[gentoo-dev] slot deps in package.mask and profiles

[gentoo-dev] slot deps in package.mask and profiles

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi.

I talked to Zac <zmedico> earlier in #gentoo-portage about adding an
entry to package.mask for KDE-4.2.0 using slot deps. Thomas <tanderson>
and Patrick <bonsaikitten> raised the concern we might need profile
eapis and that PMS nailed p.mask to EAPI-0.
Zac confirmed that the first stable version to support slot deps in p.
mask was 2.1.3.16, that it was stabled in bug 197165 - 14 months ago
- - and that the first stages to include it were the 2008.0 stages.
Thus, can we finally give the ok to use slot deps in package.mask? Can
we also give the ok to use it everywhere in all 2008.0 and later profiles/ ?


- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkl7h1gACgkQcAWygvVEyAKzvACffBg2GQt5VVViLTVTi7yFquLp
KokAn0eDHnN8d+KbLNicy9VxL7H+2f/w
=xn7m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] slot deps in package.mask and profiles

[Jeremy Olexa]

Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> I talked to Zac <zmedico> earlier in #gentoo-portage about adding an
> entry to package.mask for KDE-4.2.0 using slot deps. Thomas <tanderson>
> and Patrick <bonsaikitten> raised the concern we might need profile
> eapis and that PMS nailed p.mask to EAPI-0.
> Zac confirmed that the first stable version to support slot deps in p.
> mask was 2.1.3.16, that it was stabled in bug 197165 - 14 months ago
> - - and that the first stages to include it were the 2008.0 stages.
> Thus, can we finally give the ok to use slot deps in package.mask? Can
> we also give the ok to use it everywhere in all 2008.0 and later profiles/ ?

What happens on a 2007.0 base install if slot deps are used in p.mask? 
You only need to upgrade portage before anything else?

-Jeremy

Re: [gentoo-dev] slot deps in package.mask and profiles

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1172 bytes --]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:25:44 -0100
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I talked to Zac <zmedico> earlier in #gentoo-portage about adding an
> entry to package.mask for KDE-4.2.0 using slot deps. Thomas
> <tanderson> and Patrick <bonsaikitten> raised the concern we might
> need profile eapis and that PMS nailed p.mask to EAPI-0.
> Zac confirmed that the first stable version to support slot deps in p.
> mask was 2.1.3.16, that it was stabled in bug 197165 - 14 months ago
> - - and that the first stages to include it were the 2008.0 stages.
> Thus, can we finally give the ok to use slot deps in package.mask? Can
> we also give the ok to use it everywhere in all 2008.0 and later
> profiles/ ?

The Council approved profile eapi files for use a while ago (can't
remember when -- http://council.gentoo.org/ isn't being updated), and
they discussed timeframes for using newer EAPIs then too. Did you see
that discussion?

As far as PMS is concerned, you just need to create a file named 'eapi'
containing a single line with '1' in it in each profiles/ directory in
which you want to use slot deps.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] slot deps in package.mask and profiles

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1884 bytes --]

On 21:04 Sun 25 Jan     , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:25:44 -0100
> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > I talked to Zac <zmedico> earlier in #gentoo-portage about adding an
> > entry to package.mask for KDE-4.2.0 using slot deps. Thomas
> > <tanderson> and Patrick <bonsaikitten> raised the concern we might
> > need profile eapis and that PMS nailed p.mask to EAPI-0.
> > Zac confirmed that the first stable version to support slot deps in p.
> > mask was 2.1.3.16, that it was stabled in bug 197165 - 14 months ago
> > - - and that the first stages to include it were the 2008.0 stages.
> > Thus, can we finally give the ok to use slot deps in package.mask? Can
> > we also give the ok to use it everywhere in all 2008.0 and later
> > profiles/ ?
> 
> The Council approved profile eapi files for use a while ago (can't
> remember when -- http://council.gentoo.org/ isn't being updated), and

Last month's meeting

> they discussed timeframes for using newer EAPIs then too. Did you see
> that discussion?

