[gentoo-dev] tarball doesn't have version -> portage problem

[gentoo-dev] tarball doesn't have version -> portage problem

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 825 bytes --]

Hi,

If a package doesn't have a version in it's name, then we have a problem
concerning updating: Portage will think that the sourcecode in
/usr/portage/distfiles (the old tarball) is the recent one and will install
it. 

One solution would be to rename the tarball personally and put it on ibiblio.
However, some tools prohibit distribution of the sourcecode, so this solution
isn't 100% safe.

Any thoughts on how to handle this?

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16222

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen

-- 
Thanks to DRM, you know that something has been built in environment of 
unspecified degree of security, from source you cannot check, written by 
programmers you don't know, released after passing QA of unknown quality and 
which is released under a license that disclaims any responsibility...

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] tarball doesn't have version -> portage problem

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Tuesday 06 May 2003 16:50, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If a package doesn't have a version in it's name, then we have a problem
> concerning updating: Portage will think that the sourcecode in
> /usr/portage/distfiles (the old tarball) is the recent one and will install
> it.
>
> One solution would be to rename the tarball personally and put it on
> ibiblio. However, some tools prohibit distribution of the sourcecode, so
> this solution isn't 100% safe.
>
> Any thoughts on how to handle this?
>
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16222
>
I personally think that we need to look into providing more finegrained 
distfiles. The best proposal I heard up til now is name rewriting. An ebuild 
specifies how a distfile is to be called. Portage then needs to be smart 
enough to use the renamed file from the mirrors, but the normal one from the 
main repository.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] tarball doesn't have version -> portage problem

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1015 bytes --]

On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 10:36:23PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> I personally think that we need to look into providing more finegrained 
> distfiles. The best proposal I heard up til now is name rewriting. An ebuild 
> specifies how a distfile is to be called. Portage then needs to be smart 
> enough to use the renamed file from the mirrors, but the normal one from the 
> main repository.

Shouldn't this be easy with digests? It checks the checksum of it's local
file. If it isn't the same as the one in the digest file, it assumes it is an
old distfile and dowloads a more recent one. If even that one fails, the
ebuild fails with the normal "digest failed" error.

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen

-- 
Thanks to DRM, you know that something has been built in environment of 
unspecified degree of security, from source you cannot check, written by 
programmers you don't know, released after passing QA of unknown quality and 
which is released under a license that disclaims any responsibility...

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] tarball doesn't have version -> portage problem

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1111 bytes --]

On Wednesday 07 May 2003 08:11, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 10:36:23PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > I personally think that we need to look into providing more finegrained
> > distfiles. The best proposal I heard up til now is name rewriting. An
> > ebuild specifies how a distfile is to be called. Portage then needs to be
> > smart enough to use the renamed file from the mirrors, but the normal one
> > from the main repository.
>
> Shouldn't this be easy with digests? It checks the checksum of it's local
> file. If it isn't the same as the one in the digest file, it assumes it is
> an old distfile and dowloads a more recent one. If even that one fails, the
> ebuild fails with the normal "digest failed" error.

The problem would be to support multiple version of the same ebuild. And what 
to think of different packages wanting different, but similarly named, source 
files. I think a file renaming scheme might be the best way to handle the 
problems.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.cs.kun.nl/~pauldv

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] tarball doesn't have version -> portage problem

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 800 bytes --]

On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 11:08:12AM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> The problem would be to support multiple version of the same ebuild. And what 
> to think of different packages wanting different, but similarly named, source 
> files. I think a file renaming scheme might be the best way to handle the 
> problems.

Perhaps this is a discussion for later (when 1.4 is out), since it involves
significant changes to solve problems which don't occur frequently.

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen

-- 
Thanks to DRM, you know that something has been built in environment of 
unspecified degree of security, from source you cannot check, written by 
programmers you don't know, released after passing QA of unknown quality and 
which is released under a license that disclaims any responsibility...

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] tarball doesn't have version -> portage problem

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 999 bytes --]

On Wednesday 07 May 2003 14:10, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 11:08:12AM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > The problem would be to support multiple version of the same ebuild. And
> > what to think of different packages wanting different, but similarly
> > named, source files. I think a file renaming scheme might be the best way
> > to handle the problems.
>
> Perhaps this is a discussion for later (when 1.4 is out), since it involves
> significant changes to solve problems which don't occur frequently.

Of course. It is not really a problem right now, and I know that there are 
other problems concerning portage that are more urgent (I think so too). So 
my standpoint is that when the tarbal is not versioned, and redistribution is 
not allowed (so RESTRICT=nomirror should be set in the ebuild), the package 
(and its requestor) is just out of luck.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.cs.kun.nl/~pauldv

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