Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman-global.txt, repositories.xml, layman, overlays.gentoo.org
Am Montag, den 28.09.2009, 20:23 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Pipping: repositories.xml = repo name=sping quality=experimental status=unofficial descriptionGentoo overlay of Sebastian Pipping/description homepagehttp://git.goodpoint.de/?p=overlay-sping.git/homepage owner type=person emailsebast...@pipping.org/email nameSebastian Pipping/name /owner source type=gitgit://git.goodpoint.de/overlay-sping.git/source feedhttp://git.goodpoint.de/?p=overlay-sping.git.git;a=atom/feed /repo = What is the reason that name is an attribute? While quality, status and type have a distinct set of allowed values, name doesn't and I'd therefore set it as an element instead. How about adding an attribute lang to description to be able to give descriptions in different languages? Cheers, Tiziano -- Tiziano Müller Gentoo Linux Developer Areas of responsibility: Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor E-Mail : dev-z...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5 4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30 signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman-global.txt, repositories.xml, layman, overlays.gentoo.org
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:23:34 +0200 Sebastian Pipping webmas...@hartwork.org wrote: Now please ask questions and let us know what you think. Here's an alternative idea: * Move the repository information into the overlays themselves. Require overlays to provide a file containing the description, homepage, owner information etc. * After a certain amount of time, switch new versions of layman to use a new file that's generated from these. Any overlay that doesn't contain such a file is clearly unmaintained and should no longer be supported. * Also use this opportunity to clean up the repo_name vs layman name mess: any repository that gets it wrong should not be included in the new layman file. Sounds like a perfect opportunity to make sure that everything in layman's still actively maintained and developed. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman-global.txt, repositories.xml, layman, overlays.gentoo.org
Tiziano Müller wrote: Am Montag, den 28.09.2009, 20:23 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Pipping: repositories.xml = repo name=sping quality=experimental status=unofficial descriptionGentoo overlay of Sebastian Pipping/description homepagehttp://git.goodpoint.de/?p=overlay-sping.git/homepage owner type=person emailsebast...@pipping.org/email nameSebastian Pipping/name /owner source type=gitgit://git.goodpoint.de/overlay-sping.git/source feedhttp://git.goodpoint.de/?p=overlay-sping.git.git;a=atom/feed /repo = What is the reason that name is an attribute? While quality, status and type have a distinct set of allowed values, name doesn't and I'd therefore set it as an element instead. I don't see value in that change and I like name as it is. How about adding an attribute lang to description to be able to give descriptions in different languages? Done. http://git.goodpoint.de/?p=overlays-xml-specification.git;a=commitdiff;h=f7d068d772aa9961338f78d4b91b4783f43ff40f Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman-global.txt, repositories.xml, layman, overlays.gentoo.org
On 30-09-2009 17:36:47 +0200, Sebastian Pipping wrote: Tiziano Müller wrote: Am Montag, den 28.09.2009, 20:23 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Pipping: repositories.xml = repo name=sping quality=experimental status=unofficial descriptionGentoo overlay of Sebastian Pipping/description homepagehttp://git.goodpoint.de/?p=overlay-sping.git/homepage owner type=person emailsebast...@pipping.org/email nameSebastian Pipping/name /owner source type=gitgit://git.goodpoint.de/overlay-sping.git/source feedhttp://git.goodpoint.de/?p=overlay-sping.git.git;a=atom/feed /repo = What is the reason that name is an attribute? While quality, status and type have a distinct set of allowed values, name doesn't and I'd therefore set it as an element instead. I don't see value in that change and I like name as it is. Point remains that it looks in-consistant, for repo, name is an attribute, while for owner it is a sub-element. Why having attributes in the first place anyway? It's XML, so it may be extremely annoying to parse/use. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman-global.txt, repositories.xml, layman, overlays.gentoo.org
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:23:34 +0200 Sebastian Pipping webmas...@hartwork.org wrote: Now please ask questions and let us know what you think. Here's an alternative idea: * Move the repository information into the overlays themselves. Require overlays to provide a file containing the description, homepage, owner information etc. I have created another script yesterday that can auto-merge information from gitosis.conf into repositories.xml. With that script in a Git hook setting up new Git-based Gentoo-hosted overlays requires changes at only an single place and propagates to repositories.xml and layman-global.txt. (The only extension needed to make it work is adding a line gentoo-is-overlay = True to Git repos that are overlays in gitosis.conf. The gentoo- prefix is meant as a namespace and gitosis upstream confirmed that this works without interfering with gitosis itself.) At the moment moving overlay meta info into the overlays does not seem like a good idea to. It would mean that any script working with overlays needs to check the repo out to get to that data. That doesn't sound like fun to me. Sounds like a perfect opportunity to make sure that everything in layman's still actively maintained and developed. Let me second that. Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman-global.txt, repositories.xml, layman, overlays.gentoo.org
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:51:02 +0200 Sebastian Pipping webmas...@hartwork.org wrote: At the moment moving overlay meta info into the overlays does not seem like a good idea to. It would mean that any script working with overlays needs to check the repo out to get to that data. That doesn't sound like fun to me. No, you can copy the data into your master file. It's just that the original source of the data would be the repository, not the person adding the repository to the list. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman-global.txt, repositories.xml, layman, overlays.gentoo.org
Fabian Groffen wrote: Point remains that it looks in-consistant, for repo, name is an attribute, while for owner it is a sub-element. Why having attributes in the first place anyway? It's closer to the original layman-global.txt which also makes the converter scripts simpler (and faster) than the element approach. I think it's just right. It's XML, so it may be extremely annoying to parse/use. Please elaborate on that. Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman-global.txt, repositories.xml, layman, overlays.gentoo.org
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:51:02 +0200 Sebastian Pipping webmas...@hartwork.org wrote: At the moment moving overlay meta info into the overlays does not seem like a good idea to. It would mean that any script working with overlays needs to check the repo out to get to that data. That doesn't sound like fun to me. No, you can copy the data into your master file. It's just that the original source of the data would be the repository, not the person adding the repository to the list. If it can change, it needs to be kept in sync. I really don't think it belongs in there. Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman-global.txt, repositories.xml, layman, overlays.gentoo.org
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:00:13 +0200 Sebastian Pipping webmas...@hartwork.org wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:51:02 +0200 Sebastian Pipping webmas...@hartwork.org wrote: At the moment moving overlay meta info into the overlays does not seem like a good idea to. It would mean that any script working with overlays needs to check the repo out to get to that data. That doesn't sound like fun to me. No, you can copy the data into your master file. It's just that the original source of the data would be the repository, not the person adding the repository to the list. If it can change, it needs to be kept in sync. I really don't think it belongs in there. Sure. Just periodically fetch the repository centrally. Have a master list of sync URLs with expected repository names, and use that to generate the full master list that includes metadata. Added bonus: you can quickly remove any repository that no longer exists. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Add operator + for licenses (EAPI-4 ?)
Zac Medico wrote: I propose support for license groups in ebuilds then, I guess. That seems like a reasonable solution. So, an ebuild can do something like LICENSE=@GPL-2+ and that will expand to whatever the definition of the GPL-2+ license group happens to be. When a new version of GPL license comes out, we simple add it to that group, and none of the corresponding ebuilds have to be updated. I made a bug from that so it doesn't get lost. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=287192 Sebastian