"An EAPI=0 profile always needs to exist so that users with old portage 
can upgrade. Otherwise they will sync and have no valid profile 
available so cannot emerge a new version of portage.

"Decision: Approved. Existing stable profiles must use EAPI=0. New or dev 
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
profiles can use higher EAPIs.

"Ref: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_930f58fcebcbbcbe523c001f2c825179.xml"


I haven't finished & posted last month's summary 
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20081211-summary.txt> yet because of a 
long holiday vacation and lots of work deadlines after returning. I'll 
get all that stuff updated this week.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] slot deps in package.mask and profiles

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 722 bytes --]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 09:28:00AM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> "Decision: Approved. Existing stable profiles must use EAPI=0. New or dev 
> profiles can use higher EAPIs.
> 
> "Ref: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_930f58fcebcbbcbe523c001f2c825179.xml"

I'm not saying it's exactly fun for profile developers, but if y'all 
are after avoiding users syncing and suddenly having their profile 
unusable the rule really should be "once a profile node is stabilized, 
its EAPI is locked" rather then "existing stable profiles must use 
EAPI=0".  The current decree protects older portage users, the former 
decree blocks the scenario from ever reoccuring.

Potentially overkill- thoughts?
~brian


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] slot deps in package.mask and profiles

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 21:04 Sun 25 Jan     , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:25:44 -0100
>> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> I talked to Zac <zmedico> earlier in #gentoo-portage about adding an
>>> entry to package.mask for KDE-4.2.0 using slot deps. Thomas
>>> <tanderson> and Patrick <bonsaikitten> raised the concern we might
>>> need profile eapis and that PMS nailed p.mask to EAPI-0.
>>> Zac confirmed that the first stable version to support slot deps in p.
>>> mask was 2.1.3.16, that it was stabled in bug 197165 - 14 months ago
>>> - - and that the first stages to include it were the 2008.0 stages.
>>> Thus, can we finally give the ok to use slot deps in package.mask? Can
>>> we also give the ok to use it everywhere in all 2008.0 and later
>>> profiles/ ?
>> The Council approved profile eapi files for use a while ago (can't
>> remember when -- http://council.gentoo.org/ isn't being updated), and
> 
> Last month's meeting
> 
>> they discussed timeframes for using newer EAPIs then too. Did you see
>> that discussion?
> 
> "An EAPI=0 profile always needs to exist so that users with old portage 
> can upgrade. Otherwise they will sync and have no valid profile 
> available so cannot emerge a new version of portage.
> 
> "Decision: Approved. Existing stable profiles must use EAPI=0. New or dev 
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> profiles can use higher EAPIs.

Acoording to this we will never be able to use slot deps in package.mask
as it's a global file. Given my first mail, can we agree to make EAPI-1
the minimum EAPI for files under profiles/ ? Can we also create a rule
on how / when to update the minimum EAPI in profiles/ ?

> "Ref: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_930f58fcebcbbcbe523c001f2c825179.xml"
> 
> 
> I haven't finished & posted last month's summary 
> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20081211-summary.txt> yet because of a 
> long holiday vacation and lots of work deadlines after returning. I'll 
> get all that stuff updated this week.
> 

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkl+X5kACgkQcAWygvVEyAKktgCghUzzq5xuvlM/OHkemWp/0QY2
QgIAn2yx8RX1cIcH2ufqSHtLrVRknAPf
=fC70
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] slot deps in package.mask and profiles

[Jeremy Olexa]

Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> On 21:04 Sun 25 Jan     , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:25:44 -0100
>>> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> I talked to Zac <zmedico> earlier in #gentoo-portage about adding an
>>>> entry to package.mask for KDE-4.2.0 using slot deps. Thomas
>>>> <tanderson> and Patrick <bonsaikitten> raised the concern we might
>>>> need profile eapis and that PMS nailed p.mask to EAPI-0.
>>>> Zac confirmed that the first stable version to support slot deps in p.
>>>> mask was 2.1.3.16, that it was stabled in bug 197165 - 14 months ago
>>>> - - and that the first stages to include it were the 2008.0 stages.
>>>> Thus, can we finally give the ok to use slot deps in package.mask? Can
>>>> we also give the ok to use it everywhere in all 2008.0 and later
>>>> profiles/ ?
>>> The Council approved profile eapi files for use a while ago (can't
>>> remember when -- http://council.gentoo.org/ isn't being updated), and
>> Last month's meeting
>>
>>> they discussed timeframes for using newer EAPIs then too. Did you see
>>> that discussion?
>> "An EAPI=0 profile always needs to exist so that users with old portage 
>> can upgrade. Otherwise they will sync and have no valid profile 
>> available so cannot emerge a new version of portage.
>>
>> "Decision: Approved. Existing stable profiles must use EAPI=0. New or dev 
>>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> profiles can use higher EAPIs.
> 
> Acoording to this we will never be able to use slot deps in package.mask
> as it's a global file. Given my first mail, can we agree to make EAPI-1
> the minimum EAPI for files under profiles/ ? Can we also create a rule
> on how / when to update the minimum EAPI in profiles/ ?

So, portage that is unaware of EAPI-1 will just happily ignore the atom 
and move on..? In that case:

Please no! It is hard enough for a base 2007.0 install to be upgraded 
due to the "portage & bash blocker" (and other issues) - We need to wait 
much longer for an EAPI bump in a non-new profile (if ever, as Brian 
Harring suggests - I agree).

I know this might seem as a hassle to you but there *are* other entities 
that provide a base 2007.0 install. Who knows how every 
group/entity/company/etc use Gentoo.. While I agree that it isn't 
necessarily our problem, however, we shouldn't make it harder for them 
or anyone that has a 2007 base install. (We still mirror the 2007.0 
stages[1], 2007.0 cds are available[2] for purchase, etc[3] etc[4]).

IMO, it would be a dis-service to bump EAPI in a non-new profile for our 
user-base. I don't see any Pro's besides "easier to type" =/ So, I think 
the Council decision is appropriate.

-Jeremy

[1]: http://distfiles.gentoo.org/releases/x86/2007.0/
[2]: http://www.linuxcd.org/view_distro.php?lst=&id_cate=20&id_distro=12
[3]: http://lylix.net/linux-vps-plans
[4]: http://www.linode.com/faq.cfm

> 
>> "Ref: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_930f58fcebcbbcbe523c001f2c825179.xml"
>>
>>
>> I haven't finished & posted last month's summary 
>> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20081211-summary.txt> yet because of a 
>> long holiday vacation and lots of work deadlines after returning. I'll 
>> get all that stuff updated this week.
>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] slot deps in package.mask and profiles

