* [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots @ 2012-06-23 13:21 Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 14:02 ` Mike Gilbert ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 985 bytes --] There's been a move towards using slots for "clever" things that don't fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals. Aside from being abusive, this screws things up for Paludis users. Paludis tends to bring in newer versions when possible (so that users aren't stuck with an old GCC forever), and allows the user to select when new slots are brought in. When suddenly a few packages are using slots and versions to "mean" something other than what they used to, this makes the feature unusable. Thus, as a quick workaround, I'd like to suggest adding a PROPERTIES value called "funky-slots", which should be set on every version of any package that uses slots in an unconventional manner. This probably doesn't need EAPI control, since package manglers are free to ignore PROPERTIES tokens. It won't solve the abuse, but it will allow the impact upon users to be lessened. -- Ciaran McCreesh [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 13:21 [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 14:02 ` Mike Gilbert 2012-06-23 14:06 ` Mike Gilbert 2012-06-23 16:13 ` Justin 2012-06-23 16:26 ` Patrick Lauer 2 siblings, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Mike Gilbert @ 2012-06-23 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > There's been a move towards using slots for "clever" things that don't > fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new > gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals. > > Aside from being abusive, this screws things up for Paludis users. > Paludis tends to bring in newer versions when possible (so that users > aren't stuck with an old GCC forever), and allows the user to select > when new slots are brought in. When suddenly a few packages are using > slots and versions to "mean" something other than what they used to, > this makes the feature unusable. > > Thus, as a quick workaround, I'd like to suggest adding a PROPERTIES > value called "funky-slots", which should be set on every version of any > package that uses slots in an unconventional manner. This probably > doesn't need EAPI control, since package manglers are free to ignore > PROPERTIES tokens. It won't solve the abuse, but it will allow the > impact upon users to be lessened. > > -- > Ciaran McCreesh I don't quite understand why this would be necessary. Would "funky-slots" just be used in situations where ebuilds with the same PV but different PVR have different slots? Taking the gtk2/gtk3 example, I think the -r200/-r300 thing is only used in libraries; applications use slot deps to select which one they need. Paludis should not remove the -r200 version if it is still referenced in the depgraph, correct? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 14:02 ` Mike Gilbert @ 2012-06-23 14:06 ` Mike Gilbert 2012-06-23 14:10 ` Ciaran McCreesh 0 siblings, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Mike Gilbert @ 2012-06-23 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Ciaran McCreesh > <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: >> There's been a move towards using slots for "clever" things that don't >> fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new >> gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals. >> >> Aside from being abusive, this screws things up for Paludis users. >> Paludis tends to bring in newer versions when possible (so that users >> aren't stuck with an old GCC forever), and allows the user to select >> when new slots are brought in. When suddenly a few packages are using >> slots and versions to "mean" something other than what they used to, >> this makes the feature unusable. >> >> Thus, as a quick workaround, I'd like to suggest adding a PROPERTIES >> value called "funky-slots", which should be set on every version of any >> package that uses slots in an unconventional manner. This probably >> doesn't need EAPI control, since package manglers are free to ignore >> PROPERTIES tokens. It won't solve the abuse, but it will allow the >> impact upon users to be lessened. >> >> -- >> Ciaran McCreesh > > I don't quite understand why this would be necessary. > > Would "funky-slots" just be used in situations where ebuilds with the > same PV but different PVR have different slots? > > Taking the gtk2/gtk3 example, I think the -r200/-r300 thing is only > used in libraries; applications use slot deps to select which one they > need. Paludis should not remove the -r200 version if it is still > referenced in the depgraph, correct? Or maybe you are saying that Paludis will not automatically install a new slot for a package that is already installed, even when referenced by a slot dep? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 14:06 ` Mike Gilbert @ 2012-06-23 14:10 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 14:20 ` Mart Raudsepp 2012-06-23 15:51 ` Michał Górny 0 siblings, 2 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 14:10 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1258 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:06:58 -0400 Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote: > > I don't quite understand why this would be necessary. > > > > Would "funky-slots" just be used in situations where ebuilds with > > the same PV but different PVR have different slots? > > > > Taking the gtk2/gtk3 example, I think the -r200/-r300 thing is only > > used in libraries; applications use slot deps to select which one > > they need. Paludis should not remove the -r200 version if it is > > still referenced in the depgraph, correct? > > Or maybe you are saying that Paludis will not automatically install a > new slot for a package that is already installed, even when referenced > by a slot dep? The 'standard' behaviour (which can be changed by the user) for Paludis when doing "complete" resolutions is that whenever there's a slot of something installed, it will try to bring in the newest version of that package, even if it's in a different slot. This is generally a good thing, since newer versions are supposed to be better than older versions. The problem is that now "newer" versions are being used to mean "with a different Ruby implementation" or "built in a different way", which screws up the meaning. -- Ciaran McCreesh [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 14:10 ` Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 14:20 ` Mart Raudsepp 2012-06-23 16:12 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 15:51 ` Michał Górny 1 sibling, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Mart Raudsepp @ 2012-06-23 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On L, 2012-06-23 at 15:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:06:58 -0400 > Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > I don't quite understand why this would be necessary. > > > > > > Would "funky-slots" just be used in situations where ebuilds with > > > the same PV but different PVR have different slots? > > > > > > Taking the gtk2/gtk3 example, I think the -r200/-r300 thing is only > > > used in libraries; applications use slot deps to select which one > > > they need. Paludis should not remove the -r200 version if it is > > > still referenced in the depgraph, correct? > > > > Or maybe you are saying that Paludis will not automatically install a > > new slot for a package that is already installed, even when referenced > > by a slot dep? > > The 'standard' behaviour (which can be changed by the user) for Paludis > when doing "complete" resolutions is that whenever there's a slot of > something installed, it will try to bring in the newest version of that > package, even if it's in a different slot. This is generally a good > thing, since newer versions are supposed to be better than older > versions. The problem is that now "newer" versions are being used to > mean "with a different Ruby implementation" or "built in a different > way", which screws up the meaning. Don't do that if the slotted package in question is not in the @world, and all packages depending on it strictly require the older SLOT. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 14:20 ` Mart Raudsepp @ 2012-06-23 16:12 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-24 17:25 ` Alexis Ballier 0 siblings, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1041 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:20:23 +0300 Mart Raudsepp <leio@gentoo.org> wrote: > > The 'standard' behaviour (which can be changed by the user) for > > Paludis when doing "complete" resolutions is that whenever there's > > a slot of something installed, it will try to bring in the newest > > version of that package, even if it's in a different slot. This is > > generally a good thing, since newer versions are supposed to be > > better than older versions. The problem is that now "newer" > > versions are being used to mean "with a different Ruby > > implementation" or "built in a different way", which screws up the > > meaning. > > Don't do that if the slotted package in question is not in the @world, > and all packages depending on it strictly require the older SLOT. That is an option Paludis provides for users, but doing so leads to old versions of things lying around when an upgrade is preferred. It's also incorrect behaviour when multiple slots are capable of satisfying a dependency. -- Ciaran McCreesh [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 16:12 ` Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-24 17:25 ` Alexis Ballier 0 siblings, 0 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Alexis Ballier @ 2012-06-24 17:25 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:12:04 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:20:23 +0300 > Mart Raudsepp <leio@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > The 'standard' behaviour (which can be changed by the user) for > > > Paludis when doing "complete" resolutions is that whenever there's > > > a slot of something installed, it will try to bring in the newest > > > version of that package, even if it's in a different slot. This is > > > generally a good thing, since newer versions are supposed to be > > > better than older versions. The problem is that now "newer" > > > versions are being used to mean "with a different Ruby > > > implementation" or "built in a different way", which screws up the > > > meaning. > > > > Don't do that if the slotted package in question is not in the > > @world, and all packages depending on it strictly require the older > > SLOT. > > That is an option Paludis provides for users, but doing so leads to > old versions of things lying around when an upgrade is preferred. When exactly ? You took the gcc example, but it does not have a slot specified in the 'packages' file so should be upgraded regardless of slot. > It's also incorrect behaviour when multiple slots are capable of > satisfying a dependency. I suppose that is what Mart meant with 'strictly require'. I do not know about ruby stuff, but the gtk2/gtk3 case seems a non-issue to me. - No slot specified -> best version available, slot independent. - Slot specified -> best version in said slot. - Upgrade to new version in a different slot iff something brings in the new slot. If your heuristic brings in gtk3 when everything depends on gtk2, you should probably rethink your heuristic. A. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 14:10 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 14:20 ` Mart Raudsepp @ 2012-06-23 15:51 ` Michał Górny 2012-06-23 16:08 ` Ciaran McCreesh 1 sibling, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Michał Górny @ 2012-06-23 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev; +Cc: ciaran.mccreesh [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1684 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:10:01 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:06:58 -0400 > Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > I don't quite understand why this would be necessary. > > > > > > Would "funky-slots" just be used in situations where ebuilds with > > > the same PV but different PVR have different slots? > > > > > > Taking the gtk2/gtk3 example, I think the -r200/-r300 thing is > > > only used in libraries; applications use slot deps to select > > > which one they need. Paludis should not remove the -r200 version > > > if it is still referenced in the depgraph, correct? > > > > Or maybe you are saying that Paludis will not automatically install > > a new slot for a package that is already installed, even when > > referenced by a slot dep? > > The 'standard' behaviour (which can be changed by the user) for > Paludis when doing "complete" resolutions is that whenever there's a > slot of something installed, it will try to bring in the newest > version of that package, even if it's in a different slot. This is > generally a good thing, since newer versions are supposed to be > better than older versions. The problem is that now "newer" versions > are being used to mean "with a different Ruby implementation" or > "built in a different way", which screws up the meaning. I think you should start by describing the problem so we all could understand it, and then we can start thinking about a solution. Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse dependency explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me. -- Best regards, Michał Górny [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 15:51 ` Michał Górny @ 2012-06-23 16:08 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 20:36 ` Marien Zwart 0 siblings, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw To: Michał Górny; +Cc: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 973 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:51:01 +0200 Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: > I think you should start by describing the problem so we all could > understand it, and then we can start thinking about a solution. It's simple: abusing versions and slots invalidates what is otherwise sensible logic. Thus in the long term we need to stop abusing versions and slots, and in the short term a mechanism is needed to indicate where this abuse happens. This is the short term fix. > Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse dependency > explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me. No, it's that if a user requests a "complete" resolution, Paludis installs the newest version of things that it can. Extensive consultation with users has shown that this is a good behaviour, except in the small number of situations that have recently arisen where people are doing weird things with versions and slots. -- Ciaran McCreesh [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 16:08 ` Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 20:36 ` Marien Zwart 2012-06-23 20:37 ` Ciaran McCreesh 0 siblings, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Marien Zwart @ 2012-06-23 20:36 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On za, 2012-06-23 at 17:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse > dependency > > explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me. > > No, it's that if a user requests a "complete" resolution, Paludis > installs the newest version of things that it can. Extensive > consultation with users has shown that this is a good behaviour, > except > in the small number of situations that have recently arisen where > people are doing weird things with versions and slots. It surprises me that this behavior is normally desirable for packages where all dependencies (including any in the world set or the like) are slotted. The first example that comes to mind here is gtk+: if all packages a user has installed that depend on gtk+ explicitly depend on slot 2 (which is probably uncommon now but reasonable back when gtk 3 was introduced), and they do not have gtk+ in their world file (which is reasonable), do your users really expect the package manager to install gtk 3? If your package manager has a feature similar to emerge --depclean, shouldn't this then suggest immediately removing it again, as nothing depends on it? I would argue that library versions that can be installed side-by-side, like gtk+ 2 and 3, "fit the traditional way of how slots worked". But I think automatically pulling in the latest and greatest version of such a library only makes sense if code written against the old library stands a chance of making use of the new library. It might make sense to add a way to inform your package manager if pulling in new slots by default is useful, but I would prefer to give this a more obvious name than "funky-slots", and to come up with a better approach for deciding whether or not the property should be set than "is SLOTS being used for something "clever" or not". I would also suggest that the default should be to *not* pull in new slots by default, but perhaps some review of how slotting is most commonly used would help decide on that. -- Marien Zwart ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 20:36 ` Marien Zwart @ 2012-06-23 20:37 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-24 8:19 ` Michał Górny 2012-06-27 7:44 ` Gilles Dartiguelongue 0 siblings, 2 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 20:37 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 857 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:36:14 +0200 Marien Zwart <marienz@gentoo.org> wrote: > On za, 2012-06-23 at 17:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse > > dependency > > > explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me. > > > > No, it's that if a user requests a "complete" resolution, Paludis > > installs the newest version of things that it can. Extensive > > consultation with users has shown that this is a good behaviour, > > except > > in the small number of situations that have recently arisen where > > people are doing weird things with versions and slots. > > It surprises me that this behavior is normally desirable for packages > where all dependencies (including any in the world set or the like) > are slotted. Think || ( a:3 a:2 ). -- Ciaran McCreesh [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 20:37 ` Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-24 8:19 ` Michał Górny 2012-06-24 10:58 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-27 7:44 ` Gilles Dartiguelongue 1 sibling, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Michał Górny @ 2012-06-24 8:19 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev; +Cc: ciaran.mccreesh [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1104 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:37:11 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:36:14 +0200 > Marien Zwart <marienz@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On za, 2012-06-23 at 17:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > > Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse > > > dependency > > > > explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me. > > > > > > No, it's that if a user requests a "complete" resolution, Paludis > > > installs the newest version of things that it can. Extensive > > > consultation with users has shown that this is a good behaviour, > > > except > > > in the small number of situations that have recently arisen where > > > people are doing weird things with versions and slots. > > > > It surprises me that this behavior is normally desirable for > > packages where all dependencies (including any in the world set or > > the like) are slotted. > > Think || ( a:3 a:2 ). So now that you've stated the problem, maybe it's a good time to find a proper solution for it. -- Best regards, Michał Górny [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-24 8:19 ` Michał Górny @ 2012-06-24 10:58 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-24 11:21 ` Michał Górny 0 siblings, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-24 10:58 UTC (permalink / raw To: Michał Górny; +Cc: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 505 bytes --] On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:19:19 +0200 Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Think || ( a:3 a:2 ). > > So now that you've stated the problem, maybe it's a good time to find > a proper solution for it. That isn't the problem. That's an example of an effect of the problem. The problem is that -r and slots are being used to do something weird. The proper solution is going to be long term, from the looks of things. This is a short term damage control operation. -- Ciaran McCreesh [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-24 10:58 ` Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-24 11:21 ` Michał Górny 2012-06-24 11:23 ` Ciaran McCreesh 0 siblings, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Michał Górny @ 2012-06-24 11:21 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev; +Cc: ciaran.mccreesh [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 599 bytes --] On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:58:07 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:19:19 +0200 > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > Think || ( a:3 a:2 ). > > > > So now that you've stated the problem, maybe it's a good time to > > find a proper solution for it. > > That isn't the problem. That's an example of an effect of the problem. > The problem is that -r and slots are being used to do something weird. No? What will paludis do in the above case, if the newest version of a has slot :4? -- Best regards, Michał Górny [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-24 11:21 ` Michał Górny @ 2012-06-24 11:23 ` Ciaran McCreesh 0 siblings, 0 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-24 11:23 UTC (permalink / raw To: Michał Górny; +Cc: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 867 bytes --] On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:21:01 +0200 Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:58:07 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:19:19 +0200 > > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > Think || ( a:3 a:2 ). > > > > > > So now that you've stated the problem, maybe it's a good time to > > > find a proper solution for it. > > > > That isn't the problem. That's an example of an effect of the > > problem. The problem is that -r and slots are being used to do > > something weird. > > No? What will paludis do in the above case, if the newest version of a > has slot :4? That depends upon other dependencies and what options the user specifies. This isn't a Paludis issue, though. It's a "marking where crazy stuff is being done" issue. -- Ciaran McCreesh [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 20:37 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-24 8:19 ` Michał Górny @ 2012-06-27 7:44 ` Gilles Dartiguelongue 1 sibling, 0 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Gilles Dartiguelongue @ 2012-06-27 7:44 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1523 bytes --] Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 21:37 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit : > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:36:14 +0200 > Marien Zwart <marienz@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On za, 2012-06-23 at 17:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > > Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse > > > dependency > > > > explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me. > > > > > > No, it's that if a user requests a "complete" resolution, Paludis > > > installs the newest version of things that it can. Extensive > > > consultation with users has shown that this is a good behaviour, > > > except > > > in the small number of situations that have recently arisen where > > > people are doing weird things with versions and slots. > > > > It surprises me that this behavior is normally desirable for packages > > where all dependencies (including any in the world set or the like) > > are slotted. > > Think || ( a:3 a:2 ). > I would say this is not possible with gtk+ To build a gtk+3 app, you need gtk+3 based libs only, same for gtk+2. Mixing will not work because of symbols conflict iirc. Anyway, I think that we got off track on the basics of the problem. The problem is that you cannot have two ebuilds of the same ${CAT}/${PN} with the same version simply because the files would have the same name. Adding a new property or whatever does not solve this problem unless we propose a way of naming such ebuilds to start with, right ? -- Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org> Gentoo [-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 13:21 [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 14:02 ` Mike Gilbert @ 2012-06-23 16:13 ` Justin 2012-06-23 16:17 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 16:26 ` Patrick Lauer 2 siblings, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Justin @ 2012-06-23 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2037 bytes --] On 23.06.2012 15:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > There's been a move towards using slots for "clever" things that don't > fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new > gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals. > > Aside from being abusive, this screws things up for Paludis users. > Paludis tends to bring in newer versions when possible (so that users > aren't stuck with an old GCC forever), and allows the user to select > when new slots are brought in. When suddenly a few packages are using > slots and versions to "mean" something other than what they used to, > this makes the feature unusable. > > Thus, as a quick workaround, I'd like to suggest adding a PROPERTIES > value called "funky-slots", which should be set on every version of any > package that uses slots in an unconventional manner. This probably > doesn't need EAPI control, since package manglers are free to ignore > PROPERTIES tokens. It won't solve the abuse, but it will allow the > impact upon users to be lessened. > Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from others? Probably you better should. I can't see any good and more importantly, sufficient description of the problem. There is some vague hint, that paludis is not able to solve dependency chains correctly, but this is something I might got wrong from your mail. An example: "...slots and versions to "mean" something other than what they used to,..." is completely useless without a description of what SLOTS are about and how the should be used. And what is the wrong usage you can find; examples are necessary here for understanding. And your approach (a workaround called "funky-slots") to tackle this what-ever-the-problem-really is, doesn't fit to anything you want from others. To me, it doesn't solve the root cause, but actually I can't judge this, because I am missing a description of what is really going wrong. Don't behave in a way, which you disallow for others. justin [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 302 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 16:13 ` Justin @ 2012-06-23 16:17 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 16:47 ` Justin 2012-06-23 17:16 ` Alec Warner 0 siblings, 2 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 16:17 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1075 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200 Justin <jlec@gentoo.org> wrote: > Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from > others? Probably you better should. Uh huh, and I think we all know there's a huge difference between knowing what versions and slots are and knowing what "a multilib" is. > An example: > > "...slots and versions to "mean" something other than what they used > to,..." > > is completely useless without a description of what SLOTS are about > and how the should be used. And what is the wrong usage you can find; > examples are necessary here for understanding. That's covered in the devmanual and in the user documentation, so there's no need to repeat it here. > To me, it doesn't solve the root cause, but actually I can't judge > this, because I am missing a description of what is really going > wrong. As I've already said, this isn't about solving the root cause. It's about reducing the impact of damage that's already been done until the root cause is solved properly. -- Ciaran McCreesh [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 16:17 ` Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 16:47 ` Justin 2012-06-23 16:53 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 17:16 ` Alec Warner 1 sibling, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Justin @ 2012-06-23 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2081 bytes --] On 23.06.2012 18:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200 > Justin <jlec@gentoo.org> wrote: >> Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from >> others? Probably you better should. > > Uh huh, and I think we all know there's a huge difference between > knowing what versions and slots are and knowing what "a multilib" is. > Might be right, but that doesn't allow you to break your own rules. Plus I still don't get the problem of using SLOTS in the way they are used now. And I can't find this out by simply googling. In contrast, an explanation of multilib in context of linux distribution and more specific gentoo can be found easily. But that's nothing I wanted to discuss here. Stop acting in this arrogant way you are doing right now. This doesn't make sympathetic in any way and heavily overshadows the technically skills you will have for sure. >> An example: >> >> "...slots and versions to "mean" something other than what they used >> to,..." >> >> is completely useless without a description of what SLOTS are about >> and how the should be used. And what is the wrong usage you can find; >> examples are necessary here for understanding. > > That's covered in the devmanual and in the user documentation, so > there's no need to repeat it here. Ever heard about references. They are good, if you don't like to repeat what is written, but which are necessary context to understand what you are writing. You should use them for the sake of understanding, if you are to lazy to write it out again. > >> To me, it doesn't solve the root cause, but actually I can't judge >> this, because I am missing a description of what is really going >> wrong. > > As I've already said, this isn't about solving the root cause. It's > about reducing the impact of damage that's already been done until the > root cause is solved properly. > My clear vote is No. We shouldn't implement anything which allows bad coding anywhere, just for the sake of having it "solved" now. [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 302 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 16:47 ` Justin @ 2012-06-23 16:53 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 17:14 ` Justin 2012-06-23 17:23 ` Pacho Ramos 0 siblings, 2 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2734 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:47:26 +0200 Justin <jlec@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 23.06.2012 18:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200 > > Justin <jlec@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from > >> others? Probably you better should. > > > > Uh huh, and I think we all know there's a huge difference between > > knowing what versions and slots are and knowing what "a multilib" > > is. > > > > Might be right, but that doesn't allow you to break your own rules. > Plus I still don't get the problem of using SLOTS in the way they are > used now. "My own rules" are that enough material is presented that the relevant people understand it. If you look at simple proposals like usex, silent rules