On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:02:44AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:54:39 -0700 > Brian Harring <ferri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 08:58:07PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: > > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:47:33 -0400 > > > Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Based on the above I do expect the reference implementation would also > > > > need to change. I expect, for instance, that the PM's > > > > metadata-handling would need to occur as normal even though none of > > > > the package's phase functions would run, that is, *DEPEND > > > > (realistically RDEPEND as that should be the only one affected here, > > > > maybe PDEPEND too) and USE/PKGUSE would get updated. Since portage > > > > would not be re-emerging the package from the tree the original ebuild > > > > would remain. > > > > > > Yes, unless I'm missing something that's the intent. I will re-read > > > and update the GLEP a bit sometime this week. > > > > There's a fairly strong user interaction component here, along w/ > > potential nastyness for ebuilds (the proposal assume that a flag will > > be toggable in all cases within an ebuild if IUSE_RUNTIME specified; I > > guarantee instances where that fails can be found in the tree if a > > basic audit was done). Additionally, this *is* useless if it's done > > in a form the UI an't display/handle; Ciaran may bitch about > > REQUIRED_USE's UI (which I knew going in was going to be > > problematic, just to be clear), but he's right on that front.
^^^ This point still needs addressing. > > Additionally, this needs to be thought out how it'll interact with > > eclasses; what stacking, etc. It doesn't cover the basics there to > > say the least. > > The proposal didn't cover eclasses at all. Is there a need to do so or > are we chasing some kind of perfection based on filling all unused > slots? Eclass stacking here matters; if it's stacked, it means ebuilds have to use out of bound (ie, other vars) to tell the eclass when it shouldn't mark a flag as runtime toggable. If it's not stacked by the pm, then they have to manually stack; that differs from the norm and makes it easier to screwup; however; does allow for them to filter, albeit a slight pain in the ass doing so. There's a choice there, and the answer matters, so yes, you should actually have a complete glep before trying to shove it up to the council and extract a vote out of them. Lest the intention is to just have them kick it back to the curb... > > Pretty much, this needs an implementation, partial conversion of the > > tree to demonstrate it. > > > > Just to prove that fricking point; if you had tried implementing this, > > a full investigation of what's involved alone, you'd have spotted that > > the core of the proposal is based on a wrong assumption. > > > > Portage doesn't write unfinalized DEPEND/RDEPEND/PDEPEND to the VDB. > > There's a footnote there, saying: > > The package manager has to ensure that all relevant information is > stored in the installed package metadata. Frankly I don't fully buy that you were aware of this issue from the start of the proposal; the wording partially covers it however. Ddoesn't call it out, but via tha req it dumps it on the package manager developers heads to sort it- which already is the case. Binpkgs minimally weren't addressed which is why I still don't think this was actually spotted up front. Were it, the performance impact should've been mentioned, and quantified; con's are part of a normal glep. Meaning.. wait for it... writing a prototype is required to get those stats. ;) > > > > Based on the above I do expect the reference implementation > > > > would alsoneed to change. I expect, for instance, that the > > > > PM's metadata-handling would need to occur as normal even > > > > though none of the package's phase functions would run, that > > > > is, *DEPEND (realistically RDEPEND as that should be the only > > > > one affected here, maybe PDEPEND too) and USE/PKGUSE would get > > > > updated. Since portage would not be re-emerging the package > > > > from the tree the original ebuild > > > > would remain. > > > > > > > > I expect, as a corollary to this, that a rebuild would be necessary if > > > > (on-disk-IUSE_RUNTIME xor in-ebuild-IUSE_RUNTIME) was non-empty > > > > (--newuse) or resulted in any flags that are in USE > > > > (--reinstall=changed-use). IMO this would be necessary to ensure the > > > > local ebuild copy and all related metadata for it gets updated in vdb. > > > > > > I think that's a common package manager logic and it's out of scope > > > of the GLEP. > > > > Portage doesn't do physical updates last I saw- if it did, well, > > that's fairly dangerous. Only thing stored in the VDB is the ebuild > > and the environment dump, and the environment dump is what's ran from. > > > > You cannot sanely pick part the dump and try to intermix current > > ebuilds; rephrasing, I'll kick in the head anyone who tries that. > > What are you talking about? As far as I can see, we are talking here > about *full rebuild*. Added the full quote above. Read prior to the corollary; that's proposing transferance of *depend from live tree to vdb; that's not common- portage alone does that, and it's got faults that make it unlikely you'll convince others to replicate that behaviour. ~harring
