Re: [gentoo-dev] Package up for grabs: >=app-emulation/docker-compose-2.0.0 (1.x.x was Python, 2.0.0 is Go)

[William Hubbs]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:52:52AM +0200, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> docker-compose upstream has apparently re-written docker-compose in
> Golang from scratch.  While I'm happy to keep maintaining the current
> python-based  someone to take over Go packaging of docker-compose >=2.0.0 in Gentoo.
> Thanks in advance!

I'll take this; I'm also co-maintaining the docker/runc/containerd
stack.

Thanks,

William


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidance on adding kernel config checks to ebuilds

[Francesco Riosa]

Il giorno lun 27 set 2021 alle ore 18:11 Mike Gilbert 
ha scritto:

> I'm looking to solicit opinions on when it is appropriate for an
> ebuild to check for kernel config options using linux-info.eclass. I
> don't think we have any guidelines documented, instead leaving it up
> to the "common sense" of package maintainers.
>
> 

After so many tentatives to fix the kernel checks in these years (almost
all of which had drawbacks or missed some extreme corner case) it's
probably better to give to the user instruments to do ihs own checks rather
than trying to be smart.

An example of how this could work follow:
A file (or directory) is created in /etc/ that contains a list of
,,
Then the user is responsible to check that list against the wanna be
running kernel

This save probably both computational and human time

state_required - should be well thought out since it can be required
present, absent or maybe even suggested

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Portage einfo, elog... output format change

[Fabian Groffen]

On 30-09-2021 08:44:33 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-09-30 at 08:40 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Would it be possible to have some switch (e.g. --style=legacy) that
> > controls this new vs. the old behaviour?  Would perhaps allow
> > applications that parse the output to work via setting this in the
> > global opts.
> 
> Patches welcome.  It shouldn't be hard, my commit shows which files need
> to be edited to alter the prefixes and how to pass them into ebd.

I see.

> > In addition, much like the colour map, how do you see this change in
> > light of eclasses, init-scripts, etc. that also use the same scheme as
> > Portage at the moment?  Would you expect to change those too at some
> > point?
> 
> Eclasses are supposed to use standard einfo, elog... functions, so they
> should just work™.  If someone's reinventing the wheel, it's not my
> problem.
> 
> Init scripts aren't supposed to be used inside the PM, so that's out of
> scope.

I was just referring to the overall "feel" of Gentoo, which your work
changes.  It is ok that you don't plan on doing anything there.

> > Final question, am I understanding correctly that normal lines are not
> > prefixed with something?  Would it be, for consistency, alignment, and
> > certainty of selecting rows something to use a prefix for those lines
> > too (assuming they aren't at this point)?
> 
> I don't know, we've never done that.  I suppose it would be possible but
> it is even more controversial and unlike the proposed changes, it would
> actually require mangling the process output.

If I remember correctly, Portage already does.  In which case, doing
this (even if it were adding leading spaces) would not be that much
work?

Thanks,
Fabian

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature