Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: an eclass to handle optional runtime depends
On 08/02/2011 11:29 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 20:18:17 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: >>> I think I prefer the second option (copying from Exherbo). A better >>> integration with the package manager than USE flags should result >>> in a better user experience. >> >> Are you willing to update and EAPI-bump all the eclasses? May I remind >> you that most of them don't even go beyond EAPI 0? > > Most of them shouldn't need to care about EAPI at all. For those that > do, the only changes that should be necessary for an Exherbo-like > SDEPEND solution are for packages that actually want to use it... > > If you also want to switch from *DEPEND to DEPENDENCIES (which would > also allow a whole bunch of other long standing feature requests to be > fulfilled) then it's still only slightly more work -- but last time I > asked, adding new dependency classes or switching dependency syntax was > in the "too tricky to do in Portage" boat. Nowadays, it's not too tricky to do in Portage. The code that translates *DEPEND into objects can easily be extended to translate something like DEPENDENCIES into similar objects. -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: an eclass to handle optional runtime depends
On 8/2/11 11:18 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> I think I prefer the second option (copying from Exherbo). A better >> integration with the package manager than USE flags should result in a >> better user experience. > > Are you willing to update and EAPI-bump all the eclasses? May I remind > you that most of them don't even go beyond EAPI 0? Why all of them? We don't necessarily need this now, I can wait. By the way, maybe that's a good point to just do a postinst-based implementation for now, that would just check whether the recommended/suggested packages are installed. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: an eclass to handle optional runtime depends
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 21:18, Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:58:56 -0700 > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote: > >> On 8/2/11 12:35 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> > On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:19:03 -0700 >> > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote: >> >> I'm interested in some sort of suggested/recommend deps for >> >> www-client/chromium, but I'm not sure if eclass is the right >> >> implementation. >> > I don't think we can start drafting until we agree on one solution. >> > AFAICS there are two major ideas: >> > 1) using special USEflags for that (which I can draft if you like), >> > 2) copying DEPENDENCIES syntax from exherbo. I guess there's nothing >> > special to draft here, only to decide on how much to copy. >> > >> > First gives you compat and handles all the cases, second one either >> > doesn't handle everything or forces a completely new syntax. >> >> I think I prefer the second option (copying from Exherbo). A better >> integration with the package manager than USE flags should result in a >> better user experience. > > Are you willing to update and EAPI-bump all the eclasses? May I remind > you that most of them don't even go beyond EAPI 0? That should be a reason to aggressively push eclass EAPI updates, not hold back on new features :) > -- > Best regards, > Michał Górny > -- Alex Alexander | wired + Gentoo Linux Developer ++ www.linuxized.com
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: an eclass to handle optional runtime depends
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 20:18:17 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > I think I prefer the second option (copying from Exherbo). A better > > integration with the package manager than USE flags should result > > in a better user experience. > > Are you willing to update and EAPI-bump all the eclasses? May I remind > you that most of them don't even go beyond EAPI 0? Most of them shouldn't need to care about EAPI at all. For those that do, the only changes that should be necessary for an Exherbo-like SDEPEND solution are for packages that actually want to use it... If you also want to switch from *DEPEND to DEPENDENCIES (which would also allow a whole bunch of other long standing feature requests to be fulfilled) then it's still only slightly more work -- but last time I asked, adding new dependency classes or switching dependency syntax was in the "too tricky to do in Portage" boat. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: an eclass to handle optional runtime depends
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:58:56 -0700 ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote: > On 8/2/11 12:35 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:19:03 -0700 > > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote: > >> I'm interested in some sort of suggested/recommend deps for > >> www-client/chromium, but I'm not sure if eclass is the right > >> implementation. > > I don't think we can start drafting until we agree on one solution. > > AFAICS there are two major ideas: > > 1) using special USEflags for that (which I can draft if you like), > > 2) copying DEPENDENCIES syntax from exherbo. I guess there's nothing > >special to draft here, only to decide on how much to copy. > > > > First gives you compat and handles all the cases, second one either > > doesn't handle everything or forces a completely new syntax. > > I think I prefer the second option (copying from Exherbo). A better > integration with the package manager than USE flags should result in a > better user experience. Are you willing to update and EAPI-bump all the eclasses? May I remind you that most of them don't even go beyond EAPI 0? -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: an eclass to handle optional runtime depends
On 8/2/11 12:35 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:19:03 -0700 > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote: >> I'm interested in some sort of suggested/recommend deps for >> www-client/chromium, but I'm not sure if eclass is the right >> implementation. > I don't think we can start drafting until we agree on one solution. > AFAICS there are two major ideas: > 1) using special USEflags for that (which I can draft if you like), > 2) copying DEPENDENCIES syntax from exherbo. I guess there's nothing >special to draft here, only to decide on how much to copy. > > First gives you compat and handles all the cases, second one either > doesn't handle everything or forces a completely new syntax. I think I prefer the second option (copying from Exherbo). A better integration with the package manager than USE flags should result in a better user experience. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: an eclass to handle optional runtime depends
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 09:35:05 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > I don't think we can start drafting until we agree on one solution. > AFAICS there are two major ideas: > 1) using special USEflags for that (which I can draft if you like), > 2) copying DEPENDENCIES syntax from exherbo. I guess there's nothing >special to draft here, only to decide on how much to copy. > > First gives you compat and handles all the cases, second one either > doesn't handle everything or forces a completely new syntax. As well as drafting it, you should produce a test implementation and try out a whole bunch of packages by using it. The last time a big user visible UI related feature like this ended up in PMS without a prior implementation, it ended up having several fairly nasty problems... -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: an eclass to handle optional runtime depends
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:19:03 -0700 ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote: > I'm interested in some sort of suggested/recommend deps for > www-client/chromium, but I'm not sure if eclass is the right > implementation. > > I think I agree with Ciaran that this should be implemented as a PMS > update. Let me know if I can help with drafting a change proposal or > something like that. I don't think we can start drafting until we agree on one solution. AFAICS there are two major ideas: 1) using special USEflags for that (which I can draft if you like), 2) copying DEPENDENCIES syntax from exherbo. I guess there's nothing special to draft here, only to decide on how much to copy. First gives you compat and handles all the cases, second one either doesn't handle everything or forces a completely new syntax. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: an eclass to handle optional runtime depends
On 7/31/11 8:27 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > The last discussion on new solutions optional runtime depends lead to no > agreement. Thus, I'd like to propose a solution extending the usability > of current methods of handling them. I'm interested in some sort of suggested/recommend deps for www-client/chromium, but I'm not sure if eclass is the right implementation. I think I agree with Ciaran that this should be implemented as a PMS update. Let me know if I can help with drafting a change proposal or something like that. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: an eclass to handle optional runtime depends
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 17:27:21 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > My idea is to create an eclass which would take a optional dependency > list (e.g. through some kind of SDEPEND variable or so [being a bash > array!]) and print it out to user in pkg_postinst(). Please don't. This should be worked out and stuck in an EAPI, not hacked around via an eclass. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] RFC: an eclass to handle optional runtime depends
Hello, all. The last discussion on new solutions optional runtime depends lead to no agreement. Thus, I'd like to propose a solution extending the usability of current methods of handling them. My idea is to create an eclass which would take a optional dependency list (e.g. through some kind of SDEPEND variable or so [being a bash array!]) and print it out to user in pkg_postinst(). The eclass could also denote whether the particular package is installed like I do in sys-apps/systemd [1]. But first, I'd like to ask interested devs: how many packages need more than a single dep for a single optional feature? How would like such a deps to be printed as? I thought about something like: SDEPEND=( app-foo/bar "blah blah blah blah" app-bar/foo "fooh fooh fooh fooh" ) Though not sure how to handle support for many-to-one deps. [1]:http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=dev/mgorny.git;a=blob;f=sys-apps/systemd/systemd-.ebuild;h=2703d8621874c3a9f961d1e0a764f88c56cdcd30;hb=HEAD#l126 -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
