[gentoo-dev] Minimal perl install (stage1/livecd makers might be interested?)

[gentoo-dev] Minimal perl install (stage1/livecd makers might be interested?)

[Michael Cummings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1785 bytes --]

I have me a bug, but before I finish weighing in with my own pros and cons, I 
thought I'd ask -dev, in particular since I know the creators of things like 
catalyst and such are on here, and the results of this particular bug 
(feature request) might be of interest to them.

A brave (perhaps bored, perhaps just frustrated) user has come up with an 
ebuild ( http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95038 ) that should (he says 
it does, but I haven't had a chance to set up a chroot to test it in) build 
an extremely minimal perl that's capable of some core perl functionality and 
litte else out of the box. Now for the perl herd, this would imply that we 
would need to come up with some more perl-core/* ebuilds to fill in any gaps 
that the minimal perl install has.

Cons are the addition of a bunch of ebuilds to cover the functionality that 
the minimal install lacks.

Pros, though, are pretty big, once getting past the first hurtle of pain. We 
would be able to eliminate the conflicts between perl coming with module foo 
and ebuild for foo, which is usually at or greater than the same version as 
the one that came with perl (usually greater) A lot of our collision protect 
bugs would dissipate rapidly I think. It would save space (with his use 
flags/architecture, perl went from 12,300K to 930K) on livecd's. I have a 
weak unfounded suspicion that it might help with the whole openssl->perl loop 
that expresses itself when some folks are building a stage1.

I'm completely on the fence here, so any feedback welcome :)

-- 

-----o()o---------------------------------------------
Michael Cummings   |    #gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl
Gentoo Perl Dev    |    on irc.freenode.net 
-----o()o---------------------------------------------

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Minimal perl install (stage1/livecd makers might be interested?)

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 465 bytes --]

Michael Cummings wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 06:39:28AM EDT]
> I have a weak unfounded suspicion that it might help with the whole
> openssl->perl loop that expresses itself when some folks are
> building a stage1.

Only if the ebuild is called something other than perl, right?
I mean, wouldn't it need to be called something like "miniperl" so
that openssl could dep on miniperl, and perl could dep on openssl?

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Minimal perl install (stage1/livecd makers might be interested?)

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 804 bytes --]

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 06:39:28AM -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> I have a weak unfounded suspicion that it might help with the whole
> openssl->perl loop that expresses itself when some folks are building
> a stage1.
I dug into the openssl source quickly, and found that it uses
absolutely no Perl modules, just basic perl itself.

OpenSSL mainly uses perl to generate the assembly language versions of
it's commands, in an almost portable fashion. There are also a few
other scripts written in perl, but again, they don't use any modules
from my examination.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page  : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ#       : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 241 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Minimal perl install (stage1/livecd makers might be interested?)

[Aron Griffis]

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

Robin H. Johnson wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 03:04:43PM EDT]
> OpenSSL mainly uses perl to generate the assembly language versions
> of it's commands, in an almost portable fashion. There are also
> a few other scripts written in perl, but again, they don't use any
> modules from my examination.

This isn't always an option...  but how hard would it be to rewrite
that stuff in awk or sed?

I did something similar in mozconfig.eclass.  There is a long /bin/csh
script that is part of the mozilla build process.  It used to create
a dependecy from mozilla on csh...  I replaced it with this:

    # Simulate the silly csh makemake script
    makemake() {
        typeset m topdir
        for m in $(find . -name Makefile.in); do
            topdir=$(echo "$m" | sed -r 's:[^/]+:..:g')
            sed -e "s:@srcdir@:.:g" -e "s:@top_srcdir@:${topdir}:g" \
                < ${m} > ${m%.in} || die "sed ${m} failed"
        done
    }

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Minimal perl install (stage1/livecd makers might be interested?)

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 579 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 06:39 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> bugs would dissipate rapidly I think. It would save space (with his use 
> flags/architecture, perl went from 12,300K to 930K) on livecd's. I have a 
> weak unfounded suspicion that it might help with the whole openssl->perl loop 
> that expresses itself when some folks are building a stage1.

