Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/3] go-module.eclass: introduce new eclass to handle go modules

[William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7188 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 07:47:04PM +0000, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia September 11, 2019 7:40:41 PM UTC, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> >On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:31:16PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2019-09-11 at 13:22 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 07:38:17PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> > > On Wed, 2019-09-11 at 12:21 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> > > > Copyright: Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc.
> >> > > > Signed-off-by: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
> >> > > > ---
> >> > > >  eclass/go-module.eclass | 76
> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> > > >  1 file changed, 76 insertions(+)
> >> > > >  create mode 100644 eclass/go-module.eclass
> >> > > > 
> >> > > > diff --git a/eclass/go-module.eclass b/eclass/go-module.eclass
> >> > > > new file mode 100644
> >> > > > index 00000000000..7009fcd3beb
> >> > > > --- /dev/null
> >> > > > +++ b/eclass/go-module.eclass
> >> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
> >> > > > +# Copyright 1999-2015 Gentoo Foundation
> >> > > 
> >> > > You need to replace your calendar.  And copyright holder.
> >> > 
> >> > Sure, I thought I ffixed that.
> >> > 
> >> > > > +# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public
> >License v2
> >> > > > +
> >> > > > +# @ECLASS: go-module.eclass
> >> > > 
> >> > > Any reason to change naming from golang-* to go-* now?
> >> > 
> >> > Well, "lang" is sort of redundant, and there will be only one
> >eclass, so
> >> > I thought I would make things a bit more simple.
> >> > 
> >> > > > +# @MAINTAINER:
> >> > > > +# William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
> >> > > > +# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
> >> > > > +# @BLURB: basic eclass for building software written in the go
> >> > > > +# programming language that uses go modules.
> >> > > > +# @DESCRIPTION:
> >> > > > +# This eclass provides a convenience src_prepare() phase and
> >some basic
> >> > > > +# settings needed for all software written in the go
> >programming
> >> > > > +# language that uses go modules.
> >> > > > +#
> >> > > > +# You will know the software you are packaging uses modules
> >because
> >> > > > +# it will have files named go.sum and go.mod in its top-level
> >source
> >> > > > +# directory. If it does not have these files, use the golang-*
> >eclasses.
> >> > > > +#
> >> > > > +# If the software you are packaging uses modules, the next
> >question is
> >> > > > +# whether it has a directory named "vendor" at the top-level
> >of the source tree.
> >> > > > +#
> >> > > > +# If it doesn't, you need to create a tarball of what would be
> >in the
> >> > > > +# vendor directory and mirror it locally. This is done with
> >the
> >> > > > +# following commands if upstream is using a git repository:
> >> > > > +#
> >> > > > +# @CODE:
> >> > > > +#
> >> > > > +# $ cd /my/clone/of/upstream
> >> > > > +# $ git checkout <release>
> >> > > > +# $ go mod vendor
> >> > > > +# $ tar cvf project-version-vendor.tar.gz vendor
> >> > > > +#
> >> > > > +# @CODE:
> >> > > > +#
> >> > > > +# Other than this, all you need to do is inherit this eclass
> >then
> >> > > > +# make sure  the exported src_prepare function is run.
> >> > > > +
> >> > > > +case ${EAPI:-0} in
> >> > > > +	7) ;;
> >> > > > +	*) die "${ECLASS} API in EAPI ${EAPI} not yet established."
> >> > > > +esac
> >> > > > +
> >> > > > +if [[ -z ${_GO_MODULE} ]]; then
> >> > > > +
> >> > > > +_GO_MODULE=1
> >> > > > +
> >> > > > +BDEPEND=">=dev-lang/go-1.12"
> >> > > > +
> >> > > > +# Do not download dependencies from the internet
> >> > > > +# make build output verbose by default
> >> > > > +export GOFLAGS="-mod=vendor -v -x"
> >> > > > +
> >> > > > +# Do not complain about CFLAGS etc since go projects do not
> >use them.
> >> > > > +QA_FLAGS_IGNORED='.*'
> >> > > > +
> >> > > > +# Upstream does not support stripping go packages
> >> > > > +RESTRICT="strip"
> >> > > > +
> >> > > > +EXPORT_FUNCTIONS src_prepare
> >> > > 
> >> > > Don't you need to inherit some other eclass to make it build?
> >> > 
> >> > The primary reason for all of the golang-* eclasses was the GOPATH
> >> > variable, which is not relevant when you are using modules.
> >> > 
> >> > I can look at adding a src_compile to this eclass, but I haven't
> >thought
> >> > about what it would contain yet.
> >> >  
> >> > > > +
> >> > > > +# @FUNCTION: go-module_src_prepare
> >> > > > +# @DESCRIPTION:
> >> > > > +# Run a default src_prepare then move our provided vendor
> >directory to
> >> > > > +# the appropriate spot if upstream doesn't provide a vendor
> >directory.
> >> > > > +go-module_src_prepare() {
> >> > > > +	default
> >> > > > +	# Use the upstream provided vendor directory if it exists.
> >> > > > +	[[ -d vendor ]] && return
> >> > > > +	# If we are not providing a mirror of a vendor directory we
> >created
> >> > > > +	# manually, return since there may be nothing to vendor.
> >> > > > +	[[ ! -d ../vendor ]] && return
> >> > > > +	# At this point, we know we are providing a vendor mirror.
> >> > > > +	mv ../vendor . || die "Unable to move ../vendor directory"
> >> > > 
> >> > > Wouldn't it be much simpler to create appropriate directory
> >structure
> >> > > in the tarball?  Then you wouldn't need a new eclass at all.
> >> > 
> >> > You would definitely need an eclass (see the settings and
> >dependencies).
> >> > 
> >> > Take a look at the differences in the spire and hub ebuilds in this
> >> > series. I'm not sure what you mean by adding the directory
> >structure to
> >> > the tarball? I guess you could add something to the vendor tarball
> >when
> >> > you create it.
> >> 
> >> I mean packing it as 'spire-1.2.3/vendor' or whatever the package
> >> directory is, so that it extracts correctly instead of making a
> >tarball
> >> that needs to be moved afterwards.
> >
> >That would clobber the upstream provided vendor directory and that's
> >what I want to avoid with the first test in src_prepare.
> 
> If upstream already includes vendored modules, why would you create your own tarball in the first place?
 
You are right, and currently I quietly ignore your vendor tarball if upstream
vendors the dependencies also. I could change this to generate a warning
or die and force you to fix the ebuild, but that would not be possible
if I follow your suggestion because I would not be able to tell whether
the vendored dependencies came from us or upstream.

Also, another concern about your suggestion is the  --transform switch
that would have to be added to the  tar command people use to create the
vendor tarball, something like:

tar -acvf package-version-vendor.tar.gz --transform='s#^vendor#package-version-vendor#' vendor

You suggested that a maintainer could create a new tarball and build on
top of it. I guess you mean  don't use upstream's tarball if they don't
vendor and create my own tarball and add the vendor directory to it. I'm
against that option because  I don't feel that we should manually tinker
with upstream tarballs. That opens a pretty big can of worms imo.

William

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]