[gentoo-portage-dev] Portage .51 features

[gentoo-portage-dev] Portage .51 features

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 956 bytes --]

Hi all

The release of Portage 2.0.51 could be a major news item. I'm therefore
trying to write a big article for gentoo.org which lists the major changes
and new features of .51.

A draft (still incomplete but I'm off for the night now) is available at
http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/portage.html, the summary itself (not visible
on that page) reads:

"""
  The Gentoo Portage team is proud to present Portage version 2.0.51 to the
  world! Changes include improved support for cascading profiles, dynamic 
  handling of virtuals, rebuilding on USE-flag changes, gpg verification and 
  more.
"""

I would really appreciate if you can take a look and tell me what else needs
to be in it, what can be removed, what should be altered, etc.

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen

-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Documentation & PR

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] naming scheme (was: Portage .51 features)

[Christian Hoenig]

Hi,


> The release of Portage 2.0.51 could be a major news item. 

I don't know if this has been discussed elsewhere or if i missed another 
statement on this...

Why  is portage using such a strange naming scheme? Why are we only increasing 
´build numbers´? As this seems to be a major release, why don´t we make a 2.1 
out of it? 
What are the plans considering the naming scheme?

Too many ´Whys´?

tell me :-)


take care, have fun
/christian

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] naming scheme

[Andrew Gaffney]

Christian Hoenig wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
>>The release of Portage 2.0.51 could be a major news item. 
> 
> 
> I don't know if this has been discussed elsewhere or if i missed another 
> statement on this...
> 
> Why  is portage using such a strange naming scheme? Why are we only increasing 
> ´build numbers´? As this seems to be a major release, why don´t we make a 2.1 
> out of it? 
> What are the plans considering the naming scheme?
> 
> Too many ´Whys´?
> 
> tell me :-)

I don't think this is a "major" release as in "major version" but more as in 
"big deal". From what I've heard, a major version change will be reserved for a 
complete rewrite of Portage.

-- 
Andrew Gaffney
Network Administrator
Skyline Aeronautics, LLC.
636-357-1548


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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] naming scheme

[Michael Stewart]

Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> I don't think this is a "major" release as in "major version" but more 
> as in "big deal". From what I've heard, a major version change will be 
> reserved for a complete rewrite of Portage.
> 

Wouldn't a complete rewrite then warrant a move to 3.x instead of 
keeping a 2.x version?

I agree with Christian that this release is big enough that it should 
warrant being a 2.1.0.

What is the policy on versioning portage?

--
Michael Stewart

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] naming scheme

[Christian Hoenig]

Aloah,

> > Why  is portage using such a strange naming scheme? Why are we only
> > increasing ´build numbers´? As this seems to be a major release, why
> > don´t we make a 2.1 out of it?
>
> I don't think this is a "major" release as in "major version" but more as
> in "big deal". From what I've heard, a major version change will be
> reserved for a complete rewrite of Portage.

You mean, it needs a complete rewrite for a 2.1? 
If thats the case, why don´t we simply drop the ´2´? ;-)

take care, have fun
/christian

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] naming scheme

[Andrew Gaffney]

Michael Stewart wrote:
> Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> 
>> I don't think this is a "major" release as in "major version" but more 
>> as in "big deal". From what I've heard, a major version change will be 
>> reserved for a complete rewrite of Portage.
> 
> Wouldn't a complete rewrite then warrant a move to 3.x instead of 
> keeping a 2.x version?

Yeah, I'm an idiot. For some reason I was thinking that a new major version 
would be 2.x. Just ignore me :)

-- 
Andrew Gaffney
Network Administrator
Skyline Aeronautics, LLC.
636-357-1548


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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] naming scheme

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 733 bytes --]

On 09/16/04  Christian Hoenig wrote:

> Aloah,
> 
> > > Why  is portage using such a strange naming scheme? Why are we
> > > only increasing ´build numbers´? As this seems to be a major
> > > release, why don´t we make a 2.1 out of it?
> >
> > I don't think this is a "major" release as in "major version" but
> > more as in "big deal". From what I've heard, a major version change
> > will be reserved for a complete rewrite of Portage.
> 
> You mean, it needs a complete rewrite for a 2.1? 
> If thats the case, why don´t we simply drop the ´2´? ;-)

3.x will be a complete rewrite.
2.1 will bring structural changes to vardb and the new API

2.0.52 will probably be the last version of the 2.0 branch

Marius

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] naming scheme

[Anthony Gorecki]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 169 bytes --]

On Thursday 16 September 2004 1:50 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> 3.x will be a complete rewrite.

In which language?


-- 
Anthony Gorecki
Ectro-Linux Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] naming scheme

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 280 bytes --]

On 09/16/04  Anthony Gorecki wrote:

> On Thursday 16 September 2004 1:50 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > 3.x will be a complete rewrite.
> 
> In which language?

Undecided, maybe in multiple languages. This isn't really planned yet
and won't be worked on in the near future.

Marius

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] naming scheme

[Christian Hoenig]

On Thursday 16 September 2004 22:50, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > > Why  is portage using such a strange naming scheme? Why are we
> > > > only increasing ´build numbers´? As this seems to be a major
> > > > release, why don´t we make a 2.1 out of it?
> > >
> > > I don't think this is a "major" release as in "major version" but
> > > more as in "big deal". From what I've heard, a major version change
> > > will be reserved for a complete rewrite of Portage.
> >
> > You mean, it needs a complete rewrite for a 2.1?
> > If thats the case, why don´t we simply drop the ´2´? ;-)
>
> 3.x will be a complete rewrite.
> 2.1 will bring structural changes to vardb and the new API


Ah, OK, thanks for the info :-)

take care, have fun
/christian

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Portage .51 features

[Sven Vermeulen]

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

On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 08:08:37PM +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
[... Portage 2.0.51 features and changes ...]

Ok, http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/portage.html contains the following items
as the new features:

* Rebuilding on USE-flag changes
* GPG verification
* FHS compliance
* Collision protection
* Succesfull Package Merge Verification

I've left out the suidctl on solar's request. I'll leave this open for
discussion but I am planning on releasing this on the gentoo.org main page
when Portage hits the world. 

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen

-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Documentation & PR

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Portage .51 features

[Jason Stubbs]

On Friday 17 September 2004 17:46, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 08:08:37PM +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> [... Portage 2.0.51 features and changes ...]
>
> Ok, http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/portage.html contains the following items
> as the new features:
>
> * Rebuilding on USE-flag changes
> * GPG verification
> * FHS compliance
> * Collision protection

Yep.

> * Succesfull Package Merge Verification

What's this? Nm.. I checked your page. ;)

I think this point is a bit unclear. What the feature does is runs a package's 
make check by default or uses the ebuild's pkg_check function if defined. 
This runs in between src_compile and src_install. So.. it's more of a feature 
that confirms a successful compile rather than a successful merge.

> I've left out the suidctl on solar's request. I'll leave this open for
> discussion but I am planning on releasing this on the gentoo.org main page
> when Portage hits the world.

You forgot massive speedups! Dependency calculation time is about 33% that of 
2.0.50. :)

Regards,
Jason Stubbs

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Portage .51 features

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1003 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 10:46:39AM +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> Ok, http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/portage.html contains the following items
> as the new features:
> 
> * Rebuilding on USE-flag changes
> * GPG verification
> * FHS compliance
> * Collision protection
> * Succesfull Package Merge Verification

I've gotten good feedback from quite a few people, thank you :)

I've made it more clear that it's a compile verification instead of a merge
verification (for FEATURES="maketest").

I've also added:
- Improved handling of injected packages (through package.provided)
- Massive speedups
- Improved support for embedded systems (FEATURES="autoconfig")

The article is still available online at
http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/portage.html

Thanks for the feedback so-far!

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen


-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Documentation & PR

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] naming scheme

[Roman Gaufman]

Please let that stay python with maybe a few modules in C (as in imported from 
python)  -- python just rocks so much :)

I have looked at the code though and a rewrite could do portage good :)


On Thursday 16 September 2004 21:07, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On 09/16/04  Anthony Gorecki wrote:
> > On Thursday 16 September 2004 1:50 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > 3.x will be a complete rewrite.
> >
> > In which language?
>
> Undecided, maybe in multiple languages. This isn't really planned yet
> and won't be worked on in the near future.
>
> Marius

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