Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: profiles/arches.desc - improve repoman flexibility (with other benefits)

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:00:30 +0100 "M. J. Everitt" wrote: > 'unstable' should surely be applied to masked packages, no? Everything > not-stable and not-unstable becomes therefore 'testing' ... Nah, he's trying to make the phrase "stable arch" mean something in a way tools

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: profiles/arches.desc - improve repoman flexibility (with other benefits)

On 27/03/17 11:10, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > >> 3] Meaning of the three values "stable", "testing", "unstable" for >> repoman >> >> * stable: When a profile of arch is tested, then repoman checks >> consistency for >> "arch" and for "~arch" separately. >> Which profiles of the arch are tested is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: profiles/arches.desc - improve repoman flexibility (with other benefits)

This looks good overall, thanks. If we stay with the whitespace separated columns, the spec should be clear that implementations should be able to deal with future additional "columns" in their parsing code. Below some paint choices from me. > We introduce a new file "arches.desc" which

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: profiles/arches.desc - improve repoman flexibility (with other benefits)

> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Ühel kenal päeval, E, 27.03.2017 kell 11:07, kirjutas Fabian Groffen: >> Back to the topic of the thread, is it possible to make the >> difference between e.g. x86, x86-linux, x86-solaris and x86-macos >> in this proposal? > I believe the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: profiles/arches.desc - improve repoman flexibility (with other benefits)

Ühel kenal päeval, E, 27.03.2017 kell 11:07, kirjutas Fabian Groffen: > On 27-03-2017 09:56:50 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > > > When you say "arch" you actually mean a keyword as per GLEP- > > > > > 53[1] > > > > > right? > > > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: profiles/arches.desc - improve repoman flexibility (with other benefits)

On 27-03-2017 09:56:50 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > >> > When you say "arch" you actually mean a keyword as per GLEP-53[1] > >> > right? > >> > >> Which doesn't agree with actual usage in the tree, though. > > > That surprises me. Do you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: profiles/arches.desc - improve repoman flexibility (with other benefits)

> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Fabian Groffen wrote: >> > When you say "arch" you actually mean a keyword as per GLEP-53[1] >> > right? >> >> Which doesn't agree with actual usage in the tree, though. > That surprises me. Do you have an example of that? The GLEP says about the OS suffix: "The

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: profiles/arches.desc - improve repoman flexibility (with other benefits)

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 22:10:23 -0400 "Walter Dnes" wrote: > Hopefully, there's no need to go JSON format (bleagh). To simplify > parsing, fields for one arch should be clustered together. "should be committed only after running it through sort with LC_ALL=C"

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: profiles/arches.desc - improve repoman flexibility (with other benefits)

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 13:04:18 -0700 Brian Dolbec wrote: > While this can be read and split easily in python code. It > is not future proof for additional data being added and/or removed. This is why in my earlier comments to this proposal, I asked for a: more descriptive

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: profiles/arches.desc - improve repoman flexibility (with other benefits)

On 26-03-2017 22:02:38 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Mar 2017, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > When you say "arch" you actually mean a keyword as per GLEP-53[1] > > right? > > Which doesn't agree with actual usage in the tree, though. That surprises me. Do you have an example of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: profiles/arches.desc - improve repoman flexibility (with other benefits)

On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 01:04:18PM -0700, Brian Dolbec wrote > > So with a general file name of arches.desc Is there any other data > that we want to include in that file? Possibly migrated from other > file(s). In that case a dictionary format yaml file might be best. > My example below has

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: profiles/arches.desc - improve repoman flexibility (with other benefits)

> On Sun, 26 Mar 2017, Brian Dolbec wrote: > I would much prefer for any new files to be created in a format that > most languages have data input modules for and are easily read/edited > by humans. While this can be read and split easily in python code. It > is not future proof for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: profiles/arches.desc - improve repoman flexibility (with other benefits)

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 13:04:18 -0700 Brian Dolbec wrote: > While this is a simple format. This is not a standard data input file > format for language tools to map it into native language variables and > types. > > I would much prefer for any new files to be created in a format

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: profiles/arches.desc - improve repoman flexibility (with other benefits)

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:54:51 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > Hey all, > > here's the updated proposal for a new "arches.desc" file, after > feedback. > > In short: > We introduce a new file "arches.desc" which essentially describes if > an arch (not a profile) is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: profiles/arches.desc - improve repoman flexibility (with other benefits)

> On Sun, 26 Mar 2017, Fabian Groffen wrote: > When you say "arch" you actually mean a keyword as per GLEP-53[1] > right? Which doesn't agree with actual usage in the tree, though. Ulrich > [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:53 pgp07XMca9oQW.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: profiles/arches.desc - improve repoman flexibility (with other benefits)

On 26-03-2017 20:54:51 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Congratulations for getting this far. What's your opinion? When you say "arch" you actually mean a keyword as per GLEP-53[1] right? Thanks, Fabian [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:53 -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level

[gentoo-dev] Proposal: profiles/arches.desc - improve repoman flexibility (with other benefits)

Hey all, here's the updated proposal for a new "arches.desc" file, after feedback. In short: We introduce a new file "arches.desc" which essentially describes if an arch (not a profile) is stable or not. The meaning of profiles.desc is not affected; profiles.desc still describes single