From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9299 invoked by uid 1002); 6 Dec 2003 21:19:45 -0600 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-portage-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail Reply-To: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 16918 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2003 21:19:43 -0600 X-WM-Posted-At: mailandnews.com; Sat, 6 Dec 03 22:19:43 -0500 X-WM-Posted-At: mailandnews.com; Sat, 6 Dec 03 22:10:25 -0500 From: "Jason Stubbs" To: Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 12:12:19 +0900 Message-ID: <008e01c3bc6f$ed77f7c0$9601a8c0@jason01> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <200312061839.56139.george@gentoo.org> Subject: RE: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng concurse entry Was: Updated Portage project page X-Archives-Salt: c2c2eac8-ef56-467a-aeaa-32724b7a9d00 X-Archives-Hash: f2bc55d346b06176c7fe12e88bfad7c9 > -----Original Message----- > From: George Shapovalov [mailto:george@gentoo.org] > Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 11:40 AM > To: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org > Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng concurse entry > Was: Updated Portage project page > > > On Saturday 06 December 2003 17:44, Jason Stubbs wrote: > > It's not getting ahead of things! That's a requirement that's not > > covered yet. "Package definition should be powerful but > simple with a > > small learning curve" or something to that effect. > > Hm, isn't it a bit too late to change ebuild format, with us > sitting on 7000+ > ebuilds? The only reasonable way to do so is to make it structurally > compatible and create a converter tool. Even then this is a > major endeavor > that would require a very good reason (nothing short of > deadly limitations of > the present format, which I woudn't say is the case). > Furthermore, this would > require wide publicity and even votes if we do not want to > alienate users, as > this is the change that definitely will affect them (take a > look at number of > new ebuild submissions ;)). There's another requirement! "The package system needs to be backward compatible or have a compatibility layer for existing ebuilds" or something to that effect. Having to rewrite them all just for a package manager migration would not only be insane but would be, dare I say, impossible - by the time they are all rewritten, they'd all have become obsolete. If there is backward compatibility, they should be able to be phased out in less than a year (assuming the format is in fact replaced). > But then I don't really see the problem with present format. > bash involvment > is really necessary only during the pkg_* and src_* steps, > when a lot of > other stuff is going to happen anyway, so this is hardly a > bottleneck. To get > definitions of various vars and dependency information out is > trivial and can > be done in anything. That bash is involved in this step at present is > unfortunate, but there were reasons for it and it definitely > may be undone > even for the present portage. Personally, I don't think the current ebuild format is so bad either while the dev team was relatively small. But there are a number of places that mistakes can be made making for bad QA. I think it does make sense to split the file into the pkg_*/src_* stuff and the various vars as per current requirements spec. I would also prefer to see the pkg_*/src_* stuff abstracted so that an ebuild is never a security risk. ATM, pkg_postinst is the worst that I can think of from a security viewpoint. Regards, Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list