Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On Dec 11, 2007 1:14 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course this could be extended to apply only to branch ebuilds > without a version number (where you know when the branch will be > merged), etc. s/you know/you don't know/ -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On Dec 10, 2007 8:44 PM, Robert Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That would still mean everything relies on n ebuilds with mutual blocks. > Even if that would work and it block upgrades, it is still not a > solution in terms of how to display a list of ebuilds in one tree in an > ordered list. The mutual blocks can be via the very nature of the name of the ebuild (ie, the scm_bbranch), and not via unmaintainable dep blocks in the ebuilds. This could be similar to the way SLOTS are handled. In fact, as Donnie and Santiago discussed in the other "branch string" thread, the concept of SLOTS could be extended to branches with no concept of an "upgrade" between them, and them being mutually blocking and perhaps blocking the actual package as well. Of course this could be extended to apply only to branch ebuilds without a version number (where you know when the branch will be merged), etc. > You are right. But this just shows that named feature branches do not > fit the context of this GLEP, as you usually cannot know when a feature > will be merged at the time one version is branched. Completely removing the concept of an "upgrade" from (unversioned?) branch ebuilds and making them block all other versions of the package will give the task of knowing when a feature has been merged to the user itself. Which is after all what one does manually while working on branches. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On Monday, 10. December 2007, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2007 6:29 PM, Robert Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1) You cannot define a total order on those names:
> > Is
> >maa/moo-3-scm_bONECOOLFEATURE
> > <
> >maa/moo-3-scm_bOTHERCOOLFEATURE
> > ?
>
> Why not have them block each other such that only one branch can be
> installed at a time? There can be no concept of "upgrading" between
> branches since they all have different features.
That would still mean everything relies on n ebuilds with mutual blocks.
Even if that would work and it block upgrades, it is still not a
solution in terms of how to display a list of ebuilds in one tree in an
ordered list.
> > 2) It will break updating from the feature branch, once you
> > installed: sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3_p20071127-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1
> >
> > and
> > sys-devel/gcc-4.2.4
> >
> > comes out, it'll update to that, regardless of the inclusion of
> > ${BRANCHNAME}'s feature.
>
> Well, first off, most cases will assume that the branch has been
> merged by 4.2.4. Secondly, if the branch has not been merged, and is
> continuing independent of the releases, why give it a version number
> at all? Just call it sys-devel/gcc-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1
You are right. But this just shows that named feature branches do not
fit the context of this GLEP, as you usually cannot know when a feature
will be merged at the time one version is branched.
Regards,
Robert
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On Dec 10, 2007 6:29 PM, Robert Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) You cannot define a total order on those names:
> Is
>maa/moo-3-scm_bONECOOLFEATURE
> <
>maa/moo-3-scm_bOTHERCOOLFEATURE
> ?
Why not have them block each other such that only one branch can be
installed at a time? There can be no concept of "upgrading" between
branches since they all have different features.
> 2) It will break updating from the feature branch, once you installed:
> sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3_p20071127-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1
>
> and
> sys-devel/gcc-4.2.4
>
> comes out, it'll update to that, regardless of the inclusion of
> ${BRANCHNAME}'s feature.
Well, first off, most cases will assume that the branch has been
merged by 4.2.4. Secondly, if the branch has not been merged, and is
continuing independent of the releases, why give it a version number
at all? Just call it sys-devel/gcc-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1
--
~Nirbheek Chauhan
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On Monday, 10. December 2007, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> Why not just have something like
> sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3_p20071127-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1 ?
1) You cannot define a total order on those names:
Is
maa/moo-3-scm_bONECOOLFEATURE
<
maa/moo-3-scm_bOTHERCOOLFEATURE
?
2) It will break updating from the feature branch, once you installed:
sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3_p20071127-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1
and
sys-devel/gcc-4.2.4
comes out, it'll update to that, regardless of the inclusion of
${BRANCHNAME}'s feature.
Regards,
Robert
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:36:04 -0800 "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 08:24:27AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > mypkg-scm > One devil's advocate question for now. > Regardless of which suffix we pick, given that it is a well-known > suffix, what will be the expected behavior when PN = 'foo-scm'? There isn't a problem. There is never any need to work out whether something is a cat/pkg or a cat/pkg-ver (things have been carefully designed that way -- in cases where either is valid, the -ver form always has an operator too, and all operators require a version). You'd simply have foo-scm-scm. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 08:24:27AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > mypkg-scm One devil's advocate question for now. Regardless of which suffix we pick, given that it is a well-known suffix, what will be the expected behavior when PN = 'foo-scm'? There's at least one package on Freshmeat with that name (vrml-scm), and I have seen another one elsewhere when researching Git conversion tools. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpQtTpDHsLLS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:26:21 -0800 "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's two cases of branches I see (irrelevant of the names used): > Major version branches - eg CVS "cvs-1.11.x" and "cvs-1.12.x" > (those are the actual upstream branch names, I've seen other packages > using the branch names of 'STABLE', 'OLDSTABLE', 'FEATURE'). Right. These map to cvs-1.11-scm and cvs-1.12-scm (or you can use cvs-scm to point to whatever the newest branch is -- whichever is more convenient). > Feature-development branches - short-lived branches for the > development of a specific feature - eg the 'atombios-support' branch > of the xorg-video-ati driver (Heavily used in Git repos, where they > are deleted on completion). And these aren't considered by the proposal. The rationale is as follows: If a branch is short lived (your typical git branch), there's no point having an ebuild for it. If it's long lived, we get into the whole "which features have been merged into which branch?" mess that can't be solved by something as simple as version suffixes. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 07:18:26AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:31:46 -0800
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 18:57 Sun 09 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:45:27 +0100
> > > Jan Kundr??t <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > What is the point of using version information along the scm
> > > > suffix?