or EBUILD_PHASE_FUNC, you'll see quite clearly that we ask for very little in the way of text in cases where the change is easily understood. > And I can't find this out by simply googling. In contrast, an > explanation of multilib in context of linux distribution and more > specific gentoo can be found easily. Oh really? I was under the impression that there wasn't even general agreement upon whether or not multilib applied to "C" or to "C, and Python, and things like it". > Stop acting in this arrogant way you are doing right now. Come on. Submitting a simple proposal with at least as much detail as was provided for other, equally simple proposals is "arrogant" now? > > That's covered in the devmanual and in the user documentation, so > > there's no need to repeat it here. > > Ever heard about references. They are good, if you don't like to > repeat what is written, but which are necessary context to understand > what you are writing. You should use them for the sake of > understanding, if you are to lazy to write it out again. Please take a look at the proposal for EBUILD_PHASE_FUNC, and say where it references what "phase functions" are, or the proposal for usex and say where it references what "use flags" are, or the proposal for silent rules where it references what "econf" is. > >> To me, it doesn't solve the root cause, but actually I can't judge > >> this, because I am missing a description of what is really going > >> wrong. > > > > As I've already said, this isn't about solving the root cause. It's > > about reducing the impact of damage that's already been done until > > the root cause is solved properly. > > My clear vote is No. We shouldn't implement anything which allows bad > coding anywhere, just for the sake of having it "solved" now. The bad coding has already happened. Are you volunteering to revert the Ruby virtuals? -- Ciaran McCreesh [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 16:53 ` Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 17:14 ` Justin 2012-06-23 17:23 ` Pacho Ramos 1 sibling, 0 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Justin @ 2012-06-23 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3174 bytes --] On 23.06.2012 18:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:47:26 +0200 > Justin <jlec@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 23.06.2012 18:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200 >>> Justin <jlec@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>> Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from >>>> others? Probably you better should. >>> >>> Uh huh, and I think we all know there's a huge difference between >>> knowing what versions and slots are and knowing what "a multilib" >>> is. >>> >> >> Might be right, but that doesn't allow you to break your own rules. >> Plus I still don't get the problem of using SLOTS in the way they are >> used now. > > "My own rules" are that enough material is presented that the relevant > people understand it. If you look at simple proposals like usex, silent > rules or EBUILD_PHASE_FUNC, you'll see quite clearly that we ask for > very little in the way of text in cases where the change is easily > understood. > >> And I can't find this out by simply googling. In contrast, an >> explanation of multilib in context of linux distribution and more >> specific gentoo can be found easily. > > Oh really? I was under the impression that there wasn't even general > agreement upon whether or not multilib applied to "C" or to "C, and > Python, and things like it". > >> Stop acting in this arrogant way you are doing right now. > > Come on. Submitting a simple proposal with at least as much detail as > was provided for other, equally simple proposals is "arrogant" now? > >>> That's covered in the devmanual and in the user documentation, so >>> there's no need to repeat it here. >> >> Ever heard about references. They are good, if you don't like to >> repeat what is written, but which are necessary context to understand >> what you are writing. You should use them for the sake of >> understanding, if you are to lazy to write it out again. > > Please take a look at the proposal for EBUILD_PHASE_FUNC, and say where > it references what "phase functions" are, or the proposal for usex and > say where it references what "use flags" are, or the proposal for > silent rules where it references what "econf" is. > >>>> To me, it doesn't solve the root cause, but actually I can't judge >>>> this, because I am missing a description of what is really going >>>> wrong. >>> >>> As I've already said, this isn't about solving the root cause. It's >>> about reducing the impact of damage that's already been done until >>> the root cause is solved properly. >> >> My clear vote is No. We shouldn't implement anything which allows bad >> coding anywhere, just for the sake of having it "solved" now. > > The bad coding has already happened. Are you volunteering to revert the > Ruby virtuals? > I give up. And actually I don't care anymore. When I saw the first people leaving this project, because of all this non social bitching, I thought by myself, this will never happen to me. But the amount of fruitful discussion here is so less compared to the shire amount crap coming through, that it is not worth following it. justin [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 302 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 16:53 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 17:14 ` Justin @ 2012-06-23 17:23 ` Pacho Ramos 2012-06-23 17:30 ` Ciaran McCreesh 1 sibling, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Pacho Ramos @ 2012-06-23 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3521 bytes --] El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 17:53 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:47:26 +0200 > Justin <jlec@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 23.06.2012 18:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200 > > > Justin <jlec@gentoo.org> wrote: > > >> Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from > > >> others? Probably you better should. > > > > > > Uh huh, and I think we all know there's a huge difference between > > > knowing what versions and slots are and knowing what "a multilib" > > > is. > > > > > > > Might be right, but that doesn't allow you to break your own rules. > > Plus I still don't get the problem of using SLOTS in the way they are > > used now. > > "My own rules" are that enough material is presented that the relevant > people understand it. If you look at simple proposals like usex, silent > rules or EBUILD_PHASE_FUNC, you'll see quite clearly that we ask for > very little in the way of text in cases where the change is easily > understood. > > > And I can't find this out by simply googling. In contrast, an > > explanation of multilib in context of linux distribution and more > > specific gentoo can be found easily. > > Oh really? I was under the impression that there wasn't even general > agreement upon whether or not multilib applied to "C" or to "C, and > Python, and things like it". > > > Stop acting in this arrogant way you are doing right now. > > Come on. Submitting a simple proposal with at least as much detail as > was provided for other, equally simple proposals is "arrogant" now? Did you send this proposal seriously or only to troll comparing it with what you think tommy did with multilib thread? If this is seriously, could you explain more how paludis behave in this case? Looks like it treats SLOT with major number as latest version, that is not always true and I don't understand why it should be always true as there are cases where upstream could release newer 3.0.x releases that are really newer than 3.1.x versions. Current -r300/200 stuff shouldn't break as it's only used to slot libraries and that libs will only be installed when some app RDEPENDs on them. > > > > That's covered in the devmanual and in the user documentation, so > > > there's no need to repeat it here. > > > > Ever heard about references. They are good, if you don't like to > > repeat what is written, but which are necessary context to understand > > what you are writing. You should use them for the sake of > > understanding, if you are to lazy to write it out again. > > Please take a look at the proposal for EBUILD_PHASE_FUNC, and say where > it references what "phase functions" are, or the proposal for usex and > say where it references what "use flags" are, or the proposal for > silent rules where it references what "econf" is. > > > >> To me, it doesn't solve the root cause, but actually I can't judge > > >> this, because I am missing a description of what is really going > > >> wrong. > > > > > > As I've already said, this isn't about solving the root cause. It's > > > about reducing the impact of damage that's already been done until > > > the root cause is solved properly. > > > > My clear vote is No. We shouldn't implement anything which allows bad > > coding anywhere, just for the sake of having it "solved" now. > > The bad coding has already happened. Are you volunteering to revert the > Ruby virtuals? > [-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 17:23 ` Pacho Ramos @ 2012-06-23 17:30 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 17:43 ` Pacho Ramos 2012-06-23 22:50 ` Gilles Dartiguelongue 0 siblings, 2 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1128 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:23:57 +0200 Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote: > Did you send this proposal seriously or only to troll comparing it > with what you think tommy did with multilib thread? Uhm, this proposal is exactly in line with dozens of others that have been made for EAPI 5. It's simple, low impact and easy to understand. Please explain for everyone's benefit how you think this proposal is in any way different to the EBUILD_PHASE_FUNC proposal, or the usex proposal, or the silent rules proposal. > If this is seriously, could you explain more how paludis behave in > this case? Looks like it treats SLOT with major number as latest > version, that is not always true and I don't understand why it should > be always true as there are cases where upstream could release newer > 3.0.x releases that are really newer than 3.1.x versions. It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of "the gtk2 version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to bring in a newer GCC and so on. -- Ciaran McCreesh [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 17:30 ` Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 17:43 ` Pacho Ramos 2012-06-23 17:45 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 22:50 ` Gilles Dartiguelongue 1 sibling, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Pacho Ramos @ 2012-06-23 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1263 bytes --] El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:23:57 +0200 > Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Did you send this proposal seriously or only to troll comparing it > > with what you think tommy did with multilib thread? > > Uhm, this proposal is exactly in line with dozens of others that have > been made for EAPI 5. It's simple, low impact and easy to understand. > Please explain for everyone's benefit how you think this proposal is in > any way different to the EBUILD_PHASE_FUNC proposal, or the usex > proposal, or the silent rules proposal. > > > If this is seriously, could you explain more how paludis behave in > > this case? Looks like it treats SLOT with major number as latest > > version, that is not always true and I don't understand why it should > > be always true as there are cases where upstream could release newer > > 3.0.x releases that are really newer than 3.1.x versions. > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the gtk3 > version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of "the gtk2 > version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to bring in a > newer GCC and so on. > And what problems is that causing for you? [-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 17:43 ` Pacho Ramos @ 2012-06-23 17:45 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 17:54 ` Michał Górny 2012-06-23 17:57 ` Pacho Ramos 0 siblings, 2 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 589 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200 Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote: > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the > > gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of > > "the gtk2 version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to > > bring in a newer GCC and so on. > > And what problems is that causing for you? The problem is that there's no way of knowing that -r300 is not "a newer version" than -r200, and that the jruby implementation is not "a newer version" than the ruby 1.8 implementation. -- Ciaran McCreesh [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 17:45 ` Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 17:54 ` Michał Górny 2012-06-23 17:56 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-28 5:03 ` Matt Turner 2012-06-23 17:57 ` Pacho Ramos 1 sibling, 2 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Michał Górny @ 2012-06-23 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev; +Cc: ciaran.mccreesh [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 899 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200 > Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the > > > gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of > > > "the gtk2 version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to > > > bring in a newer GCC and so on. > > > > And what problems is that causing for you? > > The problem is that there's no way of knowing that -r300 is not "a > newer version" than -r200 It is a newer version. That's why it has a newer revision. > and that the jruby implementation is not "a > newer version" than the ruby 1.8 implementation. And that's another thing which is ugly and should be replaced by something sane rather than worked around. -- Best regards, Michał Górny [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 17:54 ` Michał Górny @ 2012-06-23 17:56 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 18:09 ` Michał Górny 2012-06-28 5:03 ` Matt Turner 1 sibling, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 17:56 UTC (permalink / raw To: Michał Górny; +Cc: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1312 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:54:13 +0200 Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200 > > Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat > > > > "the gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as being newer > > > > versions of "the gtk2 version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just > > > > as it tries to bring in a newer GCC and so on. > > > > > > And what problems is that causing for you? > > > > The problem is that there's no way of knowing that -r300 is not "a > > newer version" than -r200 > > It is a newer version. That's why it has a newer revision. That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now being used for something that is exactly the same version as -r200. > > and that the jruby implementation is not "a > > newer version" than the ruby 1.8 implementation. > > And that's another thing which is ugly and should be replaced by > something sane rather than worked around. I agree. But until that happens, which probably isn't going to be anytime soon, we need to know where something weird is happening, and that's what this proposal provides. -- Ciaran McCreesh [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 17:56 ` Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 18:09 ` Michał Górny 2012-06-23 18:06 ` Ciaran McCreesh 0 siblings, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Michał Górny @ 2012-06-23 18:09 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev; +Cc: ciaran.mccreesh [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1669 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:56:42 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:54:13 +0200 > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100 > > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200 > > > Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat > > > > > "the gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as being newer > > > > > versions of "the gtk2 version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just > > > > > as it tries to bring in a newer GCC and so on. > > > > > > > > And what problems is that causing for you? > > > > > > The problem is that there's no way of knowing that -r300 is not "a > > > newer version" than -r200 > > > > It is a newer version. That's why it has a newer revision. > > That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now being > used for something that is exactly the same version as -r200. Did you look at SONAME? > > > and that the jruby implementation is not "a > > > newer version" than the ruby 1.8 implementation. > > > > And that's another thing which is ugly and should be replaced by > > something sane rather than worked around. > > I agree. But until that happens, which probably isn't going to be > anytime soon, we need to know where something weird is happening, and > that's what this proposal provides. Yes, let's introduce some random 'funky' word for a single ebuild. Or.. since it's just a single package, maybe you would just add an ignore list to paludis. -- Best regards, Michał Górny [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 18:09 ` Michał Górny @ 2012-06-23 18:06 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 18:23 ` Michał Górny 0 siblings, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 18:06 UTC (permalink / raw To: Michał Górny; +Cc: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1065 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200 Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: > > That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now being > > used for something that is exactly the same version as -r200. > > Did you look at SONAME? Look at SONAME before deciding what package to install? Kindly explain how that works. > > > > and that the jruby implementation is not "a > > > > newer version" than the ruby 1.8 implementation. > > > > > > And that's another thing which is ugly and should be replaced by > > > something sane rather than worked around. > > > > I agree. But until that happens, which probably isn't going to be > > anytime soon, we need to know where something weird is happening, > > and that's what this proposal provides. > > Yes, let's introduce some random 'funky' word for a single ebuild. > Or.. since it's just a single package, maybe you would just add an > ignore list to paludis. a) it's not a single package, and b) ignore lists in a package manager is a terrible idea. -- Ciaran McCreesh [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 18:06 ` Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 18:23 ` Michał Górny 2012-06-23 18:22 ` Ciaran McCreesh 0 siblings, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Michał Górny @ 2012-06-23 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev; +Cc: ciaran.mccreesh [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 684 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:06:38 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200 > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now being > > > used for something that is exactly the same version as -r200. > > > > Did you look at SONAME? > > Look at SONAME before deciding what package to install? Kindly explain > how that works. I'm just saying that these are two different versions of the package. If you want GTK+3, you take the newer one. If you want GTK+2 compat, you take the older slot. What's wrong with that? -- Best regards, Michał Górny [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 18:23 ` Michał Górny @ 2012-06-23 18:22 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 18:35 ` Alex Alexander 2012-06-23 18:37 ` Michał Górny 0 siblings, 2 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw To: Michał Górny; +Cc: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1209 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:23:13 +0200 Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:06:38 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200 > > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now > > > > being used for something that is exactly the same version as > > > > -r200. > > > > > > Did you look at SONAME? > > > > Look at SONAME before deciding what package to install? Kindly > > explain how that works. > > I'm just saying that these are two different versions of the package. > If you want GTK+3, you take the newer one. If you want GTK+2 compat, > you take the older slot. What's wrong with that? The package mangler does not know that 1.1-r300 is not a "better" version than 1.1-r200, or that 1.2-r200 is not a "better" version than 1.1-r300. Indicating packages where this kind of strangeness happens allows manglers to know that things that are usually true about the relationship between slots and versions no longer hold, and that in these specific cases it should consider slots to be heavily