[gentoo-pms] (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature

[gentoo-pms] (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1897 bytes --]

Hello,

First of all, I would like to notice I'm not trying to force moving
Portage-specific features to PMS. I'm just trying to get some
standarization on one of these features to make it possible for devs to
use it in gx86 without commiting non-standard files.

The particular feature I'm talking about is defining repository-wide
package sets. Currently, this is done through a Portage-specific
'sets.conf' file in the repository's root directory. Although such file
could be considered acceptable for an overlay, I wouldn't like to see
such a non-standard file commited to gx86.

On the other hand, many of current Portage users could benefit from
the 'x11-module-rebuild' set we have introduced in 'x11' overlay [1].
This particular set quickly aggregates all X11 modules for a rebuild
after the xorg-server ABI change.

Portage by default supplies a few more sets which would fit repository-
-specific set definition file better than the system-wide Portage
configuration directory -- like the @live-rebuild and @module-rebuild
sets.

This is why I suggest considering adding some basic definitions
for 'sets' in the PMS, keeping that feature fully optional for PMs but
preparing a standarized ground for those who would like to use it.

What I would like to see in the PMS is:
1) a definition of a 'set',
2) a definition of few basic types of sets (Portage currently describes
them using specific classes but portable names would be much better),
3) a specification for repository-wide sets definition file.

In fact, the specification doesn't really even need to push the 'sets'
into atom specifications -- as I guess we would rather keep away from
using them in dependencies, and PM could be free to use any syntax to
reference them.

[1] http://tnij.org/g6rl

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

<http://mgorny.alt.pl>
<xmpp:mgorny@jabber.ru>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-pms] (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1431 bytes --]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:42:38 +0200
Michał Górny <gentoo@mgorny.alt.pl> wrote:
> First of all, I would like to notice I'm not trying to force moving
> Portage-specific features to PMS. I'm just trying to get some
> standarization on one of these features to make it possible for devs
> to use it in gx86 without commiting non-standard files.

This has to be done via a GLEP rather than going straight into PMS.

> The particular feature I'm talking about is defining repository-wide
> package sets. Currently, this is done through a Portage-specific
> 'sets.conf' file in the repository's root directory. Although such
> file could be considered acceptable for an overlay, I wouldn't like
> to see such a non-standard file commited to gx86.

The problem with the way Portage does it is that it lets sets be
specified that run arbitrary code using Portage internals, including
code using internals that aren't stable between Portage releases. You'll
need to come up with a new design that doesn't have any of that
nonsense, and then get Portage to implement it.

> In fact, the specification doesn't really even need to push the 'sets'
> into atom specifications -- as I guess we would rather keep away from
> using them in dependencies, and PM could be free to use any syntax to
> reference them.

As soon as you introduce them, people will want to use sets in
profiles/ files.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-pms] (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1569 bytes --]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:51:05 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:42:38 +0200
> Michał Górny <gentoo@mgorny.alt.pl> wrote:
> > First of all, I would like to notice I'm not trying to force moving
> > Portage-specific features to PMS. I'm just trying to get some
> > standarization on one of these features to make it possible for devs
> > to use it in gx86 without commiting non-standard files.
> 
> This has to be done via a GLEP rather than going straight into PMS.

Yep, I was trying to get some feedback first to see if it's even worth
trying.

> > The particular feature I'm talking about is defining repository-wide
> > package sets. Currently, this is done through a Portage-specific
> > 'sets.conf' file in the repository's root directory. Although such
> > file could be considered acceptable for an overlay, I wouldn't like
> > to see such a non-standard file commited to gx86.
> 
> The problem with the way Portage does it is that it lets sets be
> specified that run arbitrary code using Portage internals, including
> code using internals that aren't stable between Portage releases.
> You'll need to come up with a new design that doesn't have any of that
> nonsense, and then get Portage to implement it.

Zac seems pretty open to replace the whole 'class' idea with some
pre-defined 'types'. But I'd personally like to have the specs first
instead of building them on a ready code.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

<http://mgorny.alt.pl>
<xmpp:mgorny@jabber.ru>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-pms] (Minimal) standarization of the 'sets' feature

[Maciej Mrozowski]

On Thursday 10 of June 2010 15:42:38 Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> First of all, I would like to notice I'm not trying to force moving
> Portage-specific features to PMS. I'm just trying to get some
> standarization on one of these features to make it possible for devs to
> use it in gx86 without commiting non-standard files.
> 
> The particular feature I'm talking about is defining repository-wide
> package sets. Currently, this is done through a Portage-specific
> 'sets.conf' file in the repository's root directory. Although such file
> could be considered acceptable for an overlay, I wouldn't like to see
> such a non-standard file commited to gx86.
> 
> On the other hand, many of current Portage users could benefit from
> the 'x11-module-rebuild' set we have introduced in 'x11' overlay [1].
> This particular set quickly aggregates all X11 modules for a rebuild
> after the xorg-server ABI change.
> 
> Portage by default supplies a few more sets which would fit repository-
> -specific set definition file better than the system-wide Portage
> configuration directory -- like the @live-rebuild and @module-rebuild
> sets.
> 
> This is why I suggest considering adding some basic definitions
> for 'sets' in the PMS, keeping that feature fully optional for PMs but
> preparing a standarized ground for those who would like to use it.
> 
> What I would like to see in the PMS is:
> 1) a definition of a 'set',
> 2) a definition of few basic types of sets (Portage currently describes
> them using specific classes but portable names would be much better),
> 3) a specification for repository-wide sets definition file.
> 
> In fact, the specification doesn't really even need to push the 'sets'
> into atom specifications -- as I guess we would rather keep away from
> using them in dependencies, and PM could be free to use any syntax to
> reference them.
> 
> [1] http://tnij.org/g6rl

Please take a look at https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272488

It contains Zac's PROPERTES=set proposition with sets syntax fitting current 
atom syntax (like metapackages just with a bit different behaviour). By 
definition It supports USE flags and I believe it's also simpler to implement.

-- 
regards
MM