Got something you need tested while all of us releng people are already
experimenting for the next release?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Minimal perl install (stage1/livecd makers might be interested?)

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 772 bytes --]

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 03:45:46PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> This isn't always an option...  but how hard would it be to rewrite
> that stuff in awk or sed?
For some of the scripts, it might be possible, but it's definetly well
beyond my skills. It's 21073 lines of perl in total.

I definetly don't think it's a worthwhile expenditure of time.

Now that we've established however that openssl could compile with only
a perl interpreter and none of the modules, we shouldn't have any
dependancies in the other direction either?

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page  : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ#       : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 241 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Minimal perl install (stage1/livecd makers might be interested?)

[Michael Cummings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 788 bytes --]

Not yet, still hashing :)
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 06:22 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 06:39 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> > bugs would dissipate rapidly I think. It would save space (with his use
> > flags/architecture, perl went from 12,300K to 930K) on livecd's. I have a
> > weak unfounded suspicion that it might help with the whole openssl->perl
> > loop that expresses itself when some folks are building a stage1.
>
> Got something you need tested while all of us releng people are already
> experimenting for the next release?

-- 

-----o()o---------------------------------------------
Michael Cummings   |    #gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl
Gentoo Perl Dev    |    on irc.freenode.net 
-----o()o---------------------------------------------

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Minimal perl install (stage1/livecd makers might be interested?)

[Michael Cummings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 986 bytes --]



On Tuesday 07 June 2005 02:21 pm, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Only if the ebuild is called something other than perl, right?
> I mean, wouldn't it need to be called something like "miniperl" so
> that openssl could dep on miniperl, and perl could dep on openssl?

Actually, that's debatable, as it could just as easily be perl emerged with 
the minimal flag - which is part of the mental debate I have - is it worth 
it? if so, is it worth it as a separate ebuild that would need to be 
maintained in parallel, or as just a use flag invoked version of the current 
ebuild? The heart of the difference in the two installs lies in what core 
perl modules are installed.

(fwiw, miniperl is something else entirely - it's what perl uses to bootstrap 
itself)

-- 

-----o()o---------------------------------------------
Michael Cummings   |    #gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl
Gentoo Perl Dev    |    on irc.freenode.net 
-----o()o---------------------------------------------

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Minimal perl install (stage1/livecd makers might be interested?)

[Michael Cummings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 782 bytes --]

On Wednesday 08 June 2005 03:21 am, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Now that we've established however that openssl could compile with only
> a perl interpreter and none of the modules, we shouldn't have any
> dependancies in the other direction either?

Once I find a general consensus on whether we need 2 ebuilds or one with 
useflag, right.  Even as I type this though I realize that it might impose 
complications on the livecd/catalyst/whatchamacallit maintainers if they have 
to use a minimal flag for only one package in a set when building a stage1+.

-- 

-----o()o---------------------------------------------
Michael Cummings   |    #gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl
Gentoo Perl Dev    |    on irc.freenode.net 
-----o()o---------------------------------------------

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Minimal perl install (stage1/livecd makers might be interested?)

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 866 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 10:41 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 June 2005 03:21 am, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > Now that we've established however that openssl could compile with only
> > a perl interpreter and none of the modules, we shouldn't have any
> > dependancies in the other direction either?
> 
> Once I find a general consensus on whether we need 2 ebuilds or one with 
> useflag, right.  Even as I type this though I realize that it might impose 
> complications on the livecd/catalyst/whatchamacallit maintainers if they have 
> to use a minimal flag for only one package in a set when building a stage1+.

That's simple.

Give it the same functionality when called with any of build, bootstrap,
or minimal USE flags.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Minimal perl install (stage1/livecd makers might be interested?)

[Michael Cummings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 450 bytes --]

On Wednesday 08 June 2005 11:05 am, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> That's simple.
>
> Give it the same functionality when called with any of build, bootstrap,
> or minimal USE flags.

heh...yeah, that would do it. Thanks,

Mike

-- 

-----o()o---------------------------------------------
Michael Cummings   |    #gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl
Gentoo Perl Dev    |    on irc.freenode.net 
-----o()o---------------------------------------------

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