Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] metadata.dtd: Remove obsolete element per GLEP 68

[Ulrich Mueller]

> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016, Brian Dolbec wrote:

> Isn't this almost obsolete?  it's now xmlschema...

Why would that make the DTD obsolete?

The DTD can be used as input format for conversion to other formats
(like RNG or RNC). XML schema is pretty much useless in this respect,
since there seem to be no free conversion tools around that would
accept it as an input format.

Ulrich


pgpclrOBUmZfA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] metadata.dtd: Remove obsolete element per GLEP 68

[Göktürk Yüksek]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Brian Dolbec:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:39:05 -0400 Göktürk Yüksek
>  wrote:
> 
>> --- metadata.dtd | 5 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4
>> deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/metadata.dtd b/metadata.dtd index 7626a57..b608852
>> 100644 --- a/metadata.dtd +++ b/metadata.dtd @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ 
>> 
>> 
>>  -> (maintainer|natural-name|longdescription|slots|use|upstream)* )> 
>> +> (maintainer|longdescription|slots|use|upstream)* )> > pkgmetadata pkgname CDATA "">  @@ -13,9 +13,6 @@ explicit type)
>> for Gentoo maintainers is prohibited. --> > type (person|project|unknown) "unknown">
>> 
>> -   -  > > -  
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this almost obsolete?  it's now xmlschema...  And I hope to
> have the new repoman with it out this weekend :)
> 

Does GLEP 68 explicitly declare metadata.dtd obsolete? I see that the
example metadata.xml on the GLEP is missing DOCTYPE, are we getting
rid of those too?

I understand that the DTD is more like a super-set, so anything that
complies with GLEP 68 will comply with the DTD as well. However, there
is a caveat here: for example the GLEP dismisses the list of possible
values for  by saying "The list of available trackers and
their specific identifiers are outside scope of this specification."
but does not mention where these values shall be kept either. The
moment we add a new remote-id, the xmlschema diverges from the DTD and
stops being a subset.

Besides, the PMS says the format of metadata.xml is described in DTD.
Even if we move to something else, doesn't metadata.dtd need to be
kept around until the PMS is amended?

- --
gokturk

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJXIp+LAAoJEIT4AuXAiM4zszAIAI8GPcE8Ap3b652DYWRX/THb
IeRBMGyTsgu8s0GB5i7Qfy94uKMxc1+9SCipEK0GoBq7Vkeils8SHdSNCt2TPE6t
Hzh4UG6lI7qebMVrsRi85GDZr1l4HA5/Co54lizMlFW7uO8vgRRU2Cj7AfPt/BFQ
zan7+yQv+zLv0OVxb2XPAnbCMn0cL5PIzSBXN4aN+p58FVOwJlUs/tEQbNOKjRWK
v6J4ejz4QA8Sy6Gx7aAupBzT+8YhtU9BLMWzbSf4VEMBELD8ZrzYfZtxZQNcpkFV
INef3hFcpM+5whHTDQ0QfAbVXEyRRVoMo1W87yZLUT7qUrlRcMhbjopT6+e+ZCs=
=HDEG
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] metadata.dtd: Remove obsolete element per GLEP 68

[Brian Dolbec]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:39:05 -0400
Göktürk Yüksek  wrote:

> ---
>  metadata.dtd | 5 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/metadata.dtd b/metadata.dtd
> index 7626a57..b608852 100644
> --- a/metadata.dtd
> +++ b/metadata.dtd
> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
>  
>  
>  
> - ( (maintainer|natural-name|longdescription|slots|use|upstream)* )>
> + ( (maintainer|longdescription|slots|use|upstream)* )>  pkgmetadata pkgname CDATA "">  @@ -13,9 +13,6 @@
>  explicit type) for Gentoo maintainers is prohibited. -->
>
>  
> -  
> -  
> -
>
>
>  


Isn't this almost obsolete?  it's now xmlschema...  And I hope to have
the new repoman with it out this weekend :)
-- 
Brian Dolbec 

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] metadata.dtd: Remove obsolete element per GLEP 68

[Göktürk Yüksek]

---
 metadata.dtd | 5 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/metadata.dtd b/metadata.dtd
index 7626a57..b608852 100644
--- a/metadata.dtd
+++ b/metadata.dtd
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 
 
 
-
+
 
 
   
@@ -13,9 +13,6 @@
 explicit type) for Gentoo maintainers is prohibited. -->
   
 
-  
-  
-
   
   
 
-- 
2.7.3

[gentoo-dev][PATCH] dev-lang/go-1.6.2: enable go-bootstrap tarball for ppc64le #581278

[Leno Hou]

There is a bootstrap tarball for ppc64le now, and  we have bi-arch
support for ppc64 platform. It's means that we can build go-1.6.2
without gccgo

Signed-off-by: Leno Hou 
---
 dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild | 10 ++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild b/dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild
index 57ca2c7..7408cd2 100644
--- a/dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild
+++ b/dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild
@@ -88,6 +88,16 @@ go_arch()
case "${portage_arch}" in
x86)echo 386;;
x64-*)  echo amd64;;
+   ppc64)
+   case "$(tc-endian $@)" in
+   little)
+   echo ppc64le
+   ;;
+   big)
+   echo ppc64
+   ;;
+   esac
+   ;;
*)  echo "${portage_arch}";;
esac
 }
-- 
2.7.3

Re: [gentoo-dev][PATCH V3] dev-lang/go-1.6.2: enable go-bootstrap tarball for ppc64le #581278

[Alexander Kapshuk]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Leno Hou  wrote:
> There is a bootstrap tarball for ppc64le now, and  we have bi-arch
> support for ppc64 platform. It's means that we can build go-1.6.2
> without gccgo
>
> Signed-off-by: Leno Hou 
> ---
>  dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild | 5 +
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild b/dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild
> index 57ca2c7..ba61397 100644
> --- a/dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild
> +++ b/dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild
> @@ -88,6 +88,11 @@ go_arch()
> case "${portage_arch}" in
> x86)echo 386;;
> x64-*)  echo amd64;;
> +   ppc64)  if [[ "$(tc-endian $@)" == "big" ]]; then
> +   echo ppc64
> +   else
> +   echo ppc64le
> +   fi;;
> *)  echo "${portage_arch}";;
> esac
>  }
> --
> 2.7.3
>
>

Sometimes, a nested 'case' construct may prove a bit clearer. Just a
suggestion. Not being critical of the original implementation in any
way.
...
ppc64)
case $(tc-endian $@) in
big)
echo ppc64
;;
little)
echo ppc64le
esac
...

[gentoo-dev][PATCH V3] dev-lang/go-1.6.2: enable go-bootstrap tarball for ppc64le #581278

[Leno Hou]

There is a bootstrap tarball for ppc64le now, and  we have bi-arch
support for ppc64 platform. It's means that we can build go-1.6.2
without gccgo

Signed-off-by: Leno Hou 
---
 dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild | 5 +
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild b/dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild
index 57ca2c7..ba61397 100644
--- a/dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild
+++ b/dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild
@@ -88,6 +88,11 @@ go_arch()
case "${portage_arch}" in
x86)echo 386;;
x64-*)  echo amd64;;
+   ppc64)  if [[ "$(tc-endian $@)" == "big" ]]; then
+   echo ppc64
+   else
+   echo ppc64le
+   fi;;
*)  echo "${portage_arch}";;
esac
 }
-- 
2.7.3

Re: [gentoo-dev][PATCH V2] dev-lang/go-1.6.2: enable go-bootstrap tarball for ppc64le #581278

[Leno Hou]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Michał Górny  wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 05:59:14 +
> Leno Hou  wrote:
>
> > There is a bootstrap tarball for ppc64le now, and  we have bi-arch
> > support for ppc64 platform. It's means that we can build go-1.6.2
> > without gccgo.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Leno Hou 
> > CC: William Hubbs 
> > ---
> >  dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild b/dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild
> > index 57ca2c7..049973a 100644
> > --- a/dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild
> > +++ b/dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild
> > @@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ go_arch()
> >   case "${portage_arch}" in
> >   x86)echo 386;;
> >   x64-*)  echo amd64;;
> > + ppc64)  [[ "$(tc-endian $@)" == "big" ]] || echo ppc64le;;
>
> Shouldn't this also have '&& echo ppc64'? Otherwise, on BE ppc64 there
> will be no output.
>

That's true. You're right.  So the next PATCH v3 will be sent.
-Leno Hou

Re: [gentoo-dev][PATCH V2] dev-lang/go-1.6.2: enable go-bootstrap tarball for ppc64le #581278

[Michał Górny]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 05:59:14 +
Leno Hou  wrote:

> There is a bootstrap tarball for ppc64le now, and  we have bi-arch
> support for ppc64 platform. It's means that we can build go-1.6.2
> without gccgo.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Leno Hou 
> CC: William Hubbs 
> ---
>  dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild b/dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild
> index 57ca2c7..049973a 100644
> --- a/dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild
> +++ b/dev-lang/go/go-1.6.2.ebuild
> @@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ go_arch()
>   case "${portage_arch}" in
>   x86)echo 386;;
>   x64-*)  echo amd64;;
> + ppc64)  [[ "$(tc-endian $@)" == "big" ]] || echo ppc64le;;

Shouldn't this also have '&& echo ppc64'? Otherwise, on BE ppc64 there
will be no output.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny


pgpmWRn1p_xaW.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature