Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/3] go-module.eclass: introduce new eclass to handle go modules

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

Dnia September 11, 2019 7:40:41 PM UTC, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:31:16PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Wed, 2019-09-11 at 13:22 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 07:38:17PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 2019-09-11 at 12:21 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
>> > > > Copyright: Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc.
>> > > > Signed-off-by: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
>> > > > ---
>> > > >  eclass/go-module.eclass | 76
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > > >  1 file changed, 76 insertions(+)
>> > > >  create mode 100644 eclass/go-module.eclass
>> > > > 
>> > > > diff --git a/eclass/go-module.eclass b/eclass/go-module.eclass
>> > > > new file mode 100644
>> > > > index 00000000000..7009fcd3beb
>> > > > --- /dev/null
>> > > > +++ b/eclass/go-module.eclass
>> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
>> > > > +# Copyright 1999-2015 Gentoo Foundation
>> > > 
>> > > You need to replace your calendar.  And copyright holder.
>> > 
>> > Sure, I thought I ffixed that.
>> > 
>> > > > +# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public
>License v2
>> > > > +
>> > > > +# @ECLASS: go-module.eclass
>> > > 
>> > > Any reason to change naming from golang-* to go-* now?
>> > 
>> > Well, "lang" is sort of redundant, and there will be only one
>eclass, so
>> > I thought I would make things a bit more simple.
>> > 
>> > > > +# @MAINTAINER:
>> > > > +# William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
>> > > > +# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
>> > > > +# @BLURB: basic eclass for building software written in the go
>> > > > +# programming language that uses go modules.
>> > > > +# @DESCRIPTION:
>> > > > +# This eclass provides a convenience src_prepare() phase and
>some basic
>> > > > +# settings needed for all software written in the go
>programming
>> > > > +# language that uses go modules.
>> > > > +#
>> > > > +# You will know the software you are packaging uses modules
>because
>> > > > +# it will have files named go.sum and go.mod in its top-level
>source
>> > > > +# directory. If it does not have these files, use the golang-*
>eclasses.
>> > > > +#
>> > > > +# If the software you are packaging uses modules, the next
>question is
>> > > > +# whether it has a directory named "vendor" at the top-level
>of the source tree.
>> > > > +#
>> > > > +# If it doesn't, you need to create a tarball of what would be
>in the
>> > > > +# vendor directory and mirror it locally. This is done with
>the
>> > > > +# following commands if upstream is using a git repository:
>> > > > +#
>> > > > +# @CODE:
>> > > > +#
>> > > > +# $ cd /my/clone/of/upstream
>> > > > +# $ git checkout <release>
>> > > > +# $ go mod vendor
>> > > > +# $ tar cvf project-version-vendor.tar.gz vendor
>> > > > +#
>> > > > +# @CODE:
>> > > > +#
>> > > > +# Other than this, all you need to do is inherit this eclass
>then
>> > > > +# make sure  the exported src_prepare function is run.
>> > > > +
>> > > > +case ${EAPI:-0} in
>> > > > +	7) ;;
>> > > > +	*) die "${ECLASS} API in EAPI ${EAPI} not yet established."
>> > > > +esac
>> > > > +
>> > > > +if [[ -z ${_GO_MODULE} ]]; then
>> > > > +
>> > > > +_GO_MODULE=1
>> > > > +
>> > > > +BDEPEND=">=dev-lang/go-1.12"
>> > > > +
>> > > > +# Do not download dependencies from the internet
>> > > > +# make build output verbose by default
>> > > > +export GOFLAGS="-mod=vendor -v -x"
>> > > > +
>> > > > +# Do not complain about CFLAGS etc since go projects do not
>use them.
>> > > > +QA_FLAGS_IGNORED='.*'
>> > > > +
>> > > > +# Upstream does not support stripping go packages
>> > > > +RESTRICT="strip"
>> > > > +
>> > > > +EXPORT_FUNCTIONS src_prepare
>> > > 
>> > > Don't you need to inherit some other eclass to make it build?
>> > 
>> > The primary reason for all of the golang-* eclasses was the GOPATH
>> > variable, which is not relevant when you are using modules.
>> > 
>> > I can look at adding a src_compile to this eclass, but I haven't
>thought
>> > about what it would contain yet.
>> >  
>> > > > +
>> > > > +# @FUNCTION: go-module_src_prepare
>> > > > +# @DESCRIPTION:
>> > > > +# Run a default src_prepare then move our provided vendor
>directory to
>> > > > +# the appropriate spot if upstream doesn't provide a vendor
>directory.
>> > > > +go-module_src_prepare() {
>> > > > +	default
>> > > > +	# Use the upstream provided vendor directory if it exists.
>> > > > +	[[ -d vendor ]] && return
>> > > > +	# If we are not providing a mirror of a vendor directory we
>created
>> > > > +	# manually, return since there may be nothing to vendor.
>> > > > +	[[ ! -d ../vendor ]] && return
>> > > > +	# At this point, we know we are providing a vendor mirror.
>> > > > +	mv ../vendor . || die "Unable to move ../vendor directory"
>> > > 
>> > > Wouldn't it be much simpler to create appropriate directory
>structure
>> > > in the tarball?  Then you wouldn't need a new eclass at all.
>> > 
>> > You would definitely need an eclass (see the settings and
>dependencies).
>> > 
>> > Take a look at the differences in the spire and hub ebuilds in this
>> > series. I'm not sure what you mean by adding the directory
>structure to
>> > the tarball? I guess you could add something to the vendor tarball
>when
>> > you create it.
>> 
>> I mean packing it as 'spire-1.2.3/vendor' or whatever the package
>> directory is, so that it extracts correctly instead of making a
>tarball
>> that needs to be moved afterwards.
>
>That would clobber the upstream provided vendor directory and that's
>what I want to avoid with the first test in src_prepare.

If upstream already includes vendored modules, why would you create your own tarball in the first place?

>
>> 
>> > 
>> > What I tried to avoid was stomping on the vendor directory if it is
>> > included upstream.
>> 
>> You do that anyway by moving files.
>
>See the first test in src_prepare. I go out of my way to not overwrite
>the upstream vendor directory.
>
>William


--
Best regards, 
Michał Górny