[gentoo-portage-dev] Next major version

[gentoo-portage-dev] Next major version

[Kristian Benoit]

Hi Jason and other folks,
I saw your last comment on http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73350
about most the these feature to be present in the next major version.
That is really great to read.

On that subject, I'd like to have an idea about when we should expect
that next version.

That said, I think it would be helpful to have a portage developper
site. Perhaps there is and I dont know...

Thanks for the work.

Kristian

-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Next major version

[Alec Joseph Warner]

Kristian Benoit wrote:
> Hi Jason and other folks,
> I saw your last comment on http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73350
> about most the these feature to be present in the next major version.
> That is really great to read.
> 
> On that subject, I'd like to have an idea about when we should expect
> that next version.
> 
> That said, I think it would be helpful to have a portage developper
> site. Perhaps there is and I dont know...
   That would require someone writing one, so if you are volunteering ;)

> 
> Thanks for the work.
> 
> Kristian
> 
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Next major version

[Christopher Korn]

> > Hi Jason and other folks,
> > I saw your last comment on
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73350 about most the these
> > feature to be present in the next major version. That is really
> > great to read.
> > 
> > On that subject, I'd like to have an idea about when we should
> > expect that next version.
> > 
> > That said, I think it would be helpful to have a portage developper
> > site. Perhaps there is and I dont know...
>    That would require someone writing one, so if you are
> volunteering ;)


Writing is not the problem. But without (proper) information it is hard
to write a documentation or something like this. 


Chris
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Next major version

[Alec Warner]

Christopher Korn wrote:

>>>Hi Jason and other folks,
>>>I saw your last comment on
>>>http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73350 about most the these
>>>feature to be present in the next major version. That is really
>>>great to read.
>>>
>>>On that subject, I'd like to have an idea about when we should
>>>expect that next version.
>>>
>>>That said, I think it would be helpful to have a portage developper
>>>site. Perhaps there is and I dont know...
>>>      
>>>
>>   That would require someone writing one, so if you are
>>volunteering ;)
>>    
>>
>
>
>Writing is not the problem. But without (proper) information it is hard
>to write a documentation or something like this. 
>
>
>Chris
>  
>
I had a wiki that attempted to cover portage-2.0 api documentation as 
well as anything written for 2.1 but lost much of the work in a 
transition from windows to linux ( I screwed up the SQl backups :) ).
I thought about putting something up on the devwiki but I haven't 
proposed anything because no one really likes a wiki for API docs.

As for API docs, there are none at present; and there are no plans for 
any stable docs, IIRC.

As for a developer website, what kinds of information are you looking for?
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Next major version

[Christopher Korn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1220 bytes --]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:19:58 -0400
Alec Warner <warnera6@egr.msu.edu> wrote:

> I had a wiki that attempted to cover portage-2.0 api documentation as 
> well as anything written for 2.1 but lost much of the work in a 
> transition from windows to linux ( I screwed up the SQl backups :) ).
> I thought about putting something up on the devwiki but I haven't 
> proposed anything because no one really likes a wiki for API docs.

Yeah. A wiki isn't the best way, but better than nothing.
Probably writing a documentation based on the XML Guide format Gentoo
is using is a good start.

> As for API docs, there are none at present; and there are no plans
> for any stable docs, IIRC.
> 
> As for a developer website, what kinds of information are you looking
> for?

All information I want is on the page [1], but the mentioned API
documentation would help other people to find easy access to
portage-development. 
This is the only improvement a "new" portage site needs in my opinion,
since writing something like this needs a good knowledge of Python,
easily asking someone to volunteer for it isn't good. :)




Chris






[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/portage/index.xml




[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Next major version

[Christopher Korn]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:15:29 -0400
Alec Warner <warnera6@egr.msu.edu> wrote:

> > All information I want is on the page [1], but the mentioned API
> > documentation would help other people to find easy access to
> > portage-development. 
> > This is the only improvement a "new" portage site needs in my
> > opinion, since writing something like this needs a good knowledge
> > of Python, easily asking someone to volunteer for it isn't good. :)
> > 
>  I only ask because otherwise it doesn't get done.  There are many
> things that would improve gentoo, only the manpower to do them is
> required.  Besides, we all need to learn python sometime ;)

Ok you're right. (With the Python thing too ;))
I can try to write something if anyone is ok with that. But is there
real interest at the moment?
Finding other guys helping out should not be a problem after the first
steps are done. 



Chris



-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Next major version

[Kristian Benoit]

On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 14:19 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> Christopher Korn wrote:
> 
> >>>Hi Jason and other folks,
> >>>I saw your last comment on
> >>>http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73350 about most the these
> >>>feature to be present in the next major version. That is really
> >>>great to read.
> >>>
> >>>On that subject, I'd like to have an idea about when we should
> >>>expect that next version.
> >>>
> >>>That said, I think it would be helpful to have a portage developper
> >>>site. Perhaps there is and I dont know...
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>   That would require someone writing one, so if you are
> >>volunteering ;)
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >
> >Writing is not the problem. But without (proper) information it is hard
> >to write a documentation or something like this. 
> >
> >
> >Chris
> >  
> >
> I had a wiki that attempted to cover portage-2.0 api documentation as 
> well as anything written for 2.1 but lost much of the work in a 
> transition from windows to linux ( I screwed up the SQl backups :) ).
> I thought about putting something up on the devwiki but I haven't 
> proposed anything because no one really likes a wiki for API docs.
> 
> As for API docs, there are none at present; and there are no plans for 
> any stable docs, IIRC.
> 
> As for a developer website, what kinds of information are you looking for?

Like you talked about, doc would be nice, Jason has some doc, api doc...
here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~jstubbs/
but it does not look and is not official.

I remember, when I started using Gentoo, reading that portage is a stand
alone tool, it is not bind into Gentoo in anyway, someone could use it
on redhat, debian, lfs...

Back then I was using lfs so I thought portage could be the way to go on
lfs, but I realized that Gentoo fit my needs and I did'nt have to
compile everything by hand anymore and still have everything compiled by
my machines :) OH JOY !!!

But 5 years or so later, the only official place to get portage releases
is still in the gentoo mirrors. There is no RSS feed or anything like
that. I still believe that portage has the potential to be so powerful
that redhat, debian, ... could be building their packages using portage,
managing their own tree, having night build.

The problem is see, is that the initial portage vision (or perhaps my
initial vision, a vision I still have) has not been carried along with
it's developpement.

Having an official web site, doc, ... will help getting visibility and
effort from the rest of the world thus we'll have better tools and
eventually extend portage beyond Gentoo.

Kristian

-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Next major version

[Kristian Benoit]

On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 14:19 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> Christopher Korn wrote:
> 
> >>>Hi Jason and other folks,
> >>>I saw your last comment on
> >>>http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73350 about most the these
> >>>feature to be present in the next major version. That is really
> >>>great to read.
> >>>
> >>>On that subject, I'd like to have an idea about when we should
> >>>expect that next version.
> >>>
> >>>That said, I think it would be helpful to have a portage developper
> >>>site. Perhaps there is and I dont know...
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>   That would require someone writing one, so if you are
> >>volunteering ;)
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >
> >Writing is not the problem. But without (proper) information it is hard
> >to write a documentation or something like this. 
> >
> >
> >Chris
> >  
> >
> I had a wiki that attempted to cover portage-2.0 api documentation as 
> well as anything written for 2.1 but lost much of the work in a 
> transition from windows to linux ( I screwed up the SQl backups :) ).
> I thought about putting something up on the devwiki but I haven't 
> proposed anything because no one really likes a wiki for API docs.
> 
> As for API docs, there are none at present; and there are no plans for 
> any stable docs, IIRC.
> 
> As for a developer website, what kinds of information are you looking for?

Like you talked about, doc would be nice, Jason has some doc, api doc...
here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~jstubbs/
but it does not look and is not official.

I remember, when I started using Gentoo, reading that portage is a stand
alone tool, it is not bind into Gentoo in anyway, someone could use it
on redhat, debian, lfs...

Back then I was using lfs so I thought portage could be the way to go on
lfs, but I realized that Gentoo fit my needs as I did'nt have to
compile everything by hand anymore and still be able to choose compile time
options :) OH JOY !!!

But 5 years or so later, the only official place to get portage releases
is still in the gentoo mirrors. There is no RSS feed or anything like
that. I still believe that portage has the potential to be so powerful
that redhat, debian, ... could be building their packages using portage,
managing their own tree, having night build...

The problem is see, is that the initial portage vision (or perhaps my
vision of what was the original portage vision) has not yet been put
into sight.

Having an official web site, doc, ... will help getting visibility and
effort from the rest of the world and eventually extend portage beyond
Gentoo.

Thus we need information about the status, timeline, milestone,
developper info, contact, cvs/svn repository browsing, getting started,
download section with releases and beta, bug report outside of Gentoo's
bugzilla...

Kristian

-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Next major version

[warnera6]

Kristian Benoit wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 14:19 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> 
>>Christopher Korn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Hi Jason and other folks,
>>>>>I saw your last comment on
>>>>>http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73350 about most the these
>>>>>feature to be present in the next major version. That is really
>>>>>great to read.
>>>>>
>>>>>On that subject, I'd like to have an idea about when we should
>>>>>expect that next version.
>>>>>
>>>>>That said, I think it would be helpful to have a portage developper
>>>>>site. Perhaps there is and I dont know...
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  That would require someone writing one, so if you are
>>>>volunteering ;)
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Writing is not the problem. But without (proper) information it is hard
>>>to write a documentation or something like this. 
>>>
>>>
>>>Chris
>>> 
>>>
>>
>>I had a wiki that attempted to cover portage-2.0 api documentation as 
>>well as anything written for 2.1 but lost much of the work in a 
>>transition from windows to linux ( I screwed up the SQl backups :) ).
>>I thought about putting something up on the devwiki but I haven't 
>>proposed anything because no one really likes a wiki for API docs.
>>
>>As for API docs, there are none at present; and there are no plans for 
>>any stable docs, IIRC.
>>
>>As for a developer website, what kinds of information are you looking for?
> 
> 
> Like you talked about, doc would be nice, Jason has some doc, api doc...
> here:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~jstubbs/
> but it does not look and is not official.
> 
> I remember, when I started using Gentoo, reading that portage is a stand
> alone tool, it is not bind into Gentoo in anyway, someone could use it
> on redhat, debian, lfs...
> 
> Back then I was using lfs so I thought portage could be the way to go on
> lfs, but I realized that Gentoo fit my needs and I did'nt have to
> compile everything by hand anymore and still have everything compiled by
> my machines :) OH JOY !!!
> 
> But 5 years or so later, the only official place to get portage releases
> is still in the gentoo mirrors. There is no RSS feed or anything like
> that. I still believe that portage has the potential to be so powerful
> that redhat, debian, ... could be building their packages using portage,
> managing their own tree, having night build.
> 
> The problem is see, is that the initial portage vision (or perhaps my
> initial vision, a vision I still have) has not been carried along with
> it's developpement.
   "portage-ng", as it were?  IMHO portage is a far cry from what is 
needed for any kind of intense platform development.  I'm not going to 
harp on it's problems; everyone already knows what they are and we have 
people who are dedicated to working on it.  No one has seen the code 
from portage-ng, so it was abandoned.  The goals set for 2.1 and beyond 
seem lofty, and integrating portage into a non-gentoo environment is 
tricky at best, even with a nicely rewritten API.  I don't see why other 
distributions would turn to our tools when theirs work perfectly fine in 
90% of cases.  However, if they end up benefitting, more power to them. 
  Thats why we are all here, is it not?

> 
> Having an official web site, doc, ... will help getting visibility and
> effort from the rest of the world thus we'll have better tools and
> eventually extend portage beyond Gentoo.
> 
> Kristian
> 

-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Next major version

[Kristian Benoit]

On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 14:48 -0400, warnera6 wrote:
> Kristian Benoit wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 14:19 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> > 
> >>Christopher Korn wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>Hi Jason and other folks,
> >>>>>I saw your last comment on
> >>>>>http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73350 about most the these
> >>>>>feature to be present in the next major version. That is really
> >>>>>great to read.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On that subject, I'd like to have an idea about when we should
> >>>>>expect that next version.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That said, I think it would be helpful to have a portage developper
> >>>>>site. Perhaps there is and I dont know...
> >>>>>     
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>  That would require someone writing one, so if you are
> >>>>volunteering ;)
> >>>>   
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Writing is not the problem. But without (proper) information it is hard
> >>>to write a documentation or something like this. 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Chris
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>
> >>I had a wiki that attempted to cover portage-2.0 api documentation as 
> >>well as anything written for 2.1 but lost much of the work in a 
> >>transition from windows to linux ( I screwed up the SQl backups :) ).
> >>I thought about putting something up on the devwiki but I haven't 
> >>proposed anything because no one really likes a wiki for API docs.
> >>
> >>As for API docs, there are none at present; and there are no plans for 
> >>any stable docs, IIRC.
> >>
> >>As for a developer website, what kinds of information are you looking for?
> > 
> > 
> > Like you talked about, doc would be nice, Jason has some doc, api doc...
> > here:
> > http://dev.gentoo.org/~jstubbs/
> > but it does not look and is not official.
> > 
> > I remember, when I started using Gentoo, reading that portage is a stand
> > alone tool, it is not bind into Gentoo in anyway, someone could use it
> > on redhat, debian, lfs...
> > 
> > Back then I was using lfs so I thought portage could be the way to go on
> > lfs, but I realized that Gentoo fit my needs and I did'nt have to
> > compile everything by hand anymore and still have everything compiled by
> > my machines :) OH JOY !!!
> > 
> > But 5 years or so later, the only official place to get portage releases
> > is still in the gentoo mirrors. There is no RSS feed or anything like
> > that. I still believe that portage has the potential to be so powerful
> > that redhat, debian, ... could be building their packages using portage,
> > managing their own tree, having night build.
> > 
> > The problem is see, is that the initial portage vision (or perhaps my
> > initial vision, a vision I still have) has not been carried along with
> > it's developpement.
>    "portage-ng", as it were?  IMHO portage is a far cry from what is 
> needed for any kind of intense platform development.  I'm not going to 
> harp on it's problems; everyone already knows what they are and we have 
> people who are dedicated to working on it.  No one has seen the code 
> from portage-ng, so it was abandoned.  The goals set for 2.1 and beyond 
> seem lofty, and integrating portage into a non-gentoo environment is 
> tricky at best, even with a nicely rewritten API.  I don't see why other 
> distributions would turn to our tools when theirs work perfectly fine in 
> 90% of cases.  However, if they end up benefitting, more power to them. 
>   Thats why we are all here, is it not?

Thanks a lot for pointing that out.
I did a quick search about it, here are the results:

The page is dated from the end of 2003. The pdf has not been updated
since october 2003. According to google group, this is the 3rd time it
is mentionned in a group/mailing list this year. Everytime it was
someone saying: "you'll have to wait for portage-ng to get that". I
guest drobbins is Daniel Robbins. He probably cant work on the project
anymore.

So his there anyone still working on portage-ng ?

Kristian

> > 
> > Having an official web site, doc, ... will help getting visibility and
> > effort from the rest of the world thus we'll have better tools and
> > eventually extend portage beyond Gentoo.
> > 
> > Kristian
> > 
> 

-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Next major version

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 865 bytes --]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:41:10 -0400
Kristian Benoit <kbenoit@opersys.com> wrote:

> The page is dated from the end of 2003. The pdf has not been updated
> since october 2003. According to google group, this is the 3rd time it
> is mentionned in a group/mailing list this year. Everytime it was
> someone saying: "you'll have to wait for portage-ng to get that". I
> guest drobbins is Daniel Robbins. He probably cant work on the project
> anymore.

Not officially, portage-ng is dead and buried from our point of view.
Maybe Pieter still claims that he has the code and maybe even that it
works on Solaris, but I wouldn't give too much on that.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Next major version

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2529 bytes --]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 12:04:34PM -0400, Kristian Benoit wrote:
> I remember, when I started using Gentoo, reading that portage is a stand
> alone tool, it is not bind into Gentoo in anyway, someone could use it
> on redhat, debian, lfs...
Nice intention, but impossible with stable/alpha code- the 
abstractions are missing.  No config abstractions, but more 
importantly no format abstractions; no true package object.

> Back then I was using lfs so I thought portage could be the way to go on
> lfs, but I realized that Gentoo fit my needs and I did'nt have to
> compile everything by hand anymore and still have everything compiled by
> my machines :) OH JOY !!!
Heh, came via the route I did...

> But 5 years or so later, the only official place to get portage releases
> is still in the gentoo mirrors. There is no RSS feed or anything like
> that. I still believe that portage has the potential to be so powerful
> that redhat, debian, ... could be building their packages using portage,
> managing their own tree, having night build.
> 
> The problem is see, is that the initial portage vision (or perhaps my
> initial vision, a vision I still have) has not been carried along with
> it's developpement.
The vision got blocked by the implementation.  Try busting all of the 
globals out of portage, then abstracting all ebuild specific actions 
(doebuild) behind package apis, so that different formats can be 
swapped on the fly.  Hell, binding dbapi and *tree classes together 
into one, and having them properly inherited from a base is required, 
rather then lots of duplicated code.

From there, how do you represent the *depends of a package, so that 
the resolver can be reused across different configurations of package 
format (this box being rpm, that being ebuild fex); need to break it 
down into restrictions, handing the actual depends matching off to 
repositories, with the resolver shifting sets of returned 
packages/restrictions around to build up a graph.
 
Either way, look at 
gentoo-src/portage/portage and 
gentoo-src/portage/rewrite-misc

Work is underway, help is needed, jump in and start digging :)
The design *should* allow for lots of crazy crap, although anyone who 
sees a flaw please speak up now :)

> Having an official web site, doc, ... will help getting visibility and
> effort from the rest of the world thus we'll have better tools and
> eventually extend portage beyond Gentoo.
API for tools, a *sane* api moreso :)

~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]