independent. -- Ciaran McCreesh [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 18:22 ` Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 18:35 ` Alex Alexander 2012-06-23 18:37 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 18:37 ` Michał Górny 1 sibling, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Alex Alexander @ 2012-06-23 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:23:13 +0200 > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:06:38 +0100 >> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200 >> > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > > > That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now >> > > > being used for something that is exactly the same version as >> > > > -r200. >> > > >> > > Did you look at SONAME? >> > >> > Look at SONAME before deciding what package to install? Kindly >> > explain how that works. >> >> I'm just saying that these are two different versions of the package. >> If you want GTK+3, you take the newer one. If you want GTK+2 compat, >> you take the older slot. What's wrong with that? > > The package mangler does not know that 1.1-r300 is not a "better" > version than 1.1-r200, or that 1.2-r200 is not a "better" version than > 1.1-r300. Indicating packages where this kind of strangeness happens > allows manglers to know that things that are usually true about the > relationship between slots and versions no longer hold, and that in > these specific cases it should consider slots to be heavily independent. You already have this info, it's called a "slot dependency". -- Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 18:35 ` Alex Alexander @ 2012-06-23 18:37 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 19:14 ` Alex Alexander 0 siblings, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 808 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:35:47 +0300 Alex Alexander <wired@gentoo.org> wrote: > > The package mangler does not know that 1.1-r300 is not a "better" > > version than 1.1-r200, or that 1.2-r200 is not a "better" version > > than 1.1-r300. Indicating packages where this kind of strangeness > > happens allows manglers to know that things that are usually true > > about the relationship between slots and versions no longer hold, > > and that in these specific cases it should consider slots to be > > heavily independent. > > You already have this info, it's called a "slot dependency". It's not a property of individual packages that happen to depend upon the problematic package. The property holds or not for a package regardless of whether anything depends upon it. -- Ciaran McCreesh [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 18:37 ` Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 19:14 ` Alex Alexander 2012-06-23 19:16 ` Ciaran McCreesh 0 siblings, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Alex Alexander @ 2012-06-23 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:35:47 +0300 > Alex Alexander <wired@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > The package mangler does not know that 1.1-r300 is not a "better" >> > version than 1.1-r200, or that 1.2-r200 is not a "better" version >> > than 1.1-r300. Indicating packages where this kind of strangeness >> > happens allows manglers to know that things that are usually true >> > about the relationship between slots and versions no longer hold, >> > and that in these specific cases it should consider slots to be >> > heavily independent. >> >> You already have this info, it's called a "slot dependency". > > It's not a property of individual packages that happen to depend upon > the problematic package. The property holds or not for a package > regardless of whether anything depends upon it. They are part of the deal. If your package has reverse deps, you don't want to update it before figuring out it's reverse dependencies anyway, you never know what slot/version restrictions you're going to get. If it is a package without reverse dependencies, updating to the most recent slot and/or version should be expected unless the user has the slot defined in the world file. -- Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 19:14 ` Alex Alexander @ 2012-06-23 19:16 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 19:27 ` Alex Alexander 0 siblings, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 19:16 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 473 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:14:32 +0300 Alex Alexander <wired@gentoo.org> wrote: > If it is a package without reverse dependencies, updating to the most > recent slot and/or version should be expected unless the user has the > slot defined in the world file. That's the part that no longer holds. The package mangler now needs a way of knowing that for a certain few packages, bringing in new slots when not explicitly required is undesirable. -- Ciaran McCreesh [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 19:16 ` Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 19:27 ` Alex Alexander 2012-06-23 19:29 ` Ciaran McCreesh 0 siblings, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Alex Alexander @ 2012-06-23 19:27 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:14:32 +0300 > Alex Alexander <wired@gentoo.org> wrote: >> If it is a package without reverse dependencies, updating to the most >> recent slot and/or version should be expected unless the user has the >> slot defined in the world file. > > That's the part that no longer holds. The package mangler now needs a > way of knowing that for a certain few packages, bringing in new slots > when not explicitly required is undesirable. Or the PM can notify the user that a new slot has come up and instruct them to specify their desired slot in their world file. -- Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 19:27 ` Alex Alexander @ 2012-06-23 19:29 ` Ciaran McCreesh 0 siblings, 0 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 19:29 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1064 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:27:03 +0300 Alex Alexander <wired@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Ciaran McCreesh > <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:14:32 +0300 > > Alex Alexander <wired@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> If it is a package without reverse dependencies, updating to the > >> most recent slot and/or version should be expected unless the user > >> has the slot defined in the world file. > > > > That's the part that no longer holds. The package mangler now needs > > a way of knowing that for a certain few packages, bringing in new > > slots when not explicitly required is undesirable. > > Or the PM can notify the user that a new slot has come up and instruct > them to specify their desired slot in their world file. But why? The package mangler could automatically do the right thing, without requiring help from a user who probably doesn't know about all of this, if only the small number of packages that did funky things with revisions and slots said so. -- Ciaran McCreesh [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 18:22 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 18:35 ` Alex Alexander @ 2012-06-23 18:37 ` Michał Górny 1 sibling, 0 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Michał Górny @ 2012-06-23 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev; +Cc: ciaran.mccreesh [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1449 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:22:37 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:23:13 +0200 > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:06:38 +0100 > > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200 > > > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now > > > > > being used for something that is exactly the same version as > > > > > -r200. > > > > > > > > Did you look at SONAME? > > > > > > Look at SONAME before deciding what package to install? Kindly > > > explain how that works. > > > > I'm just saying that these are two different versions of the > > package. If you want GTK+3, you take the newer one. If you want > > GTK+2 compat, you take the older slot. What's wrong with that? > > The package mangler does not know that 1.1-r300 is not a "better" > version than 1.1-r200, or that 1.2-r200 is not a "better" version than > 1.1-r300. Indicating packages where this kind of strangeness happens > allows manglers to know that things that are usually true about the > relationship between slots and versions no longer hold, and that in > these specific cases it should consider slots to be heavily > independent. It *is* a 'better' version, much like gtk+-3.* is 'better' than gtk+-2.*. -- Best regards, Michał Górny [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 17:54 ` Michał Górny 2012-06-23 17:56 ` Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-28 5:03 ` Matt Turner 2012-06-28 6:24 ` Ben de Groot 1 sibling, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Matt Turner @ 2012-06-28 5:03 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev; +Cc: ciaran.mccreesh On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200 >> Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the >> > > gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of >> > > "the gtk2 version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to >> > > bring in a newer GCC and so on. >> > >> > And what problems is that causing for you? >> >> The problem is that there's no way of knowing that -r300 is not "a >> newer version" than -r200 It's actually not though, is it? I think -r300 is simply the same thing as -r200 except that it uses gtk3 instead of gtk2. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-28 5:03 ` Matt Turner @ 2012-06-28 6:24 ` Ben de Groot 0 siblings, 0 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Ben de Groot @ 2012-06-28 6:24 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On 28 June 2012 13:03, Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100 >> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200 >>> Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the >>> > > gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of >>> > > "the gtk2 version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to >>> > > bring in a newer GCC and so on. >>> > >>> > And what problems is that causing for you? >>> >>> The problem is that there's no way of knowing that -r300 is not "a >>> newer version" than -r200 > > It's actually not though, is it? I think -r300 is simply the same > thing as -r200 except that it uses gtk3 instead of gtk2. What it means is that it's the same package and version, but a 100 revisions of the ebuild later. It makes one wonder what the heck is going on there... -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 17:45 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 17:54 ` Michał Górny @ 2012-06-23 17:57 ` Pacho Ramos 1 sibling, 0 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Pacho Ramos @ 2012-06-23 17:57 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1094 bytes --] El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 18:45 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200 > Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the > > > gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of > > > "the gtk2 version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to > > > bring in a newer GCC and so on. > > > > And what problems is that causing for you? > > The problem is that there's no way of knowing that -r300 is not "a > newer version" than -r200, and that the jruby implementation is not "a > newer version" than the ruby 1.8 implementation. > Regarding -r300 issue (I don't know much about ruby), I guess paludis wants to install net-libs/webkit-gtk-1.8.1-r301 for example when nothing is requiring any specific SLOT? What problems does it cause apart of what would cause if ebuilds using gtk2 are RDEPENDing on plain x11-libs/gtk+ without specifying any SLOT? In both cases gtk2 apps should RDEPEND specifically in SLOTs for gtk2 support and gtk3 apps on gtk3 slots. [-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 17:30 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 17:43 ` Pacho Ramos @ 2012-06-23 22:50 ` Gilles Dartiguelongue 2012-06-24 8:48 ` Ben de Groot 1 sibling, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Gilles Dartiguelongue @ 2012-06-23 22:50 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 515 bytes --] Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit : > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the gtk3 > version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of "the gtk2 > version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to bring in a > newer GCC and so on. I'm stopping my reading of this thread a minute to answer here. This is actually true when you think of it, gtk3 bindings are newer than gtk2. -- Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org> Gentoo [-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 22:50 ` Gilles Dartiguelongue @ 2012-06-24 8:48 ` Ben de Groot 2012-06-24 10:17 ` Gilles Dartiguelongue 0 siblings, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Ben de Groot @ 2012-06-24 8:48 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On 24 June 2012 06:50, Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org> wrote: > Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit : >> >> It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the gtk3 >> version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of "the gtk2 >> version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to bring in a >> newer GCC and so on. > > I'm stopping my reading of this thread a minute to answer here. > > This is actually true when you think of it, gtk3 bindings are newer than > gtk2. Now you're playing with semantics. In the case of -r200/-r300 we are talking about the *exact same* $PV, but for some reason the revision numbers are confusingly abused for something that we normally use useflags for (toggling support for specific toolkits for example). Please stop abusing revision numbers for something they are not meant to convey. And please stop pushing developers to drop perfectly legal usage of the gtk3 useflag. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-24 8:48 ` Ben de Groot @ 2012-06-24 10:17 ` Gilles Dartiguelongue 0 siblings, 0 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Gilles Dartiguelongue @ 2012-06-24 10:17 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1790 bytes --] Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 16:48 +0800, Ben de Groot a écrit : > On 24 June 2012 06:50, Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit : > >> > >> It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the gtk3 > >> version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of "the gtk2 > >> version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to bring in a > >> newer GCC and so on. > > > > I'm stopping my reading of this thread a minute to answer here. > > > > This is actually true when you think of it, gtk3 bindings are newer than > > gtk2. > > Now you're playing with semantics. In the case of -r200/-r300 we > are talking about the *exact same* $PV, but for some reason > the revision numbers are confusingly abused for something > that we normally use useflags for (toggling support for specific > toolkits for example). > > Please stop abusing revision numbers for something they are > not meant to convey. And please stop pushing developers to > drop perfectly legal usage of the gtk3 useflag. > This is the same codebase, but they really are slotted libs (that happens to have the same $PV): * different include path * different pkgconfig files * different sonames * ... If the $PV wasn't the same, there would be no question about have a USE flag or not, the answer would be obvious to anyone. So please stop pretending this is a good case for USE flag. Now if this is the only case (lib with support for two gtk+ versions but slottable/slotted) that is causing a problem to anyone here, I propose we go with the simplest fix, have a new package name. That will remember me of debian packaging :) -- Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org> Gentoo [-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 16:17 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 16:47 ` Justin @ 2012-06-23 17:16 ` Alec Warner 2012-06-23 17:24 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 17:34 ` Kent Fredric 1 sibling, 2 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Alec Warner @ 2012-06-23 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200 > Justin <jlec@gentoo.org> wrote: >> Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from >> others? Probably you better should. > > Uh huh, and I think we all know there's a huge difference between > knowing what versions and slots are and knowing what "a multilib" is. > >> An example: >> >> "...slots and versions to "mean" something other than what they used >> to,..." >> >> is completely useless without a description of what SLOTS are about >> and how the should be used. And what is the wrong usage you can find; >> examples are necessary here for understanding. > > That's covered in the devmanual and in the user documentation, so > there's no need to repeat it here. http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/slotting/index.html http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/dependencies/index.html#slot-dependencies I don't think the documentation forbids what these developers are doing. I think you implemented a nice heuristic for your users in your resolver that used to work because slots had a typical set of users cases and the heuristic performed well in those cases. Now people are occasionally using slots in a different way and your heuristic penalizes those cases. That sucks, but you might have to actually change your resolver because I don't think 'funky-slots' properties is going to garner much adoption. It just appears that the heuristic you used to use isn't helpful anymore (or has too any false positives, or whatever.) -A > >> To me, it doesn't solve the root cause, but actually I can't judge >> this, because I am missing a description of what is really going >> wrong. > > As I've already said, this isn't about solving the root cause. It's > about reducing the impact of damage that's already been done until the > root cause is solved properly. > > -- > Ciaran McCreesh ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 17:16 ` Alec Warner @ 2012-06-23 17:24 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 17:35 ` Alec Warner 2012-06-23 17:34 ` Kent Fredric 1 sibling, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1089 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:16:42 -0700 Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote: > I don't think the documentation forbids what these developers are > doing. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1 "This means that counting goes as follows: 1.0 (initial version), 1.0-r1, 1.0-r2, etc." It's not illegal, but it's also not in line with how versions and slots have interacted up until now. > I think you implemented a nice heuristic for your users in your > resolver that used to work because slots had a typical set of users > cases and the heuristic performed well in those cases. > > Now people are occasionally using slots in a different way and your > heuristic penalizes those cases. That sucks, but you might have to > actually change your resolver because I don't think 'funky-slots' > properties is going to garner much adoption. You mean, instead of implementing trivial marking, which takes developers a few seconds, you want to screw over users? I think that says a lot about Gentoo's attitude... -- Ciaran McCreesh [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 17:24 ` Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 17:35 ` Alec Warner 2012-06-23 17:36 ` Ciaran McCreesh 0 siblings, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Alec Warner @ 2012-06-23 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:16:42 -0700 > Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote: >> I don't think the documentation forbids what these developers are >> doing. > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1 > > "This means that counting goes as follows: 1.0 (initial version), > 1.0-r1, 1.0-r2, etc." > > It's not illegal, but it's also not in line with how versions and slots > have interacted up until now. I agree and I sympathize with your position. > >> I think you implemented a nice heuristic for your users in your >> resolver that used to work because slots had a typical set of users >> cases and the heuristic performed well in those cases. >> >> Now people are occasionally using slots in a different way and your >> heuristic penalizes those cases. That sucks, but you might have to >> actually change your resolver because I don't think 'funky-slots' >> properties is going to garner much adoption. > > You mean, instead of implementing trivial marking, which takes > developers a few seconds, you want to screw over users? I think that > says a lot about Gentoo's attitude... I don't think portage has the behavior that paludis does, so most users are not likely to experience this particular problem. You know as well as I that the marking isn't necessarily trivial. Its another thing we have to document and train people to use. I don't think users get 'screwed over' either. It could be that instead of Gentoo tagging a bunch of ebuilds, you just change your resolver heuristic a bit. -A > > -- > Ciaran McCreesh ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 17:35 ` Alec Warner @ 2012-06-23 17:36 ` Ciaran McCreesh 0 siblings, 0 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 599 bytes --] On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:35:36 -0700 Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote: > I don't think portage has the behavior that paludis does, so most > users are not likely to experience this particular problem. You know > as well as I that the marking isn't necessarily trivial. But this time it is trivial. That's the point. > It could be that instead of Gentoo tagging a bunch of ebuilds, you > just change your resolver heuristic a bit. The resolver heuristic is correct, except in the cases where people are doing utterly weird things with revisions and slots. -- Ciaran McCreesh [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 17:16 ` Alec Warner 2012-06-23 17:24 ` Ciaran McCreesh @ 2012-06-23 17:34 ` Kent Fredric 1 sibling, 0 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Kent Fredric @ 2012-06-23 17:34 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On 24 June 2012 05:16, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> That's covered in the devmanual and in the user documentation, so >> there's no need to repeat it here. > > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/slotting/index.html > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/dependencies/index.html#slot-dependencies > > I don't think the documentation forbids what these developers are > doing. I think you implemented a nice heuristic for your users in your > resolver that used to work because slots had a typical set of users > cases and the heuristic performed well in those cases. > > Now people are occasionally using slots in a different way and your > heuristic penalizes those cases. That sucks, but you might have to > actually change your resolver because I don't think 'funky-slots' > properties is going to garner much adoption. It just appears that the > heuristic you used to use isn't helpful anymore (or has too any false > positives, or whatever.) > It seems to me that the defacto understanding of slots is that given 2 slots for one package, one slot will be a natural upgrade from another competing slot, assuming a slot that is a version progression. This makes sense for most packages. However, it seems slots are in some cases being used for purposes other than natural version progressions, and representing siblings instead of child/parent , and in such case, its not logical to want to install a different sibling simply for having a different sibling installed. So the request is to have some sort of metadata to optionally convey the intent of what the slot "means", where the defacto method would be "They're versions, if X > Y then X is a natural upgrade from Y, and is slotted for transition and similar reasons" , which would indicate to UA's that if they have Y, and X becomes available, that they will want to install X. And there would be the alternative(s), "Funky slots" , where slots DONT indicate version progression, and so should *not* be 'upgraded' to from alternative slots. Logical place to store such information to me seems <metadata.xml> -- Kent perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 13:21 [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 14:02 ` Mike Gilbert 2012-06-23 16:13 ` Justin @ 2012-06-23 16:26 ` Patrick Lauer 2012-09-03 14:08 ` [gentoo-dev] " Mark Bateman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Patrick Lauer @ 2012-06-23 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On 06/23/12 21:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > There's been a move towards using slots for "clever" things that don't > fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new > gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals. > > Aside from being abusive, No, it solves a real problem. > this screws things up for Paludis users. -EDONTCARE, use a supported package manager > Paludis tends to bring in newer versions when possible (so that users > aren't stuck with an old GCC forever), and allows the user to select > when new slots are brought in. When suddenly a few packages are using > slots and versions to "mean" something other than what they used to, > this makes the feature unusable. > > Thus, as a quick workaround, I'd like to suggest adding a PROPERTIES > value called "funky-slots", which should be set on every version of any > package that uses slots in an unconventional manner. This probably > doesn't need EAPI control, since package manglers are free to ignore > PROPERTIES tokens. It won't solve the abuse, but it will allow the > impact upon users to be lessened. > Hackfix. Hardcode those packages in paludis if you need to. Cleaner and faster quick workaround until you can figure out a clean solution. No reason to hack a working solution to bits, especially as it is rather easy to mask specific versions if they annoy you (as I do to keep my systems gtk3-free). The current solution is a side-effect of some upstreams being very confused, but I like the -r200/-r300 versioning fix for gtk apps. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-06-23 16:26 ` Patrick Lauer @ 2012-09-03 14:08 ` Mark Bateman 2012-09-06 8:21 ` Brian Harring 0 siblings, 1 reply; 52+ messages in thread From: Mark Bateman @ 2012-09-03 14:08 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev Patrick Lauer <patrick <at> gentoo.org> writes: > > On 06/23/12 21:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > There's been a move towards using slots for "clever" things that don't > > fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new > > gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals. > > > > Aside from being abusive, > No, it solves a real problem. > > this screws things up for Paludis users. > -EDONTCARE, use a supported package manager So if the packagemanager is struggling to resolve whether a package belongs in a slot or not, would this be a case for encoding such metadata in the ebuild filename. foo-slot2-3.2.1.ebuild This way the PM would be able to determine exactly what it has todo before it starts to parse the ebuild ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots 2012-09-03 14:08 ` [gentoo-dev] " Mark Bateman @ 2012-09-06 8:21 ` Brian Harring 0 siblings, 0 replies; 52+ messages in thread From: Brian Harring @ 2012-09-06 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw To: Mark Bateman; +Cc: gentoo-dev On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 02:08:58PM +0000, Mark Bateman wrote: > Patrick Lauer <patrick <at> gentoo.org> writes: > > > > > On 06/23/12 21:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > There's been a move towards using slots for "clever" things that don't > > > fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new > > > gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals. > > > > > > Aside from being abusive, > > No, it solves a real problem. > > > this screws things up for Paludis users. > > -EDONTCARE, use a supported package manager > > > > So if the packagemanager is struggling to resolve whether a package belongs in a > slot or not, would this be a case for encoding such metadata in the ebuild > filename. > > foo-slot2-3.2.1.ebuild > > This way the PM would be able to determine exactly what it has todo before it > starts to parse the ebuild No; the problem isn't getting the slot out of the metadata (moving it to the file name doesn't really do anything beyond make it slightly faster at the cost of being backwards incompatible for any existent PM that sees it); the problem is in the PMs resolver, and how it chooses to search the space. Basically, paludis does x, the rest do y; funky-slots was intended to make 'x' behave better at the cost of ebuild devs having to go mark shit up (leading to the retort 'do y instead'). ~harring ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 52+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-09-06 8:22 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 52+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2012-06-23 13:21 [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 14:02 ` Mike Gilbert 2012-06-23 14:06 ` Mike Gilbert 2012-06-23 14:10 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 14:20 ` Mart Raudsepp 2012-06-23 16:12 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-24 17:25 ` Alexis Ballier 2012-06-23 15:51 ` Michał Górny 2012-06-23 16:08 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 20:36 ` Marien Zwart 2012-06-23 20:37 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-24 8:19 ` Michał Górny 2012-06-24 10:58 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-24 11:21 ` Michał Górny 2012-06-24 11:23 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-27 7:44 ` Gilles Dartiguelongue 2012-06-23 16:13 ` Justin 2012-06-23 16:17 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 16:47 ` Justin 2012-06-23 16:53 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 17:14 ` Justin 2012-06-23 17:23 ` Pacho Ramos 2012-06-23 17:30 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 17:43 ` Pacho Ramos 2012-06-23 17:45 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 17:54 ` Michał Górny 2012-06-23 17:56 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 18:09 ` Michał Górny 2012-06-23 18:06 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 18:23 ` Michał Górny 2012-06-23 18:22 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 18:35 ` Alex Alexander 2012-06-23 18:37 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 19:14 ` Alex Alexander 2012-06-23 19:16 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 19:27 ` Alex Alexander 2012-06-23 19:29 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 18:37 ` Michał Górny 2012-06-28 5:03 ` Matt Turner 2012-06-28 6:24 ` Ben de Groot 2012-06-23 17:57 ` Pacho Ramos 2012-06-23 22:50 ` Gilles Dartiguelongue 2012-06-24 8:48 ` Ben de Groot 2012-06-24 10:17 ` Gilles Dartiguelongue 2012-06-23 17:16 ` Alec Warner 2012-06-23 17:24 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 17:35 ` Alec Warner 2012-06-23 17:36 ` Ciaran McCreesh 2012-06-23 17:34 ` Kent Fredric 2012-06-23 16:26 ` Patrick Lauer 2012-09-03 14:08 ` [gentoo-dev] " Mark Bateman 2012-09-06 8:21 ` Brian Harring
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox