Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
I added a prepalldocs function to eutils.eclass to provide the functionality. It implements the behavior of the current stable sys-apps/portage-2.1.6.4. Have fun, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- mr_bon...@gentoo.org On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Thomas Anderson gentoofa...@gentoo.org wrote: Hi Everyone, This is a note that in the council meeting on 02/12/2009 the function 'prepalldocs' is banned for use in ebuilds with EAPIs 0 1 and 2. If you want some functionality from this function, please propose a new function or clearly defined behavior for prepalldocs for a *new* EAPI.
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Alexis Ballier wrote: Then, for the nth time, what would be the good solution? How would one convert prepalldocs usage to something allowed? I've failed to find anything about it in the relevant bug and the only answer I've seen is remove it. You can count on me for marking any prepalldocs removal bug I'll be the assignee as wontfix as long as there won't be any alternative solution. Note that I would consider a viable solution banning prepalldocs and simply removing it if portage was compressing docs by its own or calling prepalldocs after src_install... but then IMHO that's the removal of prepalldocs that would require an EAPI bump not its reintroduction. I think a viable solution would consist of two parts: 1. Add some exclude mechanism to prepalldocs, as suggested in bug 164114 [1]. 2. Have Portage call prepalldocs by default (in prepall). This way, everything installed under /usr/share/doc would be compressed by default (honouring the user's setting of PORTAGE_COMPRESS). Any package that needs literal, uncompressed files in /usr/share/doc could specify this via the exclude mechanism. Obviously, this is an incompatible change and would require an EAPI bump. Ulrich [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=164114
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
Michael Sterrett wrote: I added a prepalldocs function to eutils.eclass to provide the functionality. It implements the behavior of the current stable sys-apps/portage-2.1.6.4. Have fun, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- mr_bon...@gentoo.org I don't think developers should add stuff to eutils.eclass without prior review on this mailing list. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
Thilo Bangert wrote: Thomas Anderson gentoofa...@gentoo.org said: Hi Everyone, This is a note that in the council meeting on 02/12/2009 the function 'prepalldocs' is banned for use in ebuilds with EAPIs 0 1 and 2. If you want some functionality from this function, please propose a new function or clearly defined behavior for prepalldocs for a *new* EAPI. we have a tracker bug at: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=259422 the following 99 packages currently still use 'prepalldocs'. some time in the near future i will start filing individual bugs for each of these. feel free to beat me to the punch. thanks kind regards Thilo The council decision should probably have had more text on what to do to existing usage bug I don't think we spent time on that yet and probably should in the next meeting. Until we decide how things need to be changed IMHO the existing ebuilds can stay as they are as I don't think we should be spending time removing the usage just to find out that we will for example move the function to eclasses so the ebuilds won't need to be modified. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:39:58 +0100 Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: Then, for the nth time, what would be the good solution? If you explicitly need compression, do it by hand, since there aren't any mechanisms for guaranteed compression anyway. If you don't explicitly need compression, don't do anything. And if you're trying to make a space-critical distribution, start looking at the big things, not the 4% things. Easy. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: If you don't explicitly need compression, don't do anything. You mean if the user has requested compression with PORTAGE_COMPRESS, ignore it? What about FEATURES=nodoc, ignore it too? And if you're trying to make a space-critical distribution, start looking at the big things, not the 4% things. Typical documentation consists of text files, so I would expect to save of the order of 50 % by compressing them. How did you obtain above number of 4 %? Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:18:03 +0100 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: If you don't explicitly need compression, don't do anything. You mean if the user has requested compression with PORTAGE_COMPRESS, ignore it? Yup. It's a misfeature. You can see this by considering the proportion of ebuilds that honour it... What about FEATURES=nodoc, ignore it too? FEATURES is purely a Portage internal, so ebuilds shouldn't be messing with it. And if you're trying to make a space-critical distribution, start looking at the big things, not the 4% things. Typical documentation consists of text files, so I would expect to save of the order of 50 % by compressing them. How did you obtain above number of 4 %? The proportion of ebuild-managed content in /usr/share/doc (with USE=doc, so it's a massive overestimate for space-relevant systems) vs elsewhere. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: You mean if the user has requested compression with PORTAGE_COMPRESS, ignore it? Yup. It's a misfeature. You can see this by considering the proportion of ebuilds that honour it... All ebuilds that install things with dodoc at least. That must be quite a few. Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:46:30 +0100 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: Yup. It's a misfeature. You can see this by considering the proportion of ebuilds that honour it... All ebuilds that install things with dodoc at least. That must be quite a few. But it's not universal, nor consistent. That's part of the problem. If you really, genuinely think you have a case for compression of docs, backed up with statistics showing that it's a relevant change, then you should write a proposal for future EAPIs for handling it, and you should do it in such a way that it works automatically for all ebuilds, without any developer intervention (but providing some way for ebuilds to disable it where necessary). -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:06:46 + Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:39:58 +0100 Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: Then, for the nth time, what would be the good solution? If you explicitly need compression, do it by hand, since there aren't any mechanisms for guaranteed compression anyway. Yes of course. If you don't explicitly need compression, don't do anything. ... and mark relevant stuff as ok to be compressed with whatever suits you best... sounds familiar? :) And if you're trying to make a space-critical distribution, start looking at the big things, not the 4% things. When I do something space critical I exclude /usr/share/doc and a couple of others... that doesn't mean I do like wasting space on something not space critical when compression algorithms exist. Alexis. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:28:46 +0100 Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: If you don't explicitly need compression, don't do anything. ... and mark relevant stuff as ok to be compressed with whatever suits you best... sounds familiar? :) No. That's entirely the wrong approach, because it relies upon every ebuild having support for it, and most don't. The right approach, if you can demonstrate that there's a genuine benefit to compressing documentation, is to make a proposal for a future EAPI for compression by default for certain directories, with an override available for ebuilds that need specific behaviour. And if you're trying to make a space-critical distribution, start looking at the big things, not the 4% things. When I do something space critical I exclude /usr/share/doc and a couple of others... that doesn't mean I do like wasting space on something not space critical when compression algorithms exist. If you care about space, focus on something relevant. You are wondering whether turning the radio off will make your car more fuel efficient whilst driving with flat tyres, the windows open and in the wrong gear. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
On 03:07 Wed 18 Feb , Michael Sterrett wrote: I added a prepalldocs function to eutils.eclass to provide the functionality. It implements the behavior of the current stable sys-apps/portage-2.1.6.4. FYI, this addition broke a number of X packages. Hopefully it didn't break much else that's yet undiscovered. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=259491 -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com pgpkwtop3hp7g.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
If you really, genuinely think you have a case for compression of docs, backed up with statistics showing that it's a relevant change, I fail to see why you need statistics for something that is clearly a waste of space, but this could be a start: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_9018a9f64cd32ba85494887ffe3edf78.xml then you should write a proposal for future EAPIs for handling it, I don't understand why something that has been there for ages has to die. For what I've seen, the major (and only) problem with prepalldocs is its definition and I'm sure we can find one that everybody will agree with. and you should do it in such a way that it works automatically for all ebuilds, without any developer intervention (but providing some way for ebuilds to disable it where necessary). This is probably a good start: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_eb1f7952eb2f0fe725bde331a4d9ae30.xml Alexis. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
It's already fixed.
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:01:04 +0100 Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: If you really, genuinely think you have a case for compression of docs, backed up with statistics showing that it's a relevant change, I fail to see why you need statistics for something that is clearly a waste of space, but this could be a start: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_9018a9f64cd32ba85494887ffe3edf78.xml Because if you look at the statistics, it's pretty obvious that it's a stupid idea. If you've got USE=doc, somewhere around 4% of managed files are in /usr/share/doc, and once you take inode sizes into account, you can knock that down to about 3% -- and this is for people who are already turning on a use flag that wouldn't be on on space-relevant systems. then you should write a proposal for future EAPIs for handling it, I don't understand why something that has been there for ages has to die. For what I've seen, the major (and only) problem with prepalldocs is its definition and I'm sure we can find one that everybody will agree with. Because killing it is better than keeping it. It's solving an irrelevant problem the wrong way. and you should do it in such a way that it works automatically for all ebuilds, without any developer intervention (but providing some way for ebuilds to disable it where necessary). This is probably a good start: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_eb1f7952eb2f0fe725bde331a4d9ae30.xml Can you demonstrate that it's even remotely useful? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
Am Mittwoch, den 18.02.2009, 12:26 +0200 schrieb Petteri Räty: Michael Sterrett wrote: I added a prepalldocs function to eutils.eclass to provide the functionality. It implements the behavior of the current stable sys-apps/portage-2.1.6.4. Have fun, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- mr_bon...@gentoo.org I don't think developers should add stuff to eutils.eclass without prior review on this mailing list. Agreed. Besides that, replacing a workaround with another workaround isn't a sexy way to solve something ... Tobias signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:01:44 -0500 Michael Sterrett mr_bon...@gentoo.org wrote: It's already fixed. And have you learned not to try such blatantly irresponsible and childish behaviour on a tree used by other people? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:36:11 + Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:28:46 +0100 Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: If you don't explicitly need compression, don't do anything. ... and mark relevant stuff as ok to be compressed with whatever suits you best... sounds familiar? :) No. That's entirely the wrong approach, I would call it an unperfect yet useful approach that unfortunately we've been using for eapi 0-2. because it relies upon every ebuild having support for it, and most don't. That's why it needs to be improved. The right approach, if you can demonstrate that there's a genuine benefit to compressing documentation, is to make a proposal for a future EAPI for compression by default for certain directories, with an override available for ebuilds that need specific behaviour. And I agree this is the right solution but yet unimplemented... And if you're trying to make a space-critical distribution, start looking at the big things, not the 4% things. When I do something space critical I exclude /usr/share/doc and a couple of others... that doesn't mean I do like wasting space on something not space critical when compression algorithms exist. If you care about space, focus on something relevant. [...] You got me wrong there it seems: I do not care about space, however I do care about useless waste of space. Alexis. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Because if you look at the statistics, it's pretty obvious that it's a stupid idea. If you've got USE=doc, somewhere around 4% of managed files are in /usr/share/doc, and once you take inode sizes into account, you can knock that down to about 3% -- and this is for people who are already turning on a use flag that wouldn't be on on space-relevant systems. I cannot reproduce this number, but of course it will be different for every system. Here I have: 9.5 GB installed files in total 1.6 GB in /usr/share/doc That's some 17 %, _with_ PORTAGE_COMPRESS enabled. Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
On 19:08 Wed 18 Feb , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:01:44 -0500 Michael Sterrett mr_bon...@gentoo.org wrote: It's already fixed. And have you learned not to try such blatantly irresponsible and childish behaviour on a tree used by other people? This email would better be sent in private, if at all. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com pgpaCCa0sTCGe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
Thomas Anderson gentoofa...@gentoo.org said: Hi Everyone, This is a note that in the council meeting on 02/12/2009 the function 'prepalldocs' is banned for use in ebuilds with EAPIs 0 1 and 2. If you want some functionality from this function, please propose a new function or clearly defined behavior for prepalldocs for a *new* EAPI. we have a tracker bug at: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=259422 the following 99 packages currently still use 'prepalldocs'. some time in the near future i will start filing individual bugs for each of these. feel free to beat me to the punch. thanks kind regards Thilo app-arch/gtk-splitter app-arch/rar app-arch/xdms app-backup/amanda app-cdr/cdcover app-crypt/gnupg-pkcs11-scd app-crypt/steghide app-doc/howto-text app-doc/phrack app-emacs/ess app-misc/ca-certificates app-misc/emelfm2 app-misc/g15daemon app-misc/g15macro app-misc/g15message app-misc/g15mpd app-misc/g15stats app-office/gnucash app-text/htag app-text/robodoc app-text/sloccount app-text/ttf2pt1 dev-db/myodbc dev-db/mysql++ dev-db/unixODBC dev-embedded/sdcc dev-embedded/uisp dev-games/flatzebra dev-lang/gpc dev-libs/libg15render dev-libs/libgringotts dev-libs/libmcrypt dev-libs/pkcs11-helper dev-libs/ppl dev-python/gst-python dev-python/yolk dev-tcltk/mysqltcl dev-tex/cjk-latex dev-tex/frakturx dev-util/anjuta dev-util/geany dev-util/ltrace dev-util/pretrace games-arcade/afternoonstalker
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
Why would people want to blindly remove prepalldocs when it clearly results in an inferior build of the package? Take the recent change to the (already marked stable) gnupg-2.0.9.ebuild as an example: Before: $ epm -qi gnupg | grep Size Size: 2845754 $ epm -qi gnupg | grep Size Size: 3089515 So everybody who emerges gnupg since this change is wasting space for no good reason. Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- mr_bon...@gentoo.org
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:10:33 -0500 Michael Sterrett mr_bon...@gentoo.org wrote: So everybody who emerges gnupg since this change is wasting space for no good reason. If you care about a couple of hundred kilobytes, relying upon individual ebuilds to ask the package manager to compress documentation in some arbitrary manner is the wrong solution. This was already discussed at length prior to the Council reaching their decision. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:18:06 + Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:10:33 -0500 Michael Sterrett mr_bon...@gentoo.org wrote: So everybody who emerges gnupg since this change is wasting space for no good reason. If you care about a couple of hundred kilobytes, relying upon individual ebuilds to ask the package manager to compress documentation in some arbitrary manner is the wrong solution. Then, for the nth time, what would be the good solution? How would one convert prepalldocs usage to something allowed? I've failed to find anything about it in the relevant bug and the only answer I've seen is remove it. You can count on me for marking any prepalldocs removal bug I'll be the assignee as wontfix as long as there won't be any alternative solution. Note that I would consider a viable solution banning prepalldocs and simply removing it if portage was compressing docs by its own or calling prepalldocs after src_install... but then IMHO that's the removal of prepalldocs that would require an EAPI bump not its reintroduction. Regards, Alexis. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] prepalldocs is now banned
Hi Everyone, This is a note that in the council meeting on 02/12/2009 the function 'prepalldocs' is banned for use in ebuilds with EAPIs 0 1 and 2. If you want some functionality from this function, please propose a new function or clearly defined behavior for prepalldocs for a *new* EAPI. Regards, Thomas Anderson -- - Thomas Anderson Gentoo Developer / Areas of responsibility: AMD64, Secretary to the Gentoo Council -
