Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] handling config stuff in portage (for package compression, etc)
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 20:58:57 -0600
Jason Pepas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I have been going over how class config works in portage, but I
am still unsure of where to fit in the changes I would need.
I suppose I'll lay out the structure of what I had in mind and ask
y'all for advice.
Compression would be supported in a modular fashion. The following
config options would be supported for each type of compression:
ZEXT - the compression filename extension
TZEXT - the binary package filename extension
ZCOMPRESS - the command used to compress a file
ZDECOMPRESS - the command used to uncompress a file
ZFILTER - command used to compress in a pipeline
ZUNFILTER - command used to uncompress in a pipeline
ZRECOMPRESS - should files already compressed using another method be
uncompressed and then recompressed using the preferred method? (ie, if
manpages are shipped as foo.1.gz and you want foo.1.bz2)
I really don't like this Z prefix, should rather be
PORTAGE_COMPRESS_{EXT,BINEXT,COMPRESSCOMMAND,...}
(avoid env namespace pollution a IMO a lot cleaner)
For example, if Z=bzip2, a file would be sourced (bzip2.sh), which
would contain the these settings:
ZEXT=bz2
TZEXT=tbz2
ZCOMPRESS=bzip2
ZDECOMPRESS=bunzip2
ZFILTER=bzip2
ZUNFILTER=bunzip2
ZRECOMPRESS=no
Why this indirection? Just for convienience or are there technical
reasons? If it's just convienience then you don't need this, just
utilize the source command in make.conf. Anyway, there is no place for
one-letter vars in make.*
The following subsystems would source one of these files to get
their settings:
PKG_
DOC_
MAN_
INFO_
possibly others.
So, if PKG_Z=bzip2, bzip2.sh would be read to set PKG_ZEXT,
PKG_TZEXT, PKG_ZCOMPRESS, etc.
Why are those vars needed? Can't they be directly derived from the
global ones?
As these module files are sourced, individual config options could be
overridden via values in the environment. For example, if I wanted
gzip used across the board, but I wanted different levels of
compression for man pages and packages, I could do this in make.conf:
Z=gzip
PKG_ZCOMPRESS=gzip --best
MAN_ZCOMPRESS=gzip --fast
Somehow this part looks like overengineering to me. Doesn't seem worth
to introduce 7*4=28 new vars just for this.
Marius
--
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
pgpw5V5iOCAyQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] branches/2.0 moved to trunk
On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 05:40:26PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: I've moved trunk/ to branches/2.1-experimental/ and branches/2.0 to trunk/. Make sure to update before doing any changes... i thought 2.1 / trunk was dead ? why not just punt it and be done ? -mike -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] branches/2.0 moved to trunk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 05:40:26PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: I've moved trunk/ to branches/2.1-experimental/ and branches/2.0 to trunk/. Make sure to update before doing any changes... i thought 2.1 / trunk was dead ? why not just punt it and be done ? -mike IIRC, people are still backporting things... I was going to look at confcache and porting it to 2.0... if I ever find the time and subsequent motivation ;) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIVAwUBQ266+WzglR5RwbyYAQJ8QA//TvHlyjct0mwXDjqm0jRjFQfUuyyQ46UC vR2CMnYgUMwnljsx3bbhecNczy5o6cwLMvsPEq4MthDJm3AUmlHNkLrj/+ZySpDM IC0/ZzJcFIf9kOXzNOV7lWCJUU/118UIM6I/eaxj5LJCENJZ2BzVTRTgozFJuoaX xKgOr1M6JCd0sMGFfclnwdoI8qjIFxV+gYS9qzhAhWN4T/NtdTFfbyNIso0pgVtD OG8T0pKetsrz/5WU/YuUs0EqEC+KaZH8H0n8YFAF+q90NnjRwJjAefrU0AhgYeml ZX8ZUhFMXVCfs7iXaPLNwcYp5HA5mbTBp8Oi5H6vjkJFl6bZ5CQE91SqseyW6ZZR T+cgxzO7WG5bJ72FQJbzjXgGHrtZfODoolgQPE1+uO+Z6bKWH0EK3hQpvXOFX680 oqAZGnzD42Yi5t8EVF7yHRPNU3r99EnbZBGl1xKnRWJnBIHd6tqRizubuoxkolwP aQjWN6OwLnVJ/t5JSe7axVJJlggS7Dr1+1Fi7Cx5EIxviJbbxmwjc0bgl/s8mVJZ ew8dFuyXTBqBc+qPC9phRnhisp/xH0R9OzoiTp/4Da7bR49AU5AWUEEwhiUzziiq N6XNQKVpD0db41gKhvXDUNs2czXhfeKpUz/woAPr2+QUkHVHGFFtedVlh4Y1Cxyg Zy48JG1SWUM= =TWpq -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] branches/2.0 moved to trunk
On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 09:24:58PM -0500, Alec Warner wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 05:40:26PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: I've moved trunk/ to branches/2.1-experimental/ and branches/2.0 to trunk/. Make sure to update before doing any changes... i thought 2.1 / trunk was dead ? why not just punt it and be done ? IIRC, people are still backporting things... I was going to look at confcache and porting it to 2.0... if I ever find the time and subsequent motivation ;) i'm backporting things to 2.0 from trunk only because i didnt know trunk was dead ... otherwise, i think people are backporting from savior/3.0, not from trunk/2.1 -mike -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
