From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4079415800A for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 17:35:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C4E94E0891; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 17:34:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C483E0887 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 17:34:56 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <8c7d2e05-3bbf-5e12-de38-7dc96ba0cf54@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 20:34:45 +0300 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Package stabilization groups Content-Language: en-US To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, Sam James References: <87lefebgdr.fsf@gentoo.org> From: Arthur Zamarin In-Reply-To: <87lefebgdr.fsf@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------PuloxeMlD2CVVDnvMXD1IQxC" X-Archives-Salt: 66f1359c-78e3-4135-be03-d65167fc6b70 X-Archives-Hash: dae8d6930f081394e26228e5bab9065a This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --------------PuloxeMlD2CVVDnvMXD1IQxC Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------tQOWBMuMAFdtNGUF5T1lKzaW"; protected-headers="v1" From: Arthur Zamarin To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, Sam James Message-ID: <8c7d2e05-3bbf-5e12-de38-7dc96ba0cf54@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Package stabilization groups References: <87lefebgdr.fsf@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <87lefebgdr.fsf@gentoo.org> --------------tQOWBMuMAFdtNGUF5T1lKzaW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 17/07/2023 19.37, Sam James wrote: >=20 > Big fan of the idea & very much in support of it. This also serves > to give us logical groupings of packages which are closely related > and should be bumped together. >=20 >> There was some brief discussion on IRC about how to document these >> groupings, and two main ideas were suggested: >> >> - add a field to metadata.xml to specify the group by an arbitrary nam= e. >> E.g. >> Each package in the group would specify the same value of name=3D"..= =2E" >> >> - maintain the groups in a separate place (similar to portage @sets). >> >> Can anyone think of particular advantages or disadvantages to one >> solution versus the other? Any other (better) ideas? >> >=20 > When we discussed this a few months ago on IRC, I also brought up a > related point: >=20 > [2023-05-02T18:38:51+0100] <@sam_> do we want to repeat the group membe= rs in each member, or do tools need to scan for each thing? > [2023-05-02T18:39:07+0100] <@sam_> i.e. does each member have ..., or do we do ? > [2023-05-02T18:39:26+0100] <@arthurzam> I think each package says which= groups it is part of > [2023-05-02T18:39:44+0100] <@radhermit> I would do the latter > [...] > [2023-05-02T18:42:42+0100] <@radhermit> technically you could also main= tain them in a separate place like metadata/groups and layer inter-group = dependencies on top of that somehow in the format If you read carefully my messages in IRC linked above, you can see I was supporting per package metadata entry. If you read my latest post to ML, you can see I now prefer central files. After many considerations since then I understood my initial preference was a bad idea :) (I'm noting it here just so folks understand the mismatch between texts and my stance). > I'd prefer the metadata/ at repo root idea because I can see updating > various metadata.xmls being a nuisance. Hmm, I was thinking the opposite (maintaining it in parallel place to the package would be harder), but if you say so (and you help maintain huge clusters of packages so I believe you) then I think we don't have any good reason to go with per package metadata.xml entry? Let's wait for more input, and then we can go with defining the syntax, rules and such... > best, > sam >=20 --=20 Arthur Zamarin arthurzam@gentoo.org Gentoo Linux developer (Python, pkgcore stack, Arch Teams, GURU) --------------tQOWBMuMAFdtNGUF5T1lKzaW-- --------------PuloxeMlD2CVVDnvMXD1IQxC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="OpenPGP_signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="OpenPGP_signature" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEE/axFlFuH2ptjtO5EAqCvUD0SBQQFAmS1e7UACgkQAqCvUD0S BQRicwf/Saig/sKGM0uiJ+tD+YCyL21q26aq+tNivvaSGbeqXngJS7FciTG1JeG+ soExqTSNpCjniqFdsQGsK6xTSdDpIH0HdqJEMjA9bo0uLjlgXWB+/tYF0rjmNQ34 MBSd6Hoe0AW1hKCccdBzCVm8VQpZSv3fs9VKz/3FCh4SptjhclHGXwgevGp16LLZ 4XT3jLG9g5YF+dneIavr4vxm2X1XVic0WuDi2EbskDUmI+eiJoelHa7MhorobTRy 25Xh5zc+svca3dNfT0S+qzESn58elRt68+9KPXzMHPRGvmzuo70oZY76qV902PsN EYbYhgzVyQzT9PRrVFvahPdneicotw== =++rp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------PuloxeMlD2CVVDnvMXD1IQxC--