* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
@ 2014-01-17 23:56 99% ` Tom Wijsman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Tom Wijsman @ 2014-01-17 23:56 UTC (permalink / raw
To: ciaran.mccreesh; +Cc: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2761 bytes --]
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:28:41 +0000
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 17:47:58 +0100
> Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Maybe we can let the package managers only perceive it as keyworded
> > or stable if all of its dependencies are keyworded or stable on the
> > architecture that the user runs. Then we can have repoman just
> > ignore checking dependencies' keywords when we keyword or stabilize
> > them.
> >
> > Not sure how implementable this idea is though...
>
> It's going to hurt for four reasons that I can think of right now.
>
> Firstly, things you think are "obviously portable" sometimes aren't.
We could write a search for architecture dependent / specific code.
> Secondly, users already get confused by "stable use masks". This is
> going to be even worse: users aren't going to understand why a noarch
> package isn't available for them.
We can improve the output of the package manager to make this easier
to understand; one way is to clarify it, the other way is to just
replace it by the actual archictecture the user runs.
As a side note, I think we might want to name this anyarch... :)
> Thirdly, you have to decide how to deal with long chains and cycles in
> noarch dependencies.
>
> Fourthly, the interaction with || deps is an awful mess.
Yes, these are though problems to resolve; my mind came up with that
this idea needs recursion, hence the "not sure how implementable".
A cycle can be broken by stopping to continue to a certain dependency
if that dependency is of the parent reverse dependencies, capture the
set of packages as a cycle. Then check for each package in the cycle if
their dependencies satisfy each package; if so, all the packages in
the cycle are satisfied.
Of course, this doesn't take into account more complex cycles were two
cycles are connected to each other; but if we would have such thing,
I'd rather see that get fixed in the Portage tree as that sounds like a
needlessly complex set of ebuilds.
Long chains might or might exist and might or might not be problematic,
that's something we would need to test out when this is implemented.
|| deps can be done, just check them in the same order like before;
what I'm more scared of is the amount of anyarch/noarch there would be
added to the Portage tree, just a few can be easily done.
If it is going to be a large share of the Portage tree we'll want to
look for another design or just not change how this works at all.
--
With kind regards,
Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer
E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2014-01-14 21:37 [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy William Hubbs
2014-01-15 11:30 ` Sergey Popov
2014-01-15 15:30 ` William Hubbs
2014-01-16 6:17 ` Sergey Popov
2014-01-17 6:06 ` grozin
2014-01-17 7:02 ` grozin
2014-01-17 15:31 ` Ulrich Mueller
2014-01-17 16:47 ` Tom Wijsman
2014-01-17 18:28 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2014-01-17 23:56 99% ` Tom Wijsman
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox