Ulrich Mueller wrote:
Let's assume for the moment that we change from .ebuild to .eb.
Then we obviously cannot change all ebuilds in the tree to .eb,
otherwise old Portage versions would see an empty tree and there would
be no upgrade path.
Or am I missing something?
That is a good point.
On Sunday 07 June 2009 11:34:12 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2009, Steven J Long wrote:
I'd just like to know what the implications would be for users if we
kept the .ebuild extension, and a new PMS were rolled out stating
that the mangler were allowed to find the EAPI without
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2009, Steven J Long wrote:
I'd just like to know what the implications would be for users if we
kept the .ebuild extension, and a new PMS were rolled out stating
that the mangler were allowed to find the EAPI
Patrick Lauer wrote:
And if you really absolutely have to do that you can change the sync
location on every disruptive change, but (imo) that should be
avoided.
If mirroring and other practical concerns weren't an issue what you're
essentially describing is just moving to a CVS/git/etc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2009.06.07 10:34, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2009, Steven J Long wrote:
I'd just like to know what the implications would be for users if
we
kept the .ebuild extension, and a new PMS were rolled out stating
that the mangler
On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 10:42 +, Duncan wrote:
Michael Haubenwallner ha...@gentoo.org posted on Fri, 29
May 2009 10:14:46 +0200:
Ohw, the latter would be necessary here, or '4.ebuild' would not be
found.
s/4.ebuild/4.eclass/ I assume.
Indeed.
Except... since an ebuild must
On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:07:20 +0100
Steven J Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
I missed the clamour of developers complaining about this
oh-so-burdensome restriction that they've been dealing with for at
least 5 years.
Why do you think I wrote the awful hack that is versionator?
Anything
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:07:20 +0100
Steven J Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
I missed the clamour of developers complaining about this
oh-so-burdensome restriction that they've been dealing with for at
least 5 years.
Why do you think I wrote the awful hack
2009/5/18 Steven J Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk:
David Leverton wrote:
2009/5/17 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org:
I think the way eapi-2 was introduced into the tree wasn't particularly
problematic.
I think there might be a misunderstanding here. Ciaran means functions
provided by the
2009/5/17 Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:56:06 +0200
Piotr Jaroszyński pe...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hello,
I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer.
Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is:
1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
2.
On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:15:24 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'd like 2 if we could have multiple same-versioned ebuilds of
different EAPI. 3 is good enough for me.
We couldn't. Allowing multiple equal but different ebuilds gets highly
crazy -- EAPIs aren't orderable, so it's not
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
On 10 Jun 2008, at 15:33, Joe Peterson wrote:
Luca Barbato wrote:
Check if exists a line EAPI=*$, if does and the rest of the string
matches an understood eapi, go on sourcing, otherwise ignore/mask it...
And placing it out-of-band (like # EAPI=...) avoids any
On 2008/06/11, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're missing the cases where the cache isn't usable.
I was not talking about generating cache entries, and neither were you.
I've replied to you because you were suggesting that the EAPI in
ebuilds contents solution had extra cost when
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:31:45 +0200
Thomas de Grenier de Latour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008/06/11, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're missing the cases where the cache isn't usable.
I was not talking about generating cache entries, and neither were
you. I've replied to you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Kelly wrote:
| Wrong.
Thanks for that. I'm gonna assume you meant I think you're wrong.
| Sure, because of how the algorithm works, people could potentially do
| both, but the GLEP makes it pretty clear that they shouldn't.
It doesn't just
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 04:14:58AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:14:11 +0200
Olivier Galibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:02:28PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Except that currently, the ebuild file isn't opened for read. So
it's not in
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:14:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
!-- EAPI=3 --
*Then* would be the time to change the extension. As long as the
ebuild is bash-parseable with an appropriate environment, it doesn't
make sense to change the extension because a env-variable set or a
comment are
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:31:45 +0200
Thomas de Grenier de Latour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008/06/11, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're missing the cases where the cache isn't usable.
I was not talking
Olivier Galibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:14:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
!-- EAPI=3 --
*Then* would be the time to change the extension. As long as the
ebuild is bash-parseable with an appropriate environment, it doesn't
make sense to change the extension
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Olivier Galibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:14:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
!-- EAPI=3 --
*Then* would be the time to change the extension. As long as the
ebuild is bash-parseable with an appropriate environment, it doesn't
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:07 AM, Jim Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not just bump the filename suffix when it is required to support a
new EAPI that breaks the sourcing rules of previous EAPIs?
Or will backwards-incompatible changes be happening so frequently that
the package suffix will
On 2008-06-10 15:50, Fernando J. Pereda uttered these thoughts:
On 10 Jun 2008, at 15:46, Joe Peterson wrote:
Also, I'm not sure reading XML is a problem at all - python has good
libs for this already.
Reading XML files is easy, but it makes certain codepaths much much slower.
Not a good
Santiago M. Mola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:07 AM, Jim Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not just bump the filename suffix when it is required to
support a new EAPI that breaks the sourcing rules of previous EAPIs?
Or will backwards-incompatible changes be
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:33:34 +0200
Tiziano Müller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another ugly solution: Having the EAPI on a per-package (like
$portagedir/cat/package-1) or per-tree basis
($portagedir/profiles/eapi) and start providing our tree as overlays
of more than one tree (will end up in a
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Another ugly solution: Having the EAPI on a per-package (like
$portagedir/cat/package-1) or per-tree basis ($portagedir/profiles/eapi)
I like the per tree basis and I already asked about that (since makes
things clearer and older portage can be tricked by rsync.
lu
--
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Kills the upgrade path completely. No good.
Not really, you change the rsync paths and older portage will pick a
repo that just has the necessary to upgrade to the next portage.
This kind of things would work better using an scm supporting branches
and tags a bit
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:40:35 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Kills the upgrade path completely. No good.
Not really, you change the rsync paths and older portage will pick a
repo that just has the necessary to upgrade to the next portage.
This kind of
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
Kills the upgrade path completely. No good.
Lemme sum this up in layman's terms :
1) EAPI _has_ to be known before sourcing an ebuild. There's no way to
avoid that for various reasons, all 100% valid.
2) Putting the EAPI in the filename :
+ it solves 1)
+ it
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Joe Peterson wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
And a file extension is far less obscurely complex than enforcing
arbitrary syntax restrictions upon ebuilds.
I disagree. One is exposed to devs only as ebuild syntax; the other is
exposed in an inappropriate location to
On 10 Jun 2008, at 12:30, Rémi Cardona wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
picard_facepalm.jpg
I don't think any of us are completely thrilled by either proposals,
but the EAPI-in-a-separate-file does have the potential for more
flexibility, ie package-wide EAPI.
And it does keep
Rémi Cardona wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
picard_facepalm.jpg
I don't think any of us are completely thrilled by either proposals, but
the EAPI-in-a-separate-file does have the potential for more
flexibility, ie package-wide EAPI.
And it does keep filenames simple enough.
+1
Luca Barbato wrote:
Check if exists a line EAPI=*$, if does and the rest of the string
matches an understood eapi, go on sourcing, otherwise ignore/mask it...
And placing it out-of-band (like # EAPI=...) avoids any sourcing
errors, makes parsing faster, etc.
-Joe
--
On 10 Jun 2008, at 15:33, Joe Peterson wrote:
Luca Barbato wrote:
Check if exists a line EAPI=*$, if does and the rest of the string
matches an understood eapi, go on sourcing, otherwise ignore/mask
it...
And placing it out-of-band (like # EAPI=...) avoids any sourcing
errors, makes
Rémi Cardona wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
Kills the upgrade path completely. No good.
Lemme sum this up in layman's terms :
1) EAPI _has_ to be known before sourcing an ebuild. There's no way to
avoid that for various reasons, all 100% valid.
2) Putting the EAPI in the filename :
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
No, it doesn't make parsing faster. Had you bothered to profile any
package manager you'd know that.
Do you have any number to share?
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
On 10 Jun 2008, at 15:33, Joe Peterson wrote:
Luca Barbato wrote:
Check if exists a line EAPI=*$, if does and the rest of the string
matches an understood eapi, go on sourcing, otherwise ignore/mask
it...
And placing it out-of-band (like # EAPI=...) avoids any
On 10 Jun 2008, at 15:46, Joe Peterson wrote:
Also, I'm not sure reading XML is a problem at all - python has good
libs for this already.
Reading XML files is easy, but it makes certain codepaths much much
slower. Not a good 'feature'.
- ferdy
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Rémi Cardona wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
Kills the upgrade path completely. No good.
Lemme sum this up in layman's terms :
1) EAPI _has_ to be known before sourcing an ebuild. There's no way to
avoid that for various reasons, all 100% valid.
2) Putting the EAPI in the filename :
+
On 10 Jun 2008, at 15:48, Luca Barbato wrote:
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
No, it doesn't make parsing faster. Had you bothered to profile any
package manager you'd know that.
Do you have any number to share?
What number are you interested in?
- ferdy
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Joe Peterson wrote:
No, I have not profiled PMs to try this, but you are saying that reading
the first few lines of a file is not faster than sourcing the whole
thing with bash? Remember that it could abort the minute it sees a non
'#' or blank line, which would be after the first few.
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:49:31 -0600
Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it doesn't make parsing faster. Had you bothered to profile
any package manager you'd know that.
No, I have not profiled PMs to try this, but you are saying that
reading the first few lines of a file is not faster
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:49:04 -0400
Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4) Putting EAPI inside the ebuild, but in a manner that does not
require sourcing using bash (ie comment at top of file).
+ it solves 1)
+ it keeps pretty file names
+ syntax/implementation is trivial
- it breaks
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:56:18 -0400
Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joe Peterson wrote:
No, I have not profiled PMs to try this, but you are saying that
reading the first few lines of a file is not faster than sourcing
the whole thing with bash? Remember that it could abort the
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
- it doubles the number of file reads necessary during resolution.
