From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E90E138247 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 02:36:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 28257E0AB6; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 02:36:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.80]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 788F9E0A94 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 02:36:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.87]) by qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id GSDf1n0021swQuc58ScHVd; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 02:36:17 +0000 Received: from odin.tremily.us ([24.18.63.50]) by omta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id GScG1n00R152l3L3bScHsf; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 02:36:17 +0000 Received: by odin.tremily.us (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CCCE7F09175; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:36:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tremily.us; s=odin; t=1390271775; bh=CqaEe8eIEvXO60lL9YY+4YpcUEwCTuGva5KeTenYyQM=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=hQIpH/ztZXGB7zu/w+mnfLTeqhcF4m4N0oGLG08vGqqOtrJ6ogwtXbhT70qp2Kcbx 440Z6ElOvCyCtNMFPWUjo2yduzzL1CL0D0SzI/F/KYulcacxVD4WmJ0kfB34rWk3Ga Y/UuGj7312Oc67JQ3bBqG/DYkZcDhM3Obg6mJ/sI= Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:36:15 -0800 From: "W. Trevor King" To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: layout.conf: What's our opinion? Message-ID: <20140121023615.GD29063@odin.tremily.us> References: <52DD02FA.3040109@gmx.de> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dBTySC83OhS/t4p9" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52DD02FA.3040109@gmx.de> OpenPGP: id=39A2F3FA2AB17E5D8764F388FC29BDCDF15F5BE8; url=http://tremily.us/pubkey.txt User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1390271778; bh=38rr01XULeERhUqga0O8q0u1YgnKbSH/RHK/i58Ip5k=; h=Received:Received:Received:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=WtV48Fb8UbEwMVTa9cGn0AlEc7bguCpBB4Peqh8hPCmp6+v0KE5OZsoBDVMkfaClw yUHQvMkmA/e3kmf5I7+FaW92IbY3a/cLHQRtl3qHExTt3Z2AIQGVtV7pgeBtQ8pFvS u7tYjhSdK9/EWjVZ/NnsDY7NTbRVhe2wgytmjoOqagpK0dSBFbjGYtmUXTnThurmxp 1Y15AmgoP/NJWew14ACgZLxlboHSyuqDJzgVLITx2SmsNqzsqjmi89Ykg6Tdu1YggD as4V7gLQ1kR8IFedOE61x0z5SBv8dT01SuzRKh50TeGMBrykgbJJ8NFz5X6L3snqmC XKfi0BP2Brgcw== X-Archives-Salt: 3ae25842-5d31-4b5e-bfcc-bf6fa4720687 X-Archives-Hash: f474f4dd34e897aa175badabf98f2347 --dBTySC83OhS/t4p9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:05:30PM +0100, Sebastian Luther wrote: > Currently layout.conf is not under PMS control. This basically means > that every PM (or version thereof) may support different keys and > assign different meanings to them. Standardizing in the PMS sounds like a good idea, for situations where a consensus can be reached. > Portage's behavior for unknown keys in layout.conf is to ignore them > without a warning. That makes sense, and is a good practice for forwards-compatibility [1]. Repositories providing custom keys (or package managers supporting custom keys) do so with the understanding that there may be incompatibilities. Namespaced custom keys (portage-eclass-masters?) would help avoid accidental collision. Versioning the layout.conf key spec would also be useful, so a PM in strict-mode could warn =E2=80=9Cunkno= wn keys x, y, and z in a v1.2 layout.conf. I only understand v1.0, and it's possible that these keys have been added in subsequent versions=E2=80= =9D. > The bad thing about this is that some layout.conf keys portage > currently supports, may render the repository unusable for a PM if > it doesn't support them. Can you give an example of the breakage? Maybe I just haven't been listening in the right places. If the problem is that the repositories *need* a custom key that is not universally supported, then that seems like something the repository authors should expect. > After discussing this one IRC I came to the conclusion that we just > disagree on how we should handle additions to layout.conf. >=20 > Basically it's either > 1) "We add things as we see fit." or > 2) "We should only add things if absolutely necessary.". Locking everything down completely seems overly harsh, and makes it harder to experiment with new features. Why not: 1.5) We can add custom keys as we see fit under the =E2=80=98portage-*=E2= =80=99 namespace. * Portable repositories should not rely on them until they land in the PMS under a new layout.conf version, at which time the =E2=80=98portage-=E2=80=99 prefix will be removed. * Portage will recognize any newly standardized keys under their old =E2=80=98portage-*=E2=80=99 name to allow repositories to gracef= ully transition to the standardized names. Cheers, Trevor [1]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-20070326.html#iddiv470454016 --=20 This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy --dBTySC83OhS/t4p9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJS3d0bAAoJEKKfehoaNkbtoeMQAJWlNdPg09XTZcyHOXcNlBW+ o5Jrud/Sm/pXqCZFcbBV1nmTEZHrfob4GnZWBEyBisNohBgfLDY6C0GBz3u1/aXP HuvHirC5E8b6Io3HBKN6V2cFh+SP4yj+khhMJdFWd47rzCpHDrNAmpnylV/172qX ONq4Fz4n8REaGr5N40OGHjZXcfWTHMmvOY6u5D+RTRMvsxSeEAWkZcdqTpxLYOVb ZY5sDJTvwQN2w1pacmaFx/96ZuaElMi51XrLiTQ8s00D4sCMBYuAXxnqydTsIHx2 qmQKWOVrZV9VhHQpoI7d2N8r8HO3VKx307xq4aFq6nnx7NXVbibA/9+zDyiiHJy1 7sIbMoBop3arMVRLmRtJXLZhj9tOzbkF+HFj4xR0thBTRLF4vdPFtGhoBtE/mwIm mMOc+D8G92ZMEwvD0s/vK8IhjR06KWIwtmWYD6kkVbTX6gwBW957HXkZyxIwtA9g vEtCpcOcGbT1SLRDbeihvcq9GWbrUHHqtdp8JN+b85Laoc+6nJlNVLDXXcrAVR4i 1bzE2pQNH1QgZeP0LJhbmBP3ljscGoSQpPpn24au9L1mLaWl6wkV6CD5iUX1jsV7 8jM3Qc7VMflBjN0Q9WemLZZXWEZSD/djkZyv8TKfmHSpYz/RnIw/PSxH6RziPJeH ZrH2uKBjOSJhHOH/g0p5 =y5mm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dBTySC83OhS/t4p9--