Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Standard parsable format for profiles/package.mask file

[Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>]

Arthur Zamarin <arthurzam@gentoo.org> writes:

> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> On 22/09/2023 17.50, Alex Boag-Munroe wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 15:37, Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Alex Boag-Munroe <ninpo@qap.la> writes:
>>>
>>>> Any reason for the parseable parts to not be in an established human
>>>> readable/editable format? e.g. the config ini style format, or TOML?
>>>
>>> The only issue really is that depending on how it's done (do we do
>>> it for the whole file, or just comments), it may need a new (profile)
>>> EAPI which will take a while to implement and deploy.
>>>
>>> If it's just for comments, then we can do it immediately though.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> To crib from the OP example with something configparser understands:
>>>> [PREAMBLE]
>>>> Timestamp: 2023-09-21 15:07:42+00:00
>>>> Author: Arthur Zamarin <arthurzam@gentoo.org>
>>>> Justification: Very broken, no idea why packaged, need to drop ASAP.
>>>>     The project is done with supporting this package.
>>>> Bugs: 667687, 667689
>>>> Removal Date: 2023-10-21
>>>> Packages: dev-lang/python
>>>>
>>>> The format is well documented already and simple to check for
>>>> validity, so any GLEP would just need to cover correct keys/values.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But yeah, I agree it's worth thinking about a proper format rather than
>>> fragile text mangling going into the future.
>>>
>> Perhaps eventually it could/should be used for the whole file but as
>> an interim/beginning there's no reason you couldn't start with
>> comments:
>> 
>> # [PREAMBLE]
>> # Timestamp: 2023-09-21 15:07:42+00:00
>> # Author: Arthur Zamarin <arthurzam@gentoo.org>
>> # Justification: Very broken, no idea why packaged, need to drop ASAP.
>> #     The project is done with supporting this package.
>> # Bugs: 667687, 667689
>> # Packages: dev-lang/python
>> dev-lang/python
>> 
>> This simply adds a pre parse step of stripping the comments then
>> feeding directly into configparser or probably more suitable, TOML
>> since TOML has better syntax for directly delivering things like a
>> "Packages:" key as a list.
>> 
>> Redoing a bunch of package.* parsing probably wasn't in scope of the
>> OP but I've always wondered and this felt an opportune moment to
>> ask/suggest :)
>
> Thanks for the idea. Yes, it was out of scope such suggestions for me
> originally, but thinking more about it, I take it more positively.
> Please let me (and others) to consider it for some days, cause this is
> very interesting proposal. Things to consider is how much effort it is
> to file in future, which format to use, etc.
>

It's fine with me if we just go with the original for now, but I think
the awkwardness (which is not your fault, but the nature of wrangling
free-form text) of the specification shows that we should at some point
move to something structured.

But I don't consider it a blocker for doing something better than
the status quo.

Maybe we'll be better off just going straight for Exherbo-style
p.mask in future: https://ciaranm.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/classifying-repository-masks/

Ultimately, text munging sucks and there's only so much we can do to
polish it. But your original proposal is a good improvement on how things are now.

>> --
>> Ninpo
>>