[gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme

[gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme

[Steve Long]

Fabian Groffen wrote:
> This GLEP has been laying around for some long time now in my gleps dir.
> I nearly forgot about it.  Anyway, feedback is appreciated.
> 
Since it is "a keywording scheme that is compatible with the scheme that is
currently in use" and fulfils all the requirements, it sounds like a
no-brainer to me.. i'm sure someone will flame me for daring to say so but
wtf ;)


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 635 bytes --]

On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 07:32:12AM +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > This GLEP has been laying around for some long time now in my gleps dir.
> > I nearly forgot about it.  Anyway, feedback is appreciated.

<list-admin-hat>
Grobian: can you please resend your message to the list?

This is the second message that I've seen lost in two days, and I'm
annoyed now :-(. (This message is public so I can trace it as well).

</list-admin-hat>

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 321 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 738 bytes --]

On 14-04-2007 01:19:41 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 07:32:12AM +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> > Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > > This GLEP has been laying around for some long time now in my gleps dir.
> > > I nearly forgot about it.  Anyway, feedback is appreciated.
> 
> <list-admin-hat>
> Grobian: can you please resend your message to the list?

Because I don't have it either, luckily there is GMane:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/48017

For ease of readers, some copy & paste:

For people that like reading it in html or via the web:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.html
http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.txt


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: glep-keywords.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3252 bytes --]

GLEP: XXX2
Title: Keywording scheme
Version: $Revision: 1.8 $
Last-Modified: $Date: 2007/04/13 17:26:35 $
Author:	Diego Pettenò <flameeyes@gentoo.org>, Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org>
Status: Active
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 11-Dec-2005
Post-History: 13-Apr-2007



Abstract
========

This GLEP is a replacement of the keywording scheme from GLEP 22
[#GLEP22]_.  The current use of keywords is retained in favour of
4-tuple keywords.  This GLEP defines how current keywords are to be
interpreted, and how future keywords should be constructed.


Motivation
==========

Although the state of GLEP 22 [#GLEP22]_ is final, its keywording scheme
was never propagated through the tree.  In fact, 4-tuple keywords are
not used at all.  This GLEP defines a keywording scheme that is
compatible with the scheme that is currently in use.


Rationale
=========

The Gentoo/Alt project deals with different Operating Systems and
architectures.  Recently Gentoo/FreeBSD for Sparc was introduced after
support for x86 platforms.  This yielded in another new keyword.
For these kind of platforms, a single field keyword is not enough to
properly describe the OS and architecture.  While four fields in a
keyword are overkill, two fields in a keyword should be enough for
everyone.


Backwards Compatibility
=======================

The proposed keywording scheme is fully compatible with the current
situation of the portage tree, this in contrast to GLEP 22.  The
variables provided by GLEP 22 can't be extracted from the new keyword,
but since GLEP 22-style keywords aren't in the tree at the moment, that
is not a problem.  The same information can be extracted from the
``CHOST`` variable, if necessary.  No modifications to ebuilds will have
to be made.


Specification
=============

Keywords will consist out of two parts separated by a hyphen (``-``).
The left hand part of the keyword is the architecture, such as `x86`,
`sparc` or `ppc`.  The right hand part indicates the operating system or
distribution, such as `linux`, `macos`, `solaris` or `fbsd`.  If the
right hand part is omitted, it implies the operating system/distribution
type is GNU/Linux.  In such case the hyphen is also omitted.  Examples
of such keywords are ``x86`` and ``sparc-fbsd``.  This is fully
compatible with the current keywords used in the tree.  Examples of
OS/distributions for the right hand side of the keyword are:

::

	(linux)          GNU/Linux (Gentoo biased, but not fixed)
	fbsd             FreeBSD
	macos            Apple Mac OS
	solaris          Sun Solaris

Both architecture as well as OS/distribution are lower-case ASCII
(alpha) numeric character sequences.  A valid keyword matches the
following expression:

	``[a-z0-9]+(-[a-z0-9]+)?``

Note that no limit on the length of both fields in the keyword are
imposed.  However, we cannot overemphasize our preference to keep
keywords small and sensible.

 

.. [#GLEP22] GLEP 22, New "keyword" system to incorporate various
   userlands/kernels/archs, Goodyear,
   (http://glep.gentoo.org/glep-0022.html)


Copyright
=========

This document has been placed in the public domain.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 733 bytes --]

On Saturday 14 April 2007, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 14-04-2007 01:19:41 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 07:32:12AM +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> > > Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > > > This GLEP has been laying around for some long time now in my gleps
> > > > dir. I nearly forgot about it.  Anyway, feedback is appreciated.
> >
> > <list-admin-hat>
> > Grobian: can you please resend your message to the list?
>
> Because I don't have it either, luckily there is GMane:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/48017

ive found hooking up my NNTP client to GMane and downloading missed e-mails 
from there works quite well

if only i could say the same for our mailing list ;(
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1207 bytes --]

On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 07:47:12AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Because I don't have it either, luckily there is GMane:
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/48017
> ive found hooking up my NNTP client to GMane and downloading missed e-mails 
> from there works quite well
> 
> if only i could say the same for our mailing list ;(
Unless Gmane has some deep foo in our servers that I don't know about,
it's just as likely to be missing some list messages as our developers.
The missing messages aren't in mlmmj's archive either.

My rough stats show that we've had problems with ~1000 messages over the
last 663 days - 1.5 messages per day. The core in this is a message not
going to all recipients.

As as I say, I have debug stuff on now, and it's given me one core dump
that's pretty much garbage, and one other interesting bit of input.

Anybody that feels like inspecting C code, look at mlmmj-1.2.14/src.
getaddrsfromfd.c:27 - this mmap fails, 'Could not mmap fd: Invalid argument'
mlmmj-send.c

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 321 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 499 bytes --]

On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 05:41 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Anybody that feels like inspecting C code, look at mlmmj-1.2.14/src.
> getaddrsfromfd.c:27 - this mmap fails, 'Could not mmap fd: Invalid argument'
> mlmmj-send.c

Is it possible we're hitting > 1024 fd open?  We have had a similar
problem at my current employer.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 645 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 07:50:58AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 05:41 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > Anybody that feels like inspecting C code, look at mlmmj-1.2.14/src.
> > getaddrsfromfd.c:27 - this mmap fails, 'Could not mmap fd: Invalid argument'
> > mlmmj-send.c
> Is it possible we're hitting > 1024 fd open?  We have had a similar
> problem at my current employer.
I raised all of the limits significantly in testing, with no effect.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 321 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1112 bytes --]

On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 05:03 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 07:50:58AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 05:41 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > > Anybody that feels like inspecting C code, look at mlmmj-1.2.14/src.
> > > getaddrsfromfd.c:27 - this mmap fails, 'Could not mmap fd: Invalid argument'
> > > mlmmj-send.c
> > Is it possible we're hitting > 1024 fd open?  We have had a similar
> > problem at my current employer.
> I raised all of the limits significantly in testing, with no effect.

Yeah, ulimit won't do it.  We hit this issue with mimedefang, actually.
Our problem is that the kernel is doing the limiting.  We ended up
having to split things up a good bit into multiple processes to get
everything working.  We also added another machine to the cluster to try
to reduce the load on any one server at a time.  Nothing we did with
ulimit made a bit of difference.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme

[Christopher Sawtell]

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 01:10:20 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
[ ... ]

> Yeah, ulimit won't do it.  We hit this issue with mimedefang, actually.
> Our problem is that the kernel is doing the limiting.  We ended up
> having to split things up a good bit into multiple processes to get
> everything working.  We also added another machine to the cluster to try
> to reduce the load on any one server at a time.  Nothing we did with
> ulimit made a bit of difference.

http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/linux-increase-the-maximum-number-of-open-files/


-- 
CS
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 917 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 11:19:24AM +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> > Yeah, ulimit won't do it.  We hit this issue with mimedefang, actually.
> > Our problem is that the kernel is doing the limiting.  We ended up
> > having to split things up a good bit into multiple processes to get
> > everything working.  We also added another machine to the cluster to try
> > to reduce the load on any one server at a time.  Nothing we did with
> > ulimit made a bit of difference.
> http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/linux-increase-the-maximum-number-of-open-files/

# sysctl fs.file-max
fs.file-max = 206524

And tracking fs.file-nr indicates that the total number of files open in
the entire system barely exceeds 2000 when the lists are flying.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 321 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 917 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 11:19:24AM +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> > Yeah, ulimit won't do it.  We hit this issue with mimedefang, actually.
> > Our problem is that the kernel is doing the limiting.  We ended up
> > having to split things up a good bit into multiple processes to get
> > everything working.  We also added another machine to the cluster to try
> > to reduce the load on any one server at a time.  Nothing we did with
> > ulimit made a bit of difference.
> http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/linux-increase-the-maximum-number-of-open-files/