[Alec Warner]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Jeremy Olexa <darkside@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21:04 Sun 25 Jan     , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:25:44 -0100
>>>> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I talked to Zac <zmedico> earlier in #gentoo-portage about adding an
>>>>> entry to package.mask for KDE-4.2.0 using slot deps. Thomas
>>>>> <tanderson> and Patrick <bonsaikitten> raised the concern we might
>>>>> need profile eapis and that PMS nailed p.mask to EAPI-0.
>>>>> Zac confirmed that the first stable version to support slot deps in p.
>>>>> mask was 2.1.3.16, that it was stabled in bug 197165 - 14 months ago
>>>>> - - and that the first stages to include it were the 2008.0 stages.
>>>>> Thus, can we finally give the ok to use slot deps in package.mask? Can
>>>>> we also give the ok to use it everywhere in all 2008.0 and later
>>>>> profiles/ ?
>>>>
>>>> The Council approved profile eapi files for use a while ago (can't
>>>> remember when -- http://council.gentoo.org/ isn't being updated), and
>>>
>>> Last month's meeting
>>>
>>>> they discussed timeframes for using newer EAPIs then too. Did you see
>>>> that discussion?
>>>
>>> "An EAPI=0 profile always needs to exist so that users with old portage
>>> can upgrade. Otherwise they will sync and have no valid profile available so
>>> cannot emerge a new version of portage.
>>>
>>> "Decision: Approved. Existing stable profiles must use EAPI=0. New or dev
>>>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> profiles can use higher EAPIs.
>>
>> Acoording to this we will never be able to use slot deps in package.mask
>> as it's a global file. Given my first mail, can we agree to make EAPI-1
>> the minimum EAPI for files under profiles/ ? Can we also create a rule
>> on how / when to update the minimum EAPI in profiles/ ?
>
> So, portage that is unaware of EAPI-1 will just happily ignore the atom and
> move on..? In that case:
>
> Please no! It is hard enough for a base 2007.0 install to be upgraded due to
> the "portage & bash blocker" (and other issues) - We need to wait much
> longer for an EAPI bump in a non-new profile (if ever, as Brian Harring
> suggests - I agree).
>
> I know this might seem as a hassle to you but there *are* other entities
> that provide a base 2007.0 install. Who knows how every
> group/entity/company/etc use Gentoo.. While I agree that it isn't
> necessarily our problem, however, we shouldn't make it harder for them or
> anyone that has a 2007 base install. (We still mirror the 2007.0 stages[1],
> 2007.0 cds are available[2] for purchase, etc[3] etc[4]).

Dude, even people like Ubuntu/Canonical don't support stuff that old
(current LTS is April 2008).

The tree is now; see the date?  It's 2009, not 2007.

One of the biggest problems Gentoo has is backwards compatibility and
legacy stuff; it is the nightmare of every project and there has to be
a point where you say 'tough.'  So make a decision, announce it widely
that on X date the tree will just break for users; write up a FAQ on
how to upgrade past it, and then make the changes.

Realize once again that the tree was not designed very well and it has
issues on a number of levels and it can't all be engineered around;
and for progress to be made you will *have to break existing stuff*.

>
> IMO, it would be a dis-service to bump EAPI in a non-new profile for our
> user-base. I don't see any Pro's besides "easier to type" =/ So, I think the
> Council decision is appropriate.

You seriously see no benefits to EAPI 1 or 2 in profiles?  What about
slot deps? use deps? these things have been core feature requests
since 2003; surely you don't think they are useless to our users?

>
> -Jeremy
>
> [1]: http://distfiles.gentoo.org/releases/x86/2007.0/
> [2]: http://www.linuxcd.org/view_distro.php?lst=&id_cate=20&id_distro=12
> [3]: http://lylix.net/linux-vps-plans
> [4]: http://www.linode.com/faq.cfm
>
>>
>>> "Ref:
>>> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_930f58fcebcbbcbe523c001f2c825179.xml"
>>>
>>>
>>> I haven't finished & posted last month's summary
>>> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20081211-summary.txt> yet because of a
>>> long holiday vacation and lots of work deadlines after returning. I'll get
>>> all that stuff updated this week.
>>>
>
>
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] slot deps in package.mask and profiles

[Jeremy Olexa]

