[gentoo-dev] Proposal to move use.local.desc somewhere in /var

[gentoo-dev] Proposal to move use.local.desc somewhere in /var

[Theo Chatzimichos]

Ahoj,

log from #gentoo-portage:
<tampakrap> zmedico: (random idea) would it make sence to generate
local.use.desc in /var/cache, or somewhere in /var, but out of the
tree?
<tampakrap> because now cvs sees it as unknown file, which prints out
warning in update and collision in commit
<tampakrap> (commit in profile/ )
<zmedico> tampakrap: how about if we just add it to .cvsignore?
<tampakrap> of course that would solve the issue with the
errors/warnings, but I still believe that somewhere is /var is the
appropriate place for it instead of inside the repo
<zmedico> tampakrap: portage doesn't even use this file, so better to
ask gentoolkit/equery people
<tampakrap> yeah I know
<tampakrap> I'll send a mail to -dev instead, and will push myself
hard to handle the migration (if it gets approved by the dev
community)
<zmedico> if it goes outside the repo, it's probably going in /var/cache/edb
<zmedico> and organized by repo, like /var/cache/edb/dep is
<zmedico> seems a lot cleaner to keep it in the repo :)

Since .cvsignore is needed either way, I'm going to do it in three
days if there are no objections. But I'd like some feedback for the
move of the file in /var. Opinions?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to move use.local.desc somewhere in /var

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 393 bytes --]

On Tuesday 24 April 2012 10:11:44 Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> Since .cvsignore is needed either way, I'm going to do it in three
> days if there are no objections. But I'd like some feedback for the
> move of the file in /var. Opinions?

considering the server generates it and the end user never does, i don't see 
the point.  they get it via the normal `emerge --sync` process.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to move use.local.desc somewhere in /var

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 732 bytes --]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:37:31 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday 24 April 2012 10:11:44 Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> > Since .cvsignore is needed either way, I'm going to do it in three
> > days if there are no objections. But I'd like some feedback for the
> > move of the file in /var. Opinions?
> 
> considering the server generates it and the end user never does, i
> don't see the point.  they get it via the normal `emerge --sync`
> process. -mike

Maybe we should consider moving it to metadata/?

On the other hand, moving it will require fixing all tools using it.
And as it is already deprecated, I don't see much good in still working
on it.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to move use.local.desc somewhere in /var

[Brian Dolbec]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1185 bytes --]

On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 16:45 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:37:31 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday 24 April 2012 10:11:44 Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> > > Since .cvsignore is needed either way, I'm going to do it in three
> > > days if there are no objections. But I'd like some feedback for the
> > > move of the file in /var. Opinions?
> > 
> > considering the server generates it and the end user never does, i
> > don't see the point.  they get it via the normal `emerge --sync`
> > process. -mike
> 
> Maybe we should consider moving it to metadata/?
> 
> On the other hand, moving it will require fixing all tools using it.
> And as it is already deprecated, I don't see much good in still working
> on it.
> 

I agree, a sudden move (3 days) will cause nuisance breakage.  If
anything, lets firm up the schedule for it's removal, so that all tools
can be updated to use cat/pkg/metadata.xml only for local flags.

Otherwise there will be a lot of user noise generated over broken tools
such as several gentoolkit utilities, porthole, kuroo, kportagetray,...
-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to move use.local.desc somewhere in /var

[Theo Chatzimichos]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 16:45 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:37:31 -0400
>> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday 24 April 2012 10:11:44 Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
>> > > Since .cvsignore is needed either way, I'm going to do it in three
>> > > days if there are no objections. But I'd like some feedback for the
>> > > move of the file in /var. Opinions?
>> >
>> > considering the server generates it and the end user never does, i
>> > don't see the point.  they get it via the normal `emerge --sync`
>> > process. -mike
>>
>> Maybe we should consider moving it to metadata/?
>>
>> On the other hand, moving it will require fixing all tools using it.
>> And as it is already deprecated, I don't see much good in still working
>> on it.
>>
>
> I agree, a sudden move (3 days) will cause nuisance breakage.  If
> anything, lets firm up the schedule for it's removal, so that all tools
> can be updated to use cat/pkg/metadata.xml only for local flags.
>
> Otherwise there will be a lot of user noise generated over broken tools
> such as several gentoolkit utilities, porthole, kuroo, kportagetray,...
> --
> Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org>

I said three days for the .cvsignore, not for moving the file to /var

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to move use.local.desc somewhere in /var

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 04:11:44PM +0200, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> log from #gentoo-portage:
> <tampakrap> zmedico: (random idea) would it make sence to generate
> local.use.desc in /var/cache, or somewhere in /var, but out of the
> tree?
Why are we keeping it? I move that we remove it. It's been replaced by
USE flags in metadata.xml for several years now.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to move use.local.desc somewhere in /var

[Paul Varner]

On 04/24/12 11:21, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 04:11:44PM +0200, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
>> log from #gentoo-portage: <tampakrap> zmedico: (random idea) would
>> it make sence to generate local.use.desc in /var/cache, or
>> somewhere in /var, but out of the tree?
> Why are we keeping it? I move that we remove it. It's been replaced
> by USE flags in metadata.xml for several years now.
>
euse from gentoolkit still uses it since it is written in bash and XML
parsing in bash can be problematic.  We really need to get euse
rewritten in python so it can use the portage and gentoolkit API's
before we get rid of the file.

Additionally, if we move the file, euse will need to be updated as well
and get pushed out to a stable version of gentoolikit.

The euse rewrite is on the roadmap for gentoolkit-0.3.1 which doesn't
have a release date yet since the primary contributors have been busy
with other things.

Regards,
Paul

PS:  The gentoolkit overlay
(http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/gentoolkit.git;a=summary)
is open to all Gentoo developers.  The only requirement for committing
to the gentoolkit branch is to pick up any pieces if you break
something.  Note: the gentoolkit-dev branch has tighter restrictions and
access to it is controlled by idl0r.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to move use.local.desc somewhere in /var

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1367 bytes --]

On Tuesday 24 April 2012 12:45:22 Paul Varner wrote:
> On 04/24/12 11:21, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 04:11:44PM +0200, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> >> log from #gentoo-portage: <tampakrap> zmedico: (random idea) would
> >> it make sence to generate local.use.desc in /var/cache, or
> >> somewhere in /var, but out of the tree?
> > 
> > Why are we keeping it? I move that we remove it. It's been replaced
> > by USE flags in metadata.xml for several years now.
> 
> euse from gentoolkit still uses it since it is written in bash and XML
> parsing in bash can be problematic.  We really need to get euse
> rewritten in python so it can use the portage and gentoolkit API's
> before we get rid of the file.
> 
> Additionally, if we move the file, euse will need to be updated as well
> and get pushed out to a stable version of gentoolikit.
> 
> The euse rewrite is on the roadmap for gentoolkit-0.3.1 which doesn't
> have a release date yet since the primary contributors have been busy
> with other things.

it's also a bit of a speed issue.  i often want to look at what flags get used 
across the tree.  what's faster: loading + parsing 15000 xml files, or loading 
1 file ? shifting it to metadata/ as a cache of all the xml files is probably 
fine, but i'm not sure dropping it completely is an improvement.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal to move use.local.desc somewhere in /var

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> it's also a bit of a speed issue.  i often want to look at what flags get used
> across the tree.  what's faster: loading + parsing 15000 xml files, or loading
> 1 file ? shifting it to metadata/ as a cache of all the xml files is probably
> fine, but i'm not sure dropping it completely is an improvement.

++

Any time I add a new use flag/etc the first thing I do is look for how
other packages accomplish the same thing.  No sense writing scripts
when we already have one that does the job.

Rich

[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal to move use.local.desc somewhere in /var

[Steven J Long]

Mike Frysinger wrote:

> Paul Varner wrote:
>> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> > Why are we keeping it? I move that we remove it. It's been replaced
>> > by USE flags in metadata.xml for several years now.
>> 
>> euse from gentoolkit still uses it since it is written in bash and XML
>> parsing in bash can be problematic.  We really need to get euse
>> rewritten in python so it can use the portage and gentoolkit API's
>> before we get rid of the file.
> 
> it's also a bit of a speed issue.  i often want to look at what flags get
> used
> across the tree.  what's faster: loading + parsing 15000 xml files, or
> loading 1 file ? shifting it to metadata/ as a cache of all the xml files
> is probably fine, but i'm not sure dropping it completely is an
> improvement. -mike

Agreed. I don't think it's a good idea to lose the ability to script against 
the tree from bash.

Portage itself has always made it easy for the user to write custom sys-
admin scripts, and use.local.desc aids in that.

-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal to move use.local.desc somewhere in /var

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1110 bytes --]

On Wednesday 25 April 2012 02:26:19 Steven J Long wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Paul Varner wrote:
> >> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> >> > Why are we keeping it? I move that we remove it. It's been replaced
> >> > by USE flags in metadata.xml for several years now.
> >> 
> >> euse from gentoolkit still uses it since it is written in bash and XML
> >> parsing in bash can be problematic.  We really need to get euse
> >> rewritten in python so it can use the portage and gentoolkit API's
> >> before we get rid of the file.
> > 
> > it's also a bit of a speed issue.  i often want to look at what flags get
> > used
> > across the tree.  what's faster: loading + parsing 15000 xml files, or
> > loading 1 file ? shifting it to metadata/ as a cache of all the xml files
> > is probably fine, but i'm not sure dropping it completely is an
> > improvement.
> 
> Agreed. I don't think it's a good idea to lose the ability to script
> against the tree from bash.

technically, you can script with xml files just fine from bash.  install app-
text/xmlstarlet and use the `xml` tool.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Proposal to move use.local.desc somewhere in /var

[Steven J Long]

Mike Frysinger wrote:

> On Wednesday 25 April 2012 02:26:19 Steven J Long wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > Paul Varner wrote:
>> >> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> >> > Why are we keeping it? I move that we remove it. It's been replaced
>> >> > by USE flags in metadata.xml for several years now.
>> >> 
>> >> euse from gentoolkit still uses it since it is written in bash and XML
>> >> parsing in bash can be problematic.  We really need to get euse
>> >> rewritten in python so it can use the portage and gentoolkit API's
>> >> before we get rid of the file.
>> > 
>> > it's also a bit of a speed issue.  i often want to look at what flags
>> > get used
>> > across the tree.  what's faster: loading + parsing 15000 xml files, or
>> > loading 1 file ? shifting it to metadata/ as a cache of all the xml
>> > files is probably fine, but i'm not sure dropping it completely is an
>> > improvement.
>> 
>> Agreed. I don't think it's a good idea to lose the ability to script
>> against the tree from bash.
> 
> technically, you can script with xml files just fine from bash.  install
> app- text/xmlstarlet and use the `xml` tool.

Oh, I've been a fan for several years[1] :) I still don't want to require it 
as a dependency, especially when, as you say, it's quick and easy to access 
a single file per-repo.

There's utility in it, and there isn't any real gain in ditching it, beyond 
not requiring its generation. And since it's been unnoticed for such a long 
while, it can't be causing any real troubles. So why lose its usefulness?

It certainly counts as a file that should be synchronised as part of the 
repo, though. So if you're going to move it to /var, better to move 
/usr/portage itself, imo.

(This thread feels like it's really about that, tbh, but users can already 
set it where they want and often just have a separate partition, or if 
they're bothered have already configured it to /var/portage, so it's more 
about new users, and whether a baselayout change is worth the hassle.)

Regards,
Steve.

[1] cf: /msg friendlyToaster xml
-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)