[gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

[gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

[Christian Faulhammer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 675 bytes --]

Hi,

about 26 ebuilds have a PROVIDE=virtual/editor.  Those could be
transformed to a new-style virtual, which is really simple.  According
to zmedico and genone the impact of just commiting the virtual would be
low.  But I'd like to hear some comments on it.  If noone objects I
will commit it next week (Monday probably) and remove all PROVIDE
lines.  Eventually I will check profiles, too, and file bugs when
unsure what the intended behaviour?  Or anyone objections about me
touching his profiles.

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>

[-- Attachment #1.2: editor-0.ebuild --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 900 bytes --]

# Copyright 1999-2007 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
# $Header: $

DESCRIPTION="Virtual for editor"
HOMEPAGE="http://www.gentoo.org/"
SRC_URI=""

LICENSE="GPL-2"
SLOT="0"
KEYWORDS="alpha amd64 arm hppa ia64 m68k mips ppc ppc64 ppc-macos s390 sh sparc ~sparc-fbsd x86 ~x86-fbsd"
IUSE=""

DEPEND=""
RDEPEND="|| ( app-editors/nano
	app-editors/e3
	app-editors/easyedit
	app-editors/elvis
	app-editors/emacs
	app-editors/emacs-cvs
	app-editors/emact
	app-editors/ersatz-emacs
	app-editors/fe
	app-editors/gvim
	app-editors/jasspa-microemacs
	app-editors/jed
	app-editors/joe
	app-editors/le
	app-editors/mg
	app-editors/ne
	app-editors/ng
	app-editors/nvi
	app-editors/pico
	app-editors/qemacs
	app-editors/teco
	app-editors/uemacs-pk
	app-editors/vile
	app-editors/vim
	app-editors/zile
	app-editors/xemacs
	app-misc/mc
	dev-scheme/mit-scheme

 )"


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 20:42 Fri 05 Oct     , Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> about 26 ebuilds have a PROVIDE=virtual/editor.  Those could be 
> transformed to a new-style virtual, which is really simple.  According 
> to zmedico and genone the impact of just commiting the virtual would 
> be low.  But I'd like to hear some comments on it.  If noone objects I 
> will commit it next week (Monday probably) and remove all PROVIDE 
> lines.  Eventually I will check profiles, too, and file bugs when 
> unsure what the intended behaviour?  Or anyone objections about me 
> touching his profiles.

How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at 
all?

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 391 bytes --]

On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 11:46 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at 
> all?

<Tester_> !rdep virtual/editor
<jeeves> virtual/editor <- app-admin/sudo sys-process/fcron

I think the answer is none that really should, I would favor just
removing virtual/editor.

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 845 bytes --]

On Fri, 2007-10-05 at 14:57 -0400, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 11:46 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at 
> > all?
> 
> <Tester_> !rdep virtual/editor
> <jeeves> virtual/editor <- app-admin/sudo sys-process/fcron
> 
> I think the answer is none that really should, I would favor just
> removing virtual/editor.

Ehh... "system" also requires it.  Removing the virtual means everybody,
no matter what, will get nano and won't be able to remove it without
portage bitching up a storm.  Currently, you can replace nano with any
editor that meets the virtual and it'll satisfy the system target.

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

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: new-style virtual/editor

[Duncan]

Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> posted
1191615728.8800.16.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org, excerpted below, on  Fri,
05 Oct 2007 13:22:08 -0700:

> On Fri, 2007-10-05 at 14:57 -0400, Olivier Crête wrote:
>> On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 11:46 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> > How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at
>> > all?
>> 
>> <Tester_> !rdep virtual/editor
>> <jeeves> virtual/editor <- app-admin/sudo sys-process/fcron
>> 
>> I think the answer is none that really should, I would favor just
>> removing virtual/editor.
> 
> Ehh... "system" also requires it.  Removing the virtual means everybody,
> no matter what, will get nano and won't be able to remove it without
> portage bitching up a storm.  Currently, you can replace nano with any
> editor that meets the virtual and it'll satisfy the system target.

Couldn't people just profile/package.provided or profile/packages it, as 
I used to do with ssh (which apparently isn't a system dependency any 
longer, maybe omitted just on desktop profiles?) and still do for 
busybox, as neither is necessary or useful on my system, at least not to 
the point of justifying future upgrade hassles on a from-source 
distribution like Gentoo.

As for editor, even where people have an alternative system default 
editor, nano is extremely useful as a self-documented, small, low-
dependency fallback (for which it'd be more useful if it were compiled 
static, is it?).

Earlier in my Linux life I ended up in a situation where I had no working 
interactive editor at all, or at least none I was aware of (I later found 
they shipped a static vim-minimal as an emergency fallback editor, but I 
had no way of knowing it at the time)!  It's not a pleasant situation to 
be in, especially when you know all you have to do to get back to a 
working system is edit a single line in a single file -- only you can't 
do it without an editor!  Luckily, I remembered sed, and the sed appendix 
in the back of the "Linux in a Nutshell" book I still keep within easy 
reach to this day.  I'd never used sed before, but that day i had a crash-
course, and yes, I did manage to use it to get a working system back! =8^)

So yes, I definitely appreciate nano's role as low-dep fallback editor, 
and deliberately keep it on the system for exactly that reason.  I think 
I've used it twice in that role in the years I've been on Gentoo, during 
which I've upgraded or otherwise remerged it several times, but it's an 
easy and very quick emerge (unlike say, busybox), and VERY handy when 
nothing else works, so it's worth it.

>From here, therefore, a hard system dependency on nano doesn't look so 
bad, particularly since Gentoo already provides reasonable, easy and 
documented ways to avoid that dependency if one should prefer to.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

[Robert Buchholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 490 bytes --]

On Friday, 5. October 2007, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 11:46 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual
> > at all?
>
> <Tester_> !rdep virtual/editor
> <jeeves> virtual/editor <- app-admin/sudo sys-process/fcron
>
> I think the answer is none that really should, I would favor just
> removing virtual/editor.

A lot more applications need it, see subversion and cvs, which invoke 
$EDITOR.

Robert

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

[Alec Warner]

On 10/7/07, Robert Buchholz <rbu@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Friday, 5. October 2007, Olivier Crête wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 11:46 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual
> > > at all?
> >
> > <Tester_> !rdep virtual/editor
> > <jeeves> virtual/editor <- app-admin/sudo sys-process/fcron
> >
> > I think the answer is none that really should, I would favor just
> > removing virtual/editor.
>
> A lot more applications need it, see subversion and cvs, which invoke
> $EDITOR.

I think you missed the train when someone mentioned we put an editor
in system, thus making one always available.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

[Robert Buchholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 889 bytes --]

On Sunday, 7. October 2007, Alec Warner wrote:
> On 10/7/07, Robert Buchholz <rbu@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Friday, 5. October 2007, Olivier Crête wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 11:46 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > > How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a
> > > > virtual at all?
> > >
> > > <Tester_> !rdep virtual/editor
> > > <jeeves> virtual/editor <- app-admin/sudo sys-process/fcron
> > >
> > > I think the answer is none that really should, I would favor just
> > > removing virtual/editor.
> >
> > A lot more applications need it, see subversion and cvs, which
> > invoke $EDITOR.
>
> I think you missed the train when someone mentioned we put an editor
> in system, thus making one always available.

I thought this discussion was going into a direction that had the system 
dependency removed. I guess I was mistaking.

Robert

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

[Stephen Bennett]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:46:29 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:

> How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at 
> all?

The system set depends on it, and last I knew didn't allow for any-of
deps.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 710 bytes --]

On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 20:27 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:46:29 -0700
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at 
> > all?
> 
> The system set depends on it, and last I knew didn't allow for any-of
> deps.

Does it really depend on it ? Or is it just a convenient dep so its
installed as part of the stage1 ? Why not just put nano in the system
(which is was gets pulled into the stages anyway).

I see that both sudo and fcron, while they have some versions that
depend on virtual/editor actually hardcode nano as the default.

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:18:11 -0400
Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I see that both sudo and fcron, while they have some versions that
> depend on virtual/editor actually hardcode nano as the default.

For the fcron dependency, see https://bugs.gentoo.org/149376#c15 and
onward.


Kind regards,
     JeR
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 987 bytes --]

On Friday 05 October 2007, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-10 at 20:27 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at
> > > all?
> >
> > The system set depends on it, and last I knew didn't allow for any-of
> > deps.
>
> Does it really depend on it ? Or is it just a convenient dep so its
> installed as part of the stage1 ? Why not just put nano in the system
> (which is was gets pulled into the stages anyway).

if it's part of the "system" target, then it's a pita for people to switch 
editors ... `emerge vim && emerge -C nano` wont work anymore

if it's part of the "build" target (meaning it goes into stage1 but isnt part 
of "system"), then it'll get cleaned by default when doing something simple 
like `emerge depclean`

it doesnt matter to me whether ebuilds do PROVIDE or a new style virtual, 
whatever floats your boat i guess
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: new-style virtual/editor

[Christian Faulhammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1128 bytes --]

Christian Faulhammer <opfer@gentoo.org>:
> about 26 ebuilds have a PROVIDE=virtual/editor.  Those could be
> transformed to a new-style virtual, which is really simple.  According
> to zmedico and genone the impact of just commiting the virtual would
> be low.  But I'd like to hear some comments on it.  If noone objects I
> will commit it next week (Monday probably) and remove all PROVIDE
> lines.  Eventually I will check profiles, too, and file bugs when
> unsure what the intended behaviour?  Or anyone objections about me
> touching his profiles.

 New-style virtual in the tree with nearly 30 packages in
RDEPEND...:)...we added some that were not providing it until now.
Profiles fixed (except selinux/2005.1/mips) and ebuilds cleaned-up.
Thanks to ulm for the help.  So if you have a text-mode editor not in
there, just add it to the virtual or file a bug.  I put emacs, xemacs,
vim teams and base-system into metadata.xml as maintainers.

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>

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