[gentoo-dev] RFC: storing predefined INSTALL_MASK directory lists in repos
Hello, all. Some time ago I wrote a small tool called install-mask. As the name suggests, it was intended to help with manipulating INSTALL_MASK. I think that its most important feature was ability to use pre-defined mask lists to easily mask unwanted directories without getting into the details. For example, you could do: install-mask -a systemd and it masked all directories related to systemd that were safe to be masked. The original solution had a few weak points, however, and since it was an external tool it didn't help most of the Gentoo users. For this reason, I wanted to implement the necessary bits in portage itself. Now kensington reminded me of it and offered to work on it, so I'd like to revive the topic. What we need is an agreement where to put the 'mask lists'. That is, we need a mapping of pre-defined keys to descriptions lists of paths. I have two ideas. IDEA ONE I'm thinking of doing something similar to USE_EXPAND. That is, a structure like: - a top-level install-mask.desc that keeps mapping of keys to descriptions, - install-mask directory where each file name matches the install-mask key and file contents list all the paths. For example: install-mask.desc: bash-completion: app-shells/bash completions systemd: sys-apps/systemd unit files and auxiliary files install-mask/bash-completion: /usr/share/bash-completion install-mask/systemd: /usr/lib/systemd/system /usr/lib/systemd/user IDEA TWO A single file with ini-like syntax (alike layout.conf) that holds all the info. Such file can be found already in $PORTDIR/app-portage/install-mask/files/location-db.conf: Example contents: [systemd] path=/usr/lib/systemd/system path=/usr/lib/systemd/user description=systemd unit and auxiliary files. [bash-completion] path=/usr/share/bash-completion In both cases, the keys could be put into INSTALL_MASK in make.conf: INSTALL_MASK=systemd bash-completion What are your thoughts? -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: storing predefined INSTALL_MASK directory lists in repos
Michał Górny wrote: INSTALL_MASK=systemd bash-completion What are your thoughts? It seems like this will generally duplicate all -USE flags. Would it make sense to instead have a single setting which changes the meaning of USE to be that everything not USEd is install-masked? Rather than adding another distinct step into the pipeline, perhaps the trigger for doing the filtering can instead be integrated with an existing mechanism, to optimize for low complexity and high reuse? //Peter pgpCDs45sOpxc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: storing predefined INSTALL_MASK directory lists in repos
I've got an additional proposal: It would be interesting if this feature could also make use of the LINGUAS var for selectively filtering /usr/share/man and and /usr/share/locale, as most ebuilds don't respect this variable natively. -- Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de GPG fpr: F08D 2AF6 655E 25DE 52BC E53D 08F5 7F90 3029 B5BD signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: storing predefined INSTALL_MASK directory lists in repos
Dnia 2014-01-11, o godz. 16:56:37 Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de napisał(a): I've got an additional proposal: It would be interesting if this feature could also make use of the LINGUAS var for selectively filtering /usr/share/man and and /usr/share/locale, as most ebuilds don't respect this variable natively. That's a side goal. I was thinking of something like: INSTALL_MASK=linguas -linguas_XX that would remove all linguas except for language XX. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: storing predefined INSTALL_MASK directory lists in repos
On 11/01/2014 18:01, Michał Górny wrote: Dnia 2014-01-11, o godz. 16:56:37 Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de napisał(a): I've got an additional proposal: It would be interesting if this feature could also make use of the LINGUAS var for selectively filtering /usr/share/man and and /usr/share/locale, as most ebuilds don't respect this variable natively. That's a side goal. I was thinking of something like: INSTALL_MASK=linguas -linguas_XX that would remove all linguas except for language XX. That is similar to USE=nosomething with all the attendant user support problems it brings. A far better method from a user point of view is to install the linguas the user explicitly asked for. Your proposal as worded will be taken at first glance to mean install all linguas, but not XX as most users won't see the MASK portion and forget to flip the logic around in their head. How much work is it to get native support for LINGUAS into all ebuilds? That would be the intuitive place considering there is already USE flags for LINGUAS. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: storing predefined INSTALL_MASK directory lists in repos
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 17:01:34 +0100 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: That's a side goal. I was thinking of something like: INSTALL_MASK=linguas -linguas_XX that would remove all linguas except for language XX. That would be enough for me. A bit of a duplication of information, but if it eases the implementation, that shouldn't be much of a problem. But imho it'd be nice if this approach didn't require a separate config entry for each language (that'd be 233 entries). -- Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de GPG fpr: F08D 2AF6 655E 25DE 52BC E53D 08F5 7F90 3029 B5BD signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: storing predefined INSTALL_MASK directory lists in repos
Dnia 2014-01-11, o godz. 17:21:46 Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de napisał(a): On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 17:01:34 +0100 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: That's a side goal. I was thinking of something like: INSTALL_MASK=linguas -linguas_XX that would remove all linguas except for language XX. That would be enough for me. A bit of a duplication of information, but if it eases the implementation, that shouldn't be much of a problem. But imho it'd be nice if this approach didn't require a separate config entry for each language (that'd be 233 entries). I agree. But I think it's cleaner to have 233 extra files than third special case there :). OTOH, we could just make portage use LINGUAS to create implicit INSTALL_MASK using directory paths. That wouldn't actually require any magic in INSTALL_MASK itself. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: storing predefined INSTALL_MASK directory lists in repos
Dnia 2014-01-11, o godz. 18:15:09 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com napisał(a): A far better method from a user point of view is to install the linguas the user explicitly asked for. Your proposal as worded will be taken at first glance to mean install all linguas, but not XX as most users won't see the MASK portion and forget to flip the logic around in their head. As said on the other mail, I think we could just make portage implicitly convert LINGUAS into INSTALL_MASK. That is, use the old variable and give it a bit of new behavior. How much work is it to get native support for LINGUAS into all ebuilds? That would be the intuitive place considering there is already USE flags for LINGUAS. Honestly? I'm all limbs against LINGUAS in its current form. It's just extra dumb. We have basically two cases: 1. packages that make LINGUAS into USE flags and use them to control l10n. It's just useless extra work and extra rebuilds for locale change. 2. packages that respect LINGUAS implicitly. That is, install only some of the files silently and you don't even know which were enabled. install-mask provides a clean framework to strip linguas with binpackage friendliness potential. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: storing predefined INSTALL_MASK directory lists in repos
On 11/01/2014 18:52, Michał Górny wrote: Dnia 2014-01-11, o godz. 18:15:09 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com napisał(a): A far better method from a user point of view is to install the linguas the user explicitly asked for. Your proposal as worded will be taken at first glance to mean install all linguas, but not XX as most users won't see the MASK portion and forget to flip the logic around in their head. As said on the other mail, I think we could just make portage implicitly convert LINGUAS into INSTALL_MASK. That is, use the old variable and give it a bit of new behavior. Do you mean retain LINGUAS in make.conf and remove it from emerge -p output? I don't know much about how LINGUAS works behind the scenes, but you seem to be proposing a scheme that works something like this: 1. User specifics what LINGUAS they want in make.conf 2. Portage magically and invisibly installs files only for that LINGUA That seems a good approach, it unclutters emerge -p output [the amount of clutter that causes, together with APACHE2_MODULES, CAMERAS, PHP_MODULES etc is quite unbelievable] and gives the user what they asked for. If you hide the negative logic in the implementation that is double bonus How much work is it to get native support for LINGUAS into all ebuilds? That would be the intuitive place considering there is already USE flags for LINGUAS. Honestly? I'm all limbs against LINGUAS in its current form. It's just extra dumb. We have basically two cases: 1. packages that make LINGUAS into USE flags and use them to control l10n. It's just useless extra work and extra rebuilds for locale change. 2. packages that respect LINGUAS implicitly. That is, install only some of the files silently and you don't even know which were enabled. install-mask provides a clean framework to strip linguas with binpackage friendliness potential. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: storing predefined INSTALL_MASK directory lists in repos
Dnia 2014-01-11, o godz. 19:11:21 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com napisał(a): On 11/01/2014 18:52, Michał Górny wrote: Dnia 2014-01-11, o godz. 18:15:09 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com napisał(a): A far better method from a user point of view is to install the linguas the user explicitly asked for. Your proposal as worded will be taken at first glance to mean install all linguas, but not XX as most users won't see the MASK portion and forget to flip the logic around in their head. As said on the other mail, I think we could just make portage implicitly convert LINGUAS into INSTALL_MASK. That is, use the old variable and give it a bit of new behavior. Do you mean retain LINGUAS in make.conf and remove it from emerge -p output? Yes, and no. Packages that explicitly use LINGUAS will still use it as USE flags. However, other packages will get the stripping implicitly. I don't know much about how LINGUAS works behind the scenes, but you seem to be proposing a scheme that works something like this: 1. User specifics what LINGUAS they want in make.conf 2. Portage magically and invisibly installs files only for that LINGUA Well, currently build system often invisibly strips LINGUAS. But this sucks since we don't know if it did it or not afterwards. if portage stripped them, portage will have all the details. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
