Arthur Zamarin <arthur...@gentoo.org> writes:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] > On 22/09/2023 17.50, Alex Boag-Munroe wrote: >> On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 15:37, Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Alex Boag-Munroe <ni...@qap.la> writes: >>> >>>> Any reason for the parseable parts to not be in an established human >>>> readable/editable format? e.g. the config ini style format, or TOML? >>> >>> The only issue really is that depending on how it's done (do we do >>> it for the whole file, or just comments), it may need a new (profile) >>> EAPI which will take a while to implement and deploy. >>> >>> If it's just for comments, then we can do it immediately though. >>> >>>> >>>> To crib from the OP example with something configparser understands: >>>> [PREAMBLE] >>>> Timestamp: 2023-09-21 15:07:42+00:00 >>>> Author: Arthur Zamarin <arthur...@gentoo.org> >>>> Justification: Very broken, no idea why packaged, need to drop ASAP. >>>> The project is done with supporting this package. >>>> Bugs: 667687, 667689 >>>> Removal Date: 2023-10-21 >>>> Packages: dev-lang/python >>>> >>>> The format is well documented already and simple to check for >>>> validity, so any GLEP would just need to cover correct keys/values. >>>> >>> >>> But yeah, I agree it's worth thinking about a proper format rather than >>> fragile text mangling going into the future. >>> >> Perhaps eventually it could/should be used for the whole file but as >> an interim/beginning there's no reason you couldn't start with >> comments: >> >> # [PREAMBLE] >> # Timestamp: 2023-09-21 15:07:42+00:00 >> # Author: Arthur Zamarin <arthur...@gentoo.org> >> # Justification: Very broken, no idea why packaged, need to drop ASAP. >> # The project is done with supporting this package. >> # Bugs: 667687, 667689 >> # Packages: dev-lang/python >> dev-lang/python >> >> This simply adds a pre parse step of stripping the comments then >> feeding directly into configparser or probably more suitable, TOML >> since TOML has better syntax for directly delivering things like a >> "Packages:" key as a list. >> >> Redoing a bunch of package.* parsing probably wasn't in scope of the >> OP but I've always wondered and this felt an opportune moment to >> ask/suggest :) > > Thanks for the idea. Yes, it was out of scope such suggestions for me > originally, but thinking more about it, I take it more positively. > Please let me (and others) to consider it for some days, cause this is > very interesting proposal. Things to consider is how much effort it is > to file in future, which format to use, etc. > It's fine with me if we just go with the original for now, but I think the awkwardness (which is not your fault, but the nature of wrangling free-form text) of the specification shows that we should at some point move to something structured. But I don't consider it a blocker for doing something better than the status quo. Maybe we'll be better off just going straight for Exherbo-style p.mask in future: https://ciaranm.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/classifying-repository-masks/ Ultimately, text munging sucks and there's only so much we can do to polish it. But your original proposal is a good improvement on how things are now. >> -- >> Ninpo >>
