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 EC1D5158089 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 22:10:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 700BA2BC051; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 22:10:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (mail.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (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 3E1FC2BC01C for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 22:10:12 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 16:10:09 -0600 From: Tim Harder To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Standard parsable format for profiles/package.mask file Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Archives-Salt: 9e25b536-a78a-4edd-8fc5-3d92c92fa28f X-Archives-Hash: c77668e37135914d14fbb48a62d7df02 On 2023-09-21 Thu 15:22, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023, Arthur Zamarin wrote: >> Should it be a GLEP, I don't think so? But I'm unsure about it. We do >> need to document it (for example header of that exact file). > >It shouldn't be too difficult to wrap this up as a GLEP. To me standardizing a format in Gentoo (outside of PMS-related functionality) requires a GLEP or at the very least some semi-formal documentation outside the file in question in a place like the devmanual. Consider it due diligence of the process that allows people writing code to target the format without having to chase details down into code bases or mailing list threads. > OTOH, we don't have a GLEP for eclassdoc either. This is a poor example since it's partly the reason why an awk script with issues relating to extensibility and maintainability is still used to generate eclass manpages. I mainly let it slide when writing pkgcore/pkgcheck parsing functionality because the devmanual [0] was a passable resource at the time. Tim [0]: https://devmanual.gentoo.org/eclass-writing/#documenting-eclasses