[gentoo-dev] [RFC] dev-rust category

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] dev-rust category

[Jauhien Piatlicki]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 873 bytes --]

Hi,

I have plans to split ?/cargo-bin [1] package from the dev-lang/rust-bin
one. We have already dev-rust/cargo package in the rust overlay[2].

It would be logical to have dev-rust/cargo-bin package then. But there
is a problem: it will be the only package in this category in the tree
and it is not welcome to have categories with small number of packages.
Other rust stuff will appear, but later (with no estimate), as a number
of problems with packaging source rust packages should be solved before
(afaik upstream also has plans to improve rust packaging). The same
about moving source cargo to the tree.

So what is better, create dev-util/cargo-bin package and later, when
rust infrastructure grows, move it to the dev-rust category or create
new category now?

[1] https://crates.io/
[2] https://github.com/Heather/gentoo-rust

--
Jauhien


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] dev-rust category

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1151 bytes --]

On 09/05/2015 02:21 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have plans to split ?/cargo-bin [1] package from the dev-lang/rust-bin
> one. We have already dev-rust/cargo package in the rust overlay[2].
> 
> It would be logical to have dev-rust/cargo-bin package then. But there
> is a problem: it will be the only package in this category in the tree
> and it is not welcome to have categories with small number of packages.
> Other rust stuff will appear, but later (with no estimate), as a number
> of problems with packaging source rust packages should be solved before
> (afaik upstream also has plans to improve rust packaging). The same
> about moving source cargo to the tree.
> 
> So what is better, create dev-util/cargo-bin package and later, when
> rust infrastructure grows, move it to the dev-rust category or create
> new category now?
> 
> [1] https://crates.io/
> [2] https://github.com/Heather/gentoo-rust
> 
> --
> Jauhien
> 

I think cargo should probably go in dev-util with other rust libraries
and programs going into dev-rust as needed, but that's just me :D

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] dev-rust category

[Daniel Campbell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 09/05/2015 01:04 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
> On 09/05/2015 02:21 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I have plans to split ?/cargo-bin [1] package from the
>> dev-lang/rust-bin one. We have already dev-rust/cargo package in
>> the rust overlay[2].
>> 
>> It would be logical to have dev-rust/cargo-bin package then. But
>> there is a problem: it will be the only package in this category
>> in the tree and it is not welcome to have categories with small
>> number of packages. Other rust stuff will appear, but later (with
>> no estimate), as a number of problems with packaging source rust
>> packages should be solved before (afaik upstream also has plans
>> to improve rust packaging). The same about moving source cargo to
>> the tree.
>> 
>> So what is better, create dev-util/cargo-bin package and later,
>> when rust infrastructure grows, move it to the dev-rust category
>> or create new category now?
>> 
>> [1] https://crates.io/ [2]
>> https://github.com/Heather/gentoo-rust
>> 
>> -- Jauhien
>> 
> 
> I think cargo should probably go in dev-util with other rust
> libraries and programs going into dev-rust as needed, but that's
> just me :D

Agreed. dev-util until it grows in size (isn't the recommendation
5-10+ pkgs?), then dev-rust. Despite the package moves being somewhat
cumbersome, it makes more sense to do it once it's clear Rust has an
ecosystem going rather than catch stragglers in its infancy.

For platform-specific things like compilers, dev-lang/ may be a better
candidate.

Just my 2¢.


- -- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=cMLX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] dev-rust category

[Jauhien Piatlicki]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 871 bytes --]

Hi,

On 09/05/2015 11:23 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 09/05/2015 01:04 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:

>> I think cargo should probably go in dev-util with other rust
>> libraries and programs going into dev-rust as needed, but that's
>> just me :D
> 
> Agreed. dev-util until it grows in size (isn't the recommendation
> 5-10+ pkgs?), then dev-rust. Despite the package moves being somewhat
> cumbersome, it makes more sense to do it once it's clear Rust has an
> ecosystem going rather than catch stragglers in its infancy.
> 

Ok, looks quite logical for me. So the next question. I remember portage
had some problems with moving packages. Would it work if I'll move
dev-rust/cargo to dev-util/cargo in our overlay now. And later when rust
infrastructure grows move it in the main tree back to dev-rust? Or will
it break something?

--
Jauhien



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] dev-rust category

[Daniel Campbell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 09/06/2015 02:00 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 09/05/2015 11:23 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>> On 09/05/2015 01:04 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
> 
>>> I think cargo should probably go in dev-util with other rust 
>>> libraries and programs going into dev-rust as needed, but
>>> that's just me :D
>> 
>> Agreed. dev-util until it grows in size (isn't the
>> recommendation 5-10+ pkgs?), then dev-rust. Despite the package
>> moves being somewhat cumbersome, it makes more sense to do it
>> once it's clear Rust has an ecosystem going rather than catch
>> stragglers in its infancy.
>> 
> 
> Ok, looks quite logical for me. So the next question. I remember
> portage had some problems with moving packages. Would it work if
> I'll move dev-rust/cargo to dev-util/cargo in our overlay now. And
> later when rust infrastructure grows move it in the main tree back
> to dev-rust? Or will it break something?
> 
> -- Jauhien
> 
> 
Now that we're on git, I don't see why a quick `git mv old-cat/foo
new-cat/foo` wouldn't get the job done. Don't quote me on it, but my
guess is it would work fine. Then make sure the profile data gets
updated by updating the relevant file(s).

If you're keeping it in an overlay until you think it's ready for the
Gentoo repo, you may as well keep it whatever you want since it's not
bound by Gentoo policy. I would start with dev-util, even in tree, and
migrate to dev-rust when it reaches critical mass on packages (I'd say
at least ten).

- -- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=pnJI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] dev-rust category

[Jauhien Piatlicki]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1810 bytes --]

Hi,

On 09/07/2015 07:28 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 09/06/2015 02:00 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
>> Hi,
> 
>> On 09/05/2015 11:23 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>>> On 09/05/2015 01:04 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
> 
>>>> I think cargo should probably go in dev-util with other rust 
>>>> libraries and programs going into dev-rust as needed, but
>>>> that's just me :D
>>>
>>> Agreed. dev-util until it grows in size (isn't the
>>> recommendation 5-10+ pkgs?), then dev-rust. Despite the package
>>> moves being somewhat cumbersome, it makes more sense to do it
>>> once it's clear Rust has an ecosystem going rather than catch
>>> stragglers in its infancy.
>>>
> 
>> Ok, looks quite logical for me. So the next question. I remember
>> portage had some problems with moving packages. Would it work if
>> I'll move dev-rust/cargo to dev-util/cargo in our overlay now. And
>> later when rust infrastructure grows move it in the main tree back
>> to dev-rust? Or will it break something?
> 
>> -- Jauhien
> 
> 
> Now that we're on git, I don't see why a quick `git mv old-cat/foo
> new-cat/foo` wouldn't get the job done. Don't quote me on it, but my
> guess is it would work fine. Then make sure the profile data gets
> updated by updating the relevant file(s).
> 
> If you're keeping it in an overlay until you think it's ready for the
> Gentoo repo, you may as well keep it whatever you want since it's not
> bound by Gentoo policy. I would start with dev-util, even in tree, and
> migrate to dev-rust when it reaches critical mass on packages (I'd say
> at least ten).
> 
> 

I'm speaking not about git, but about portage move [1] (see Moving
ebuilds there). This is unrelated to version control.

[1] https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-maintenance/index.html


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] dev-rust category

[Daniel Campbell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 09/07/2015 05:56 AM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 09/07/2015 07:28 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>> On 09/06/2015 02:00 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
>>> Hi,
>> 
>>> On 09/05/2015 11:23 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>>>> On 09/05/2015 01:04 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
>> 
>>>>> I think cargo should probably go in dev-util with other
>>>>> rust libraries and programs going into dev-rust as needed,
>>>>> but that's just me :D
>>>> 
>>>> Agreed. dev-util until it grows in size (isn't the 
>>>> recommendation 5-10+ pkgs?), then dev-rust. Despite the
>>>> package moves being somewhat cumbersome, it makes more sense
>>>> to do it once it's clear Rust has an ecosystem going rather
>>>> than catch stragglers in its infancy.
>>>> 
>> 
>>> Ok, looks quite logical for me. So the next question. I
>>> remember portage had some problems with moving packages. Would
>>> it work if I'll move dev-rust/cargo to dev-util/cargo in our
>>> overlay now. And later when rust infrastructure grows move it
>>> in the main tree back to dev-rust? Or will it break something?
>> 
>>> -- Jauhien
>> 
>> 
>> Now that we're on git, I don't see why a quick `git mv
>> old-cat/foo new-cat/foo` wouldn't get the job done. Don't quote
>> me on it, but my guess is it would work fine. Then make sure the
>> profile data gets updated by updating the relevant file(s).
>> 
>> If you're keeping it in an overlay until you think it's ready for
>> the Gentoo repo, you may as well keep it whatever you want since
>> it's not bound by Gentoo policy. I would start with dev-util,
>> even in tree, and migrate to dev-rust when it reaches critical
>> mass on packages (I'd say at least ten).
>> 
>> 
> 
> I'm speaking not about git, but about portage move [1] (see Moving 
> ebuilds there). This is unrelated to version control.
> 
> [1] https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-maintenance/index.html
> 
Right, that's what the 'updating the relevant file(s)' part was about.
:) If you're the only developer working on it, I don't see why it
would be a problem. Of course, other developers who are more
experienced in these situations should probably show up and say
something, but based on what you've told me and the processes Gentoo
has in place, it should be okay.

- -- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJV7bGLAAoJEAEkDpRQOeFwpJgQANOst5gnRN5fwETnrR42bQYD
aqZn4+ZAF8tHN45XUsa9RzCY1w9YO1GBxUPhkhUBIesJPB326gy8pc9TL/g2VNfF
QcWEfh0loiqE5pAE1IjAeLROR01AEfADIivoBKJ2kTr2ziztxxjIab30UY1WfaxX
kvXY5bEi9AQPW28e4cdNBX8JBJqn+V31allS+AnVZApd6+FPU/UfjZ5TF9JC9w04
qS6gd0fRBWXSb8cZoufJkgiDttlleSW89AxYJKTOAUCDO8opfVr/kPB5UY22Jftd
LdXl/5U0jAlt5OEthSZvDBB6cJ0ydI5DmtjMG93DXQcxXTfMneI45H6UAw0SXdt6
Ss/Uy2fHLojSP07rcWhUt7RNaXNUhEbhnplu4Gf8iHRymPIbUTS8MaM37nCDvouV
GE2puyUFvn11l14JIcJLKT4zfEd9+9pM2m8IhrCjF86c4KRfUXJsQzZmavmAcUiY
Fn7oMv4/WaQa+V4y6fQzpedBBoeGNpxmunOYOKvlx2puwd3UJGOn6szCL4vLKQW8
dxuNIiTSc1aIUHKoaIKqeZ4fwNQFcAhnxuoyd5Z4zZ1zKE5VFVBCAV+gadzH3w2K
x40my64c4KxUy+1gKB6yvXAU3KP5HqIuoM9dcUJqLmoWgyzWk9gO5k2P30IKABdM
74Ks5PKTyvNF5T8hxpt/
=I0es
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----