Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[Thierry Carrez]

tigger@gentoo.org wrote:

> The current output of emerge -p is difficult to machine parse because
> its difficult to split the package name and package version. However,
> its easy for emerge to output the two differently.
> 
> I'd like to suggest that its changed from:
> 
> [ebuild     U ] app-text/ghostscript-7.07.1-r5 [7.07.1-r3]
> 
> To:
> 
> [ebuild     U ] app-text/ghostscript [7.07.1-r5] [7.07.1-r3]
> 
> Does anyone have any (reasonable) objections to this?

I think

[ebuild     U ] app-text/ghostscript 7.07.1-r3 -> 7.07.1-r5

would be easier to understand by a human and still machine-parseable.

--
Koon

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[William Kenworthy]

your going to break an awful lot of user scripts that expect the current
behaviour.  It might be better to add that functionality as -P
(capitalise) or similar for compatibility.

BillK


On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 20:51, tigger@gentoo.org wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> The current output of emerge -p is difficult to machine parse because
> its difficult to split the package name and package version. However,
> its easy for emerge to output the two differently.
> 
> I'd like to suggest that its changed from:
> 
> [ebuild     U ] app-text/ghostscript-7.07.1-r5 [7.07.1-r3]
> 
> To:
> 
> [ebuild     U ] app-text/ghostscript [7.07.1-r5] [7.07.1-r3]
> 
> Does anyone have any (reasonable) objections to this?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Rob


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[Kurt Lieber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 790 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 02:01:38PM +0200 or thereabouts, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > Does anyone have any (reasonable) objections to this?

Nope -- I think it's a great idea.

> 
> I think
> 
> [ebuild     U ] app-text/ghostscript 7.07.1-r3 -> 7.07.1-r5
> 
> would be easier to understand by a human and still machine-parseable.

I like this modification a bit better. I'd also suggest that colors be used
to further distinguish the two.

Also, regarding breaking existing scripts vs. using a command flag, break
the damn scripts.  It's unreasonable to expect that scripts will *never*
need updating and this change is being made specifically to make it easier
for scripts in the future.  Backwards compatibility is nice and all, but
there's a reasonable limit.

--kurt

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[Robert Moss]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 663 bytes --]

> The current output of emerge -p is difficult to machine parse because
> its difficult to split the package name and package version. However,

Really? All you have to do is strip off the stuff between the [ and ] 
plus the space, strip off anything after the now remaining first space, 
and then you have something like app-text/ghostscript-7.07.1-r5. Then 
anything before hyphen-digit is the package name, and anything after the 
hyphen in hyphen-digit is the package version. So, you just want to (for 
example) regexp away "-[[:digit:]]*.*" for the package name, and match 
that and strip the hyphen for the version. Why is this difficult all of 
a sudden?

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 264 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[Robert Moss]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 212 bytes --]

> This is a nice simple change to emerge which will help scripting :)

You're right, of course. I just think it's always important to have 
someone play devil's advocate when we start messing with portage... :-P

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 264 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[tigger]

Hi all,

The current output of emerge -p is difficult to machine parse because
its difficult to split the package name and package version. However,
its easy for emerge to output the two differently.

I'd like to suggest that its changed from:

[ebuild     U ] app-text/ghostscript-7.07.1-r5 [7.07.1-r3]

To:

[ebuild     U ] app-text/ghostscript [7.07.1-r5] [7.07.1-r3]

Does anyone have any (reasonable) objections to this?

Cheers,

Rob

-- 
rob holland - [ tigger@gentoo.org ]
[ 5251 4FAC D684 8845 5604  E44F D65C 392F D91B 4729 ]

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[tigger]

On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 02:01:38PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> tigger@gentoo.org wrote:

> I think

> [ebuild     U ] app-text/ghostscript 7.07.1-r3 -> 7.07.1-r5

> would be easier to understand by a human and still machine-parseable.

Thats good too, I don't really care tbh, as long as the the version is
split.

As far as adding a command line flag goes, thats partly why I'm asking
about this.

Is it worth a flag bearing in mind the complexity it adds.

-- 
rob holland - [ tigger@gentoo.org ]
[ 5251 4FAC D684 8845 5604  E44F D65C 392F D91B 4729 ]

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Friday 03 September 2004 14:35, Robert Moss wrote:
> > The current output of emerge -p is difficult to machine parse because
> > its difficult to split the package name and package version. However,
>
> Really? All you have to do is strip off the stuff between the [ and ]
> plus the space, strip off anything after the now remaining first space,
> and then you have something like app-text/ghostscript-7.07.1-r5. Then
> anything before hyphen-digit is the package name, and anything after
> the hyphen in hyphen-digit is the package version. So, you just want to
> (for example) regexp away "-[[:digit:]]*.*" for the package name, and
> match that and strip the hyphen for the version. Why is this difficult
> all of a sudden?

The only correct parsing is the way portage does it itself. There are 
names allowed that would invalidate your parsing logic.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[Jason Stubbs]

On Friday 03 September 2004 21:51, Robert Moss wrote:
> > This is a nice simple change to emerge which will help scripting :)
>
> You're right, of course. I just think it's always important to have
> someone play devil's advocate when we start messing with portage... :-P

I think everyone on the portage team does nothing BUT play devil's advocate ;)
(Well, we do do stuff, but...)

Regards,
Jason Stubbs

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[tigger]

On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 01:35:39PM +0100, Robert Moss wrote:
> >The current output of emerge -p is difficult to machine parse because
> >its difficult to split the package name and package version. However,

> and then you have something like app-text/ghostscript-7.07.1-r5. Then 
> anything before hyphen-digit is the package name, and anything after the 
> hyphen in hyphen-digit is the package version. So, you just want to (for 
> example) regexp away "-[[:digit:]]*.*" for the package name, and match 
> that and strip the hyphen for the version. Why is this difficult all of 
> a sudden?

Not being funny, but wouldn't it be so much easier and cleaner the way I
described?

-- 
rob holland - [ tigger@gentoo.org ]
[ 5251 4FAC D684 8845 5604  E44F D65C 392F D91B 4729 ]

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[tigger]

On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 01:41:14PM +0100, Robert Moss wrote:
> >Not being funny, but wouldn't it be so much easier and cleaner the way I
> >described?

> Oh, absolutely it would, but I don't understand why for a fairly simple 
> clean-up we should break everybody's scripts. That said, I'd be all for 
> having this show up in the portage-2.0.51 release as long as we let 
> people know about it beforehand (manpage, warning, whatever).

I don't really care if it waits for .51 or not, I'm using the
prereleases of that anyway. I'd rather this wasn't sitting around for
long though, its a small change.

> Of course, the neat solution would be the API, because then you wouldn't 
> (shouldn't?) have to rely on text output...

But there is no API that its sensible for me to use (thats not a dig at
anyone).

The portageapi which Jason works on is shortly to be re-written.

This is a nice simple change to emerge which will help scripting :)

-- 
rob holland - [ tigger@gentoo.org ]
[ 5251 4FAC D684 8845 5604  E44F D65C 392F D91B 4729 ]

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[Norberto Bensa]

tigger@gentoo.org wrote:
> [ebuild     U ] app-text/ghostscript [7.07.1-r5] [7.07.1-r3]
>
> Does anyone have any (reasonable) objections to this?

Yes. I usually do:

    emerge -puv world
    select cat/package-version (with mouse) 

then 

    emerge -i [middle-click]" 

So your modification would break that procedure.

Regards,
Norberto

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 583 bytes --]

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:24:58 -0300 Norberto Bensa
<norberto+gentoo-dev@bensa.ath.cx> wrote:
| tigger@gentoo.org wrote:
| > [ebuild     U ] app-text/ghostscript [7.07.1-r5] [7.07.1-r3]
| >
| > Does anyone have any (reasonable) objections to this?
| 
| Yes. I usually do:
<snip>
|     emerge -i [middle-click]" 

Well, inject should never be used as a matter of course, so I don't
think this is a reasonable objection really...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[Gregorio Guidi]

On Friday 03 September 2004 14:51, tigger@gentoo.org wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The current output of emerge -p is difficult to machine parse because
> its difficult to split the package name and package version. However,
> its easy for emerge to output the two differently.
>
> I'd like to suggest that its changed from:
>
> [ebuild     U ] app-text/ghostscript-7.07.1-r5 [7.07.1-r3]
>
> To:
>
> [ebuild     U ] app-text/ghostscript [7.07.1-r5] [7.07.1-r3]

Have you tried with 'emerge -p --columns' ?

Gregorio


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[tigger]

> Have you tried with 'emerge -p --columns' ?

Haha. No I hadn't and that is exactly what I want.

Many thanks :)

-- 
rob holland - [ tigger@gentoo.org ]
[ 5251 4FAC D684 8845 5604  E44F D65C 392F D91B 4729 ]

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 03 September 2004 10:55 am, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Well, inject should never be used as a matter of course, so I don't
> think this is a reasonable objection really...

inject is being removed in favor of package.provided (or some file similarly 
named) in /etc/portage/ so yes, i think we can ignore this objection
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 03 September 2004 08:02 am, William Kenworthy wrote:
> your going to break an awful lot of user scripts that expect the current
> behaviour.  It might be better to add that functionality as -P
> (capitalise) or similar for compatibility.

the output of emerge is nothing we've ever promised, plus the newer way is 
easier to handle, so i say upgrade your scripts
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[Luke-Jr]

On Friday 03 September 2004 5:46 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 03 September 2004 10:55 am, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Well, inject should never be used as a matter of course, so I don't
> > think this is a reasonable objection really...
>
> inject is being removed in favor of package.provided (or some file
> similarly named) in /etc/portage/ so yes, i think we can ignore this
> objection -mike

inject is being removed entirely or just the current implementation? For 
compatibility's sake, I'd hope that 'emerge inject' would at least append the 
file to give the same effect...
-- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[Ioannis Aslanidis]

Will there be an alternative to inject? Sometimes (due to hardware
issues) it is necessary to compile manually the sources. So after a
make install, a simple emerge inject would do the work...


On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 17:50:31 +0000, Luke-Jr <luke-jr@utopios.org> wrote:
> On Friday 03 September 2004 5:46 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 03 September 2004 10:55 am, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Well, inject should never be used as a matter of course, so I don't
> > > think this is a reasonable objection really...
> >
> > inject is being removed in favor of package.provided (or some file
> > similarly named) in /etc/portage/ so yes, i think we can ignore this
> > objection -mike
> 
> inject is being removed entirely or just the current implementation? For
> compatibility's sake, I'd hope that 'emerge inject' would at least append the
> file to give the same effect...
> --
> Luke-Jr
> Developer, Utopios
> http://utopios.org/
> 
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> 



-- 
Ioannis Aslanidis
<deathwing00[at]forums.gentoo.org> 0xC2539DA3
<aioannis[at]tinet.org> 0xF202D067
<dwcommander[at]users.sourceforge.net>

Hellenic Gentoo GNU/Linux project manager (http://hellenicgentoo.sf.net)
FIRECOPS++ project manager (http://firecops.sf.net)

Computer Engineering student at Universitat Rovira i Virgili

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 03 September 2004 01:50 pm, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Friday 03 September 2004 5:46 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > inject is being removed in favor of package.provided (or some file
> > similarly named) in /etc/portage/ so yes, i think we can ignore this
> > objection -mike
>
> inject is being removed entirely or just the current implementation? For
> compatibility's sake, I'd hope that 'emerge inject' would at least append
> the file to give the same effect...

afaik the plans are to remove it starting with .52 ... .51 just warns that 
it's going away ...
good idea though about just having inject append to the file ... can a portage 
dev weigh in on this ?
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 03 September 2004 01:59 pm, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
> Will there be an alternative to inject? Sometimes (due to hardware
> issues) it is necessary to compile manually the sources. So after a
> make install, a simple emerge inject would do the work...

if you read my e-mail you would see there is a new way of doing it:

> > On Friday 03 September 2004 5:46 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > inject is being removed in favor of package.provided (or some file
> > > similarly named) in /etc/portage/ so yes, i think we can ignore this
> > > objection -mike

-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[William Kenworthy]

Can you describe how changing the inject function will improve portage
use - seems a real step backward from a user point of view.  For an
example of the problems this type of change causes check out the many
posts on package.keywords - complicated matters for users.  As well I
have two systems that work fine, and one that ignores anything in
package.mask!

Are we going down the path of complicating gentoo and reaping mandrake
like rewards (an overcomplicated, fragile management system for the
distro) by doing so?

BillK


On Sat, 2004-09-04 at 01:50, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Friday 03 September 2004 5:46 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 03 September 2004 10:55 am, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Well, inject should never be used as a matter of course, so I don't
> > > think this is a reasonable objection really...
> >



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[William Kenworthy]

arrggg - too early in the morning - that should be package.keyword

BillK

On Sat, 2004-09-04 at 08:18, William Kenworthy wrote:

> have two systems that work fine, and one that ignores anything in
> package.mask!
> 

> 


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[Jason Stubbs]

On Saturday 04 September 2004 02:59, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
> Will there be an alternative to inject? Sometimes (due to hardware
> issues) it is necessary to compile manually the sources. So after a
> make install, a simple emerge inject would do the work...

package.provided doesn't work quite the same as --inject. To reiterate what I 
said in an earlier email:

* Portage will not attempt to upgrade provided packages
* Portage will not attempt to reinstall provided packages as part of world

And caveats:

* If the version of a provided package does not satisfy all dependencies,
  portage will install a version from source that does satisfy them.
* Specifying the package name to emerge will ignore package.provided.

As for your above reason for using --inject, there's a better way to do it:

ebuild /path/to/ebuild/within/portage/tree unpack
cd /var/tmp/portage/packagename-version/work/packagename-version
configure
make
whatever else you need to do to get it to compile
touch ../../.compiled
ebuild /path/to/ebuild/within/portage/tree merge

Regards,
Jason Stubbs

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for change of emerge -up output

[Luke-Jr]

The current plans are to remove 'inject' altogether... Changing it to continue 
to have the same (or at least similar) effect is better than that.

On Saturday 04 September 2004 12:18 am, William Kenworthy wrote:
> Can you describe how changing the inject function will improve portage
> use - seems a real step backward from a user point of view.  For an
> example of the problems this type of change causes check out the many
> posts on package.keywords - complicated matters for users.  As well I
> have two systems that work fine, and one that ignores anything in
> package.mask!
>
> Are we going down the path of complicating gentoo and reaping mandrake
> like rewards (an overcomplicated, fragile management system for the
> distro) by doing so?
>
> BillK
>
> On Sat, 2004-09-04 at 01:50, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > On Friday 03 September 2004 5:46 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Friday 03 September 2004 10:55 am, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > Well, inject should never be used as a matter of course, so I don't
> > > > think this is a reasonable objection really...
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

-- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list