The first read will cause the file to be cached for subsequent reads
anyway, so the performance hit boils down to an additional read() call
(which
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I don't think that filename-vs-first-line is going to make a big
difference in practical performance.
It's about a factor of five difference in cold-cache resolution
performance for Paludis.
Could you please
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
On 10 Jun 2008, at 15:48, Luca Barbato wrote:
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
No, it doesn't make parsing faster. *Had you bothered to profile any
package manager you'd know that.*
Do you have any number to share?
What number are you interested in?
Profiling
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
The package manager does not currently source the whole thing with
bash to get the EAPI, nor does it open the ebuild file at all for
metadata. You're talking doubling the number of file operations here,
and going from extremely good filesystem locality (which means very
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:11:49 +0200
Rémi Cardona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
The package manager does not currently source the whole thing with
bash to get the EAPI, nor does it open the ebuild file at all for
metadata. You're talking doubling the number of file
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:54:33 +0530
Arun Raghavan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, most file systems have a local structure for this data (= block
group), so it's not going to be a seek that's very far. Secondly, how
many ebuilds do you need to read directly to get this data in a
typical case?
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
No no. Doing the seek to open a file in a different directory and then
seeking back to your original directory over and over when otherwise
you'd be doing nice linear opens on adjacent inodes in a single
directory is where the performance hit is.
Paludis is pretty much
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:40:22 +0530
Arun Raghavan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I don't think that filename-vs-first-line is going to make a big
difference in practical performance.
It's about a factor of five
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The first read will cause the file to be cached for subsequent reads
anyway, so the performance hit boils down to an additional read() call
(which will probably be buffered by your file I/O library anyway, so
it's
On 10 Jun 2008, at 16:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:38:52 +0530
Arun Raghavan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
- it doubles the number of file reads necessary during resolution.
The first read will
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:40:22 +0530
Arun Raghavan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I don't think that filename-vs-first-line is going to make a big
difference in practical performance.
It's about a
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:08:21 -0400
Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm curious as to what operation in particular we're looking at.
Let's say I type in paludis --sync:
paludis --sync doesn't use metadata.
Next, suppose I type in paludis -pi world:
If it's straight after a --sync,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| No, it results in a new open() on a file that's elsewhere on disk, which
| results in two new seeks. You get about fifty seeks per second.
The speed issues aren't really a concern, since the GLEP suggests that
the ebuild
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:01:00PM +0200, Rémi Cardona wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
Kills the upgrade path completely. No good.
Lemme sum this up in layman's terms :
1) EAPI _has_ to be known before sourcing an ebuild. There's no way to
avoid that for various reasons, all 100% valid.
Olivier Galibert a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:01:00PM +0200, Rémi Cardona wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
Kills the upgrade path completely. No good.
Lemme sum this up in layman's terms :
1) EAPI _has_ to be known before sourcing an ebuild. There's no way to
avoid that for various
Joe Peterson ha scritto:
It was mentioned that comments are to be ignored, but you point out a
perfect and very fundamental example of where this is not true:
#!/usr/bin/env bash
Putting another line close to this one with:
#EAPI=42
or
#!EAPI=42
if you like (conforms more to the shell
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Federico Ferri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The so-called shebang; very good in my opinion!
Works very well for true shell scripts. why it can't work for ebuilds?
This option was already discussed when GLEP 55 was proposed, and in my
opinion it's totally
Santiago M. Mola wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Federico Ferri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The so-called shebang; very good in my opinion!
Works very well for true shell scripts. why it can't work for ebuilds?
This option was already discussed when GLEP 55 was proposed, and in my
Richard Freeman wrote:
On the other hand, this is a big change from the present, and I'm not
convinced that it will actually be a big improvement over some of the
other EAPI ideas being floated around. However, it is a
potentially-neat idea...
Rich, interesting thoughts! But yeah, I
On 2008/06/10, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently we don't touch the ebuild's content *at all* for metadata
operations, except where there's no or stale metadata cache (which is
rare). We can get away with this currently because 0 and 1 have
identical cache layouts and PMS has
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:36:01 +0200
Thomas de Grenier de Latour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or you apply to future EAPI's cache formats one of the solutions that
have been proposed for the ebuild side of the very same chicken / egg
problem: for instance, you could use $EAPI as cache filename
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:14:11 +0200
Olivier Galibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 03:02:28PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Except that currently, the ebuild file isn't opened for read. So
it's not in memory at all.
Why would you need the EAPI before the time when you
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Why would you need the EAPI before the time when you actually want to
interpret the contents?
You need the EAPI before you use the metadata. But you don't need the
ebuild to get the metadata in the common case.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:52:17 +0530
Arun Raghavan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Why would you need the EAPI before the time when you actually want
to interpret the contents?
You need the EAPI before you use the
67 matches
Mail list logo
