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: 8648 bytes --]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 05:39:42AM +0000, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia September 11, 2019 11:11:15 PM UTC, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> >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.
> 
> Why would anyone create a vendor tarball if things work without it? That makes no sense. Also adding unused archives to SRC_URI is a QA violation.

All the more reason to not have the vendor tarball overwrite the vendor
directory upstream. I will show you when I update the eclass.

> 
> >
> >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.
> 
> No. I suggested that rather than adding another git clone and checking out a tag (which sooner or later would mean someone forgetting and using master instead), you could unpack the same archive you're going to use in the ebuild.

Ok, I am really not following you, so let's talk about this in the
context of an example.

Look at app-misc/spire and tell me how you would do it differently.

William


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