# sysctl fs.file-max
fs.file-max = 206524

And tracking fs.file-nr indicates that the total number of files open in
the entire system barely exceeds 2000 when the lists are flying.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 321 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1746 bytes --]

On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 11:19 +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 April 2007 01:10:20 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> [ ... ]
> 
> > Yeah, ulimit won't do it.  We hit this issue with mimedefang, actually.
> > Our problem is that the kernel is doing the limiting.  We ended up
> > having to split things up a good bit into multiple processes to get
> > everything working.  We also added another machine to the cluster to try
> > to reduce the load on any one server at a time.  Nothing we did with
> > ulimit made a bit of difference.
> 
> http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/linux-increase-the-maximum-number-of-open-files/

The problem isn't open files.  It is file descriptors.

wolf31o2@vertigo /usr/src/linux/include $ head -n 25 linux/posix_types.h
#ifndef _LINUX_POSIX_TYPES_H
#define _LINUX_POSIX_TYPES_H

#include <linux/stddef.h>

/*
 * This allows for 1024 file descriptors: if NR_OPEN is ever grown
 * beyond that you'll have to change this too. But 1024 fd's seem to be
 * enough even for such "real" unices like OSF/1, so hopefully this is
 * one limit that doesn't have to be changed [again].
 *
 * Note that POSIX wants the FD_CLEAR(fd,fdsetp) defines to be in
 * <sys/time.h> (and thus <linux/time.h>) - but this is a more logical
 * place for them. Solved by having dummy defines in <sys/time.h>.
 */

/*
 * Those macros may have been defined in <gnu/types.h>. But we always
 * use the ones here. 
 */
#undef __NFDBITS
#define __NFDBITS       (8 * sizeof(unsigned long))

#undef __FD_SETSIZE
#define __FD_SETSIZE    1024

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme

[Fabian Groffen]

Hereby I would like to request the counsel to discuss this mini-GLEP in
the first meeting for which this request is in time.


On 14-04-2007 10:33:03 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 14-04-2007 01:19:41 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 07:32:12AM +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> > > Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > > > This GLEP has been laying around for some long time now in my gleps dir.
> > > > I nearly forgot about it.  Anyway, feedback is appreciated.
> > 
> > <list-admin-hat>
> > Grobian: can you please resend your message to the list?
> 
> Because I don't have it either, luckily there is GMane:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/48017
> 
> For ease of readers, some copy & paste:
> 
> For people that like reading it in html or via the web:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.html
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.txt


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 418 bytes --]

On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 09:35 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> Hereby I would like to request the counsel to discuss this mini-GLEP in
> the first meeting for which this request is in time.

You got this in just in time for the next Council meeting.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 667 bytes --]

Fabian Groffen wrote: [Sat Apr 14 2007, 03:33:03AM CDT]
> For people that like reading it in html or via the web:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.html
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.txt

So what would a version of Gentoo for amd64 based on FreeBSD but
using glibc be called?  (It's not an entirely academic question;
Debian folks have worked on such a distribution for some time.)
I can't really tell from the text in your proposed GLEP.

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme

[Rémi Cardona]

Grant Goodyear a écrit :
> Fabian Groffen wrote: [Sat Apr 14 2007, 03:33:03AM CDT]
>> For people that like reading it in html or via the web:
>> http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.html
>> http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.txt
> 
> So what would a version of Gentoo for amd64 based on FreeBSD but
> using glibc be called?  (It's not an entirely academic question;
> Debian folks have worked on such a distribution for some time.)
> I can't really tell from the text in your proposed GLEP.

I'm sure this GLEP can be extended later on should anyone feel like 
doing a glibc-based freebsd port of gentoo (hurts my brains just writing 
this :) )

Rémi
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme

[Yuri Vasilevski]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:39:47 +0200
Rémi Cardona <remi@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Grant Goodyear a écrit :
> > Fabian Groffen wrote: [Sat Apr 14 2007, 03:33:03AM CDT]
> >> For people that like reading it in html or via the web:
> >> http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.html
> >> http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.txt
> > 
> > So what would a version of Gentoo for amd64 based on FreeBSD but
> > using glibc be called?  (It's not an entirely academic question;
> > Debian folks have worked on such a distribution for some time.)
> > I can't really tell from the text in your proposed GLEP.
> 
> I'm sure this GLEP can be extended later on should anyone feel like 
> doing a glibc-based freebsd port of gentoo (hurts my brains just
> writing this :) )

I think it will be better if this scheme is specified in friendlier
way for future expansions, hence I this it should be more flexible.

I would propose this two modifications:

(a) Instead of using n-tuples to describe a keyword, to use sets.

Both ways can be made semantically equivalent if we add the
restrictions that the sets of all the possible architecture, kernel,
userland, libc, ... sub-keywords are disjoint. (i.e. If there is a
userland sub-keyword bsd, then there can't be a kernel or libc
sub-keyword named bsd, they have to be named in a slightly different
way.)

But on the other hand, the notation will be way more flexible as a
keyword can only specify the relevant sub-keywords, while the rest can
be considered to be a wildcard (to mean "all")

(b) In case there are several keywords A and B:
- if A is more specific that B, A takes precedence (ej. with "!uclibc
  arm:uclibc" the package can be installed on any system that does not
  uses uclibc as libc or on any system with arm hardware.)
- if A is exactly as specific as B, the union of A and B is used (ej.
  "!uclibc arm" this is equivalent to the previous example.)

So to give more examples,

A package that can only be build on arm, sparc and x86 with linux and
glibc or arm with uclibc can be specified as:
"{arm,sparc,x86}:linux:glibc arm:uclibc"

A package (lets say linux-headers) that makes sense on all systems that
support linux and only them can be specified as:
"linux"

A package that is stable with gnu userland but still in testing with
bsd userland:
"{some,arches}:gnu ~{some,arches}:bsd" or just "gnu ~bsd" for all
arches.

Note that I propose to mark testing the whole set of sub-keywords, not
just like I run stable x86 with unstable bsd as I think it does not make
any sense as the resulting combination is still considered
unstable/testing.

There are two things I see against my proposal:
- This is not fully backward compatible, as it is currently equivalent
  to normal arch keywords if the user runs linux with glibc/uclibc,
  while it has a completely different meaning for Gentoo/Alt users.
  But I don't see it as a big problem because, as far as I understand,
  this will be just one of many changes that need to be made to make
  Gentoo/Alt as integrated as GNU/Linux is now into portage.

- For this to work, the keyword resolver will have to be way more
  complex than it is now, as it will have to compute the subset of all
  possible keywords some ebuild defines to see if user's accept
  keywords intersect it.

Kindest regards,
Yuri.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme

[Fabian Groffen]

Hi Grant, Rémi and Yuri,

On 25-04-2007 20:30:45 -0500, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:39:47 +0200
> Rémi Cardona <remi@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Grant Goodyear a écrit :
> > > Fabian Groffen wrote: [Sat Apr 14 2007, 03:33:03AM CDT]
> > >> For people that like reading it in html or via the web:
> > >> http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.html
> > >> http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.txt
> > > 
> > > So what would a version of Gentoo for amd64 based on FreeBSD but
> > > using glibc be called?  (It's not an entirely academic question;
> > > Debian folks have worked on such a distribution for some time.)
> > > I can't really tell from the text in your proposed GLEP.
> > 
> > I'm sure this GLEP can be extended later on should anyone feel like 
> > doing a glibc-based freebsd port of gentoo (hurts my brains just
> > writing this :) )
> 
> I think it will be better if this scheme is specified in friendlier
> way for future expansions, hence I this it should be more flexible.
> 
> I would propose this two modifications:

[snip]

> So to give more examples,
> 
> A package that can only be build on arm, sparc and x86 with linux and
> glibc or arm with uclibc can be specified as:
> "{arm,sparc,x86}:linux:glibc arm:uclibc"
> 
> A package (lets say linux-headers) that makes sense on all systems that
> support linux and only them can be specified as:
> "linux"

[snip]

While I agree that you could be much more explicit in addressing the
exact thing that you're dealing with, I chose not to.  The rationale
here is that the added complexity, as well as the added fine-grained
granularity is not necessary for at least now and what I would expect
from the reasonable future.

So in Grant's case, I would like to highlight that the right-hand field
of the keyword is an OS thing, not a kernel nor a userland.  The reason
for this, is that it allows some freedom in what you consider to be OS
X (Not the Macintosh thing here).  I'm not too familiar with FreeBSD and
it's flavours, so I'll talk about Solaris here.  The SunOS kernel has
these days a few incarnations.  OpenSolaris, Solaris, Nexenta...
For what we do, it seems that even though Nexenta has a GNU-based
userland, we can still address it in the same way as we can do for
Solaris, hence we don't need something special there.  If we would, we
could make a keyword.  Often times the setting of ELIBC and KERNEL helps
us to make the real decision where we need it (e.g. virtual/libintl),
which is set in the profiles, unrelated to the keyword.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list