under different licenses, and I'd be amazed if there aren't packages that 
have different homepages for different versions.

Any tools or websites that expect a package to only have one license and one 
homepage are working on an incorrect assumption, and are publishing 
inaccurate or misleading information.  

http://packages.gentoo.org/ is one example where this happens right now.  
Marduk - this needs fixing m8.  I assume there is some small risk of legal 
liability if packages.gentoo.org is publishing the wrong license information 
for a package ;-)

If anyone really has enough time to waste on implementing GLEP 5, please come 
and talk to the recruiters@gentoo.org.  There's plenty of ways you can help 
us to help our users.  GLEP 5 is not one of them.

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
Stuart Herbert                                              stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer                                       http://www.gentoo.org/
                                                   http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/

GnuPG key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319  C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 5 status?

[Donnie Berkholz]

Stuart Herbert said:
> Homepage and license are pieces of data that are specific to individual
> ebuilds, rather than to individual packages.  We definitely have
> packages in  the tree today where different versions of the same package
> are published  under different licenses, and I'd be amazed if there
> aren't packages that  have different homepages for different versions.
>
> Any tools or websites that expect a package to only have one license and
> one  homepage are working on an incorrect assumption, and are publishing
>  inaccurate or misleading information.

You don't seem to be considering the possibility of restrictive version
tags for information.



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 5 status?

[Stuart Herbert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 925 bytes --]

On Friday 02 July 2004 00:03, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> You don't seem to be considering the possibility of restrictive version
> tags for information.

There is no specification of restrictive tags, just a single reference to them 
in the GLEP.  GLEP needs fixing before it's implemented ;-)

Any tool that wants to retrieve data about packages will always have to be 
prepared to deal with data inside ebuilds anyhow.  The GLEP's a waste of 
effort.  There really are many more important things that need attention.

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
Stuart Herbert                                              stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer                                       http://www.gentoo.org/
                                                   http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/

GnuPG key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319  C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 5 status?

[Andrew Ross]

On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 09:21, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On Friday 02 July 2004 00:03, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > You don't seem to be considering the possibility of restrictive version
> > tags for information.
> 
> There is no specification of restrictive tags, just a single reference to them 
> in the GLEP.  GLEP needs fixing before it's implemented ;-)

What about the restrict attribute, which is already present in the
metadata DTD?

>From http://www.gentoo.org/dtd/metadata.dtd :

"The restrict attribute, this attribute specifies restrictions on 
 the applicability of tags on versions. The format of this attribute is 
 equal to the format of DEPEND lines in ebuilds. There is one special 
 value though: restrict="*". A tag that specifies this only applies if 
 there are no other tags that apply.
  
 "For required tags, there must be either an unrestricted version, or a 
 version that is default restricted."

Cheers

Andrew


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list