Alec Warner wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Jeremy Olexa <darkside@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>>> On 21:04 Sun 25 Jan     , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:25:44 -0100
>>>>> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>> I talked to Zac <zmedico> earlier in #gentoo-portage about adding an
>>>>>> entry to package.mask for KDE-4.2.0 using slot deps. Thomas
>>>>>> <tanderson> and Patrick <bonsaikitten> raised the concern we might
>>>>>> need profile eapis and that PMS nailed p.mask to EAPI-0.
>>>>>> Zac confirmed that the first stable version to support slot deps in p.
>>>>>> mask was 2.1.3.16, that it was stabled in bug 197165 - 14 months ago
>>>>>> - - and that the first stages to include it were the 2008.0 stages.
>>>>>> Thus, can we finally give the ok to use slot deps in package.mask? Can
>>>>>> we also give the ok to use it everywhere in all 2008.0 and later
>>>>>> profiles/ ?
>>>>> The Council approved profile eapi files for use a while ago (can't
>>>>> remember when -- http://council.gentoo.org/ isn't being updated), and
>>>> Last month's meeting
>>>>
>>>>> they discussed timeframes for using newer EAPIs then too. Did you see
>>>>> that discussion?
>>>> "An EAPI=0 profile always needs to exist so that users with old portage
>>>> can upgrade. Otherwise they will sync and have no valid profile available so
>>>> cannot emerge a new version of portage.
>>>>
>>>> "Decision: Approved. Existing stable profiles must use EAPI=0. New or dev
>>>>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> profiles can use higher EAPIs.
>>> Acoording to this we will never be able to use slot deps in package.mask
>>> as it's a global file. Given my first mail, can we agree to make EAPI-1
>>> the minimum EAPI for files under profiles/ ? Can we also create a rule
>>> on how / when to update the minimum EAPI in profiles/ ?
>> So, portage that is unaware of EAPI-1 will just happily ignore the atom and
>> move on..? In that case:
>>
>> Please no! It is hard enough for a base 2007.0 install to be upgraded due to
>> the "portage & bash blocker" (and other issues) - We need to wait much
>> longer for an EAPI bump in a non-new profile (if ever, as Brian Harring
>> suggests - I agree).
>>
>> I know this might seem as a hassle to you but there *are* other entities
>> that provide a base 2007.0 install. Who knows how every
>> group/entity/company/etc use Gentoo.. While I agree that it isn't
>> necessarily our problem, however, we shouldn't make it harder for them or
>> anyone that has a 2007 base install. (We still mirror the 2007.0 stages[1],
>> 2007.0 cds are available[2] for purchase, etc[3] etc[4]).
> 
> Dude, even people like Ubuntu/Canonical don't support stuff that old
> (current LTS is April 2008).
> 
> The tree is now; see the date?  It's 2009, not 2007.
> 
> One of the biggest problems Gentoo has is backwards compatibility and
> legacy stuff; it is the nightmare of every project and there has to be
> a point where you say 'tough.'  So make a decision, announce it widely
> that on X date the tree will just break for users; write up a FAQ on
> how to upgrade past it, and then make the changes.

2008.0 was released on Jul 6 2008[1]. So, you think that after 6 months, 
it is time to say "tough"? Sorry, I don't agree.

[1]: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/release/2008.0/index.xml#doc_chap2

> 
> Realize once again that the tree was not designed very well and it has
> issues on a number of levels and it can't all be engineered around;
> and for progress to be made you will *have to break existing stuff*.
> 
>> IMO, it would be a dis-service to bump EAPI in a non-new profile for our
>> user-base. I don't see any Pro's besides "easier to type" =/ So, I think the
>> Council decision is appropriate.
> 
> You seriously see no benefits to EAPI 1 or 2 in profiles?  What about
> slot deps? use deps? these things have been core feature requests
> since 2003; surely you don't think they are useless to our users?

No, I didn't say that at all, *sigh*

> 
>> -Jeremy
>>
>> [1]: http://distfiles.gentoo.org/releases/x86/2007.0/
>> [2]: http://www.linuxcd.org/view_distro.php?lst=&id_cate=20&id_distro=12
>> [3]: http://lylix.net/linux-vps-plans
>> [4]: http://www.linode.com/faq.cfm
>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] slot deps in package.mask and profiles

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 493 bytes --]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:34:49 -0800
Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> You seriously see no benefits to EAPI 1 or 2 in profiles?  What about
> slot deps? use deps? these things have been core feature requests
> since 2003; surely you don't think they are useless to our users?

Use deps in profiles don't make sense. Any clever use case you think
you have for them doesn't work and needs proper dedicated handling.

Slot deps, of course, do make sense.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]