[gentoo-portage-dev] relying on vdb only

[gentoo-portage-dev] relying on vdb only

[Vlastimil Babka]

Hi,

reading comments on bug 209538, I've seen this dangerous thing from Zac:

"Once these issues are solved it will be nice if we can rely exclusively 
on the dependencies from /var/db/pkg."

Well, the idea that devs will have to revbump packages just for RDEPEND 
version restrictions so that portage picks it freaks me :)

Then there's: "I do have a tool that copies metadata from ebuilds but 
I'd prefer to avoid doing anything like that if possible."

So maybe it's time to discuss what's possible? :)
If that discussion already happens/happened elsewhere, then sorry for 
noise and please point me there :)

Thanks,
Caster
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] relying on vdb only

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1196 bytes --]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:48:01AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> reading comments on bug 209538, I've seen this dangerous thing from Zac:
> 
> "Once these issues are solved it will be nice if we can rely exclusively 
> on the dependencies from /var/db/pkg."
> 
> Well, the idea that devs will have to revbump packages just for RDEPEND 
> version restrictions so that portage picks it freaks me :)
> 
> Then there's: "I do have a tool that copies metadata from ebuilds but 
> I'd prefer to avoid doing anything like that if possible."
> 
> So maybe it's time to discuss what's possible? :)
> If that discussion already happens/happened elsewhere, then sorry for 
> noise and please point me there :)

Relying on the vdb is far saner then relying on the tree; so no, it's 
not particularly dangerous, the inverse (relying on the tree to have 
the same deps for vdb) is far worse imo.

Solution to this is to reuse the existing update infrastructure, and 
add a new command into it that resets the depends/rdepends- haven't 
looked to see if older portage versions would behave well if they 
encounter an unknown command in profiles/updates/* however.

~brian

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] relying on vdb only

[Selckin]

On Monday 11 February 2008 12:50:39 Brian Harring wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:48:01AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

> > Well, the idea that devs will have to revbump packages just for RDEPEND
> > version restrictions so that portage picks it freaks me :)
> >
> > Then there's: "I do have a tool that copies metadata from ebuilds but
> > I'd prefer to avoid doing anything like that if possible."
> >
> > So maybe it's time to discuss what's possible? :)
> > If that discussion already happens/happened elsewhere, then sorry for
> > noise and please point me there :)
>
> Relying on the vdb is far saner then relying on the tree; so no, it's
> not particularly dangerous, the inverse (relying on the tree to have
> the same deps for vdb) is far worse imo.
>
> Solution to this is to reuse the existing update infrastructure, and
> add a new command into it that resets the depends/rdepends- haven't
> looked to see if older portage versions would behave well if they
> encounter an unknown command in profiles/updates/* however.
>
> ~brian

This should really be [possible|done] without introducing yet another ugly and 
very difficult to maintain update/* hack?
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] relying on vdb only

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1584 bytes --]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 12:58:51PM +0100, Selckin wrote:
> On Monday 11 February 2008 12:50:39 Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:48:01AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> 
> > > Well, the idea that devs will have to revbump packages just for RDEPEND
> > > version restrictions so that portage picks it freaks me :)
> >
> > Relying on the vdb is far saner then relying on the tree; so no, it's
> > not particularly dangerous, the inverse (relying on the tree to have
> > the same deps for vdb) is far worse imo.
> >
> > Solution to this is to reuse the existing update infrastructure, and
> > add a new command into it that resets the depends/rdepends- haven't
> > looked to see if older portage versions would behave well if they
> > encounter an unknown command in profiles/updates/* however.
>
> This should really be [possible|done] without introducing yet another ugly and 
> very difficult to maintain update/* hack?

Err... hack?  Justify that statement please.

Few things you might as well address also-
1) update/* runs once per sync; alternatives (building a mapping, or 
forcing 2x metadata lookup via hitting up the tree for new metadata) 
can't really compete from a amoritized cost standpoint
2) it's simple to maintain; exact atom (rev included), metadata key, 
metadata value.  Can't realistically rewrite eapi-1 IUSE via it 
(default iuse can change the pkgs USE configuration), same for other 
build values (CHOST), but it's powerful, and simple.
3) basic infrastructure is already there, so why not reuse it?

~brian

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