> > >
> > > Branches.
> >
> > How would I handle branches that aren't numbers but are instead
> > strings, which seems to grow increasingly more common as VCSs can
> > handle it? Just give them arbitrary numbers?
> Feature as opposed to release branches would still have to be separate
> packages, especially if you need to depend upon a particular feature.
What I've got for my Xorg testing setup, is foo--rX, with a number
of different -X values that I just select from via package.{un,}mask
while testing - this saves altering everything else in the tree to pick
some package that has a different name just to satisfy a branch (which
also requires lots of ${MY_PN} mockery for some packages.
You'd also need to put '!cat/pn-feat' in the base cat/pn package and
vice-versa.
Are SCM packages that heavily used that we need to support multiple
branches with dependencies between them?
There's two cases of branches I see (irrelevant of the names used):
Major version branches - eg CVS "cvs-1.11.x" and "cvs-1.12.x"
(those are the actual upstream branch names, I've seen other packages
using the branch names of 'STABLE', 'OLDSTABLE', 'FEATURE').
Feature-development branches - short-lived branches for the
development of a specific feature - eg the 'atombios-support' branch of
the xorg-video-ati driver (Heavily used in Git repos, where they are
deleted on completion).
Any more styles of branches that other folk have seen?
--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy
E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
pgpRWwimfpujm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:14:56 +0530
"Nirbheek Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2007 12:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Feature as opposed to release branches would still have to be
> > separate packages, especially if you need to depend upon a
> > particular feature.
>
> I don't understand how having to depend on a particular feature causes
> one to need a separate package.
Because depending on a particular feature is a whole different kettle
of fish to having a sane alternative to - or -cvs packages.
> Why not just have something like
> sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3_p20071127-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1 ?
Because it breaks deps. Simplest example: if I
block !=sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3* because of a bug (and gcc isn't an ideal
example here), I'm also blocking branches that don't have said bug.
When this is extended with long-lasting feature branches the situation
gets very very messy.
> Also, releases are often tagged rather than being branched out, which
> would have to be kept in mind as well.
No, for releases you follow the normal version mechanism.
Incidentally, I suspect the gcc example with _p is confusing people. The
normal use for an -scm suffix will be as follows:
mypkg-1.2.3
mypkg-1.2.4
mypkg-scm
Where -scm is a live ebuild that's been package.masked. However, some
packages have several active branches, so you'd get:
mypkg-1.2.3
mypkg-1.2.4
mypkg-1-scm
mypkg-2.0.1
mypkg-scm
Where -1-scm is a live ebuild for branches/1/ and -scm is a live ebuild
for trunk/. In particular, observe how 1-scm is < 2.0.1.
The whole _p thing only comes up for those very rare (or possibly
non-existent) projects that have patchset branches that are themselves
live. I highly doubt that many people will make use of anything other
than -scm or -number(.number)-scm. There's no reason to shove an -scm
suffix onto a package made from a static tarball, and the -scm suffix
does not replace existing mechanisms for indicating snapshots.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On Dec 10, 2007 12:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Feature as opposed to release branches would still have to be separate
> packages, especially if you need to depend upon a particular feature.
I don't understand how having to depend on a particular feature causes
one to need a separate package. Infact, if a branch has a new feature
that I want to test against a lot of packages, having a separate
package means I have to either || ( sys-apps/package
sys-apps/package-branch ) for all packages that I want to test it
against, or make a virtual package sys-apps/package- which just
depends on sys-apps/package-branch. The former is too much work
sometimes, and the latter just brings us full circle.
Why not just have something like
sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3_p20071127-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1 ?
It should be easy to parse since it'll always be after "scm" and will
be the last portion of the version string before "-rN".
In case ${BRANCHNAME} itself ends in "-rN" (highly unlikely), the
entire version string could be made to end with "-r0" to signify that
it's revision 0 and not revision N.
Also, releases are often tagged rather than being branched out, which
would have to be kept in mind as well.
--
~Nirbheek Chauhan
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:31:46 -0800 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 18:57 Sun 09 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:45:27 +0100 > > Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What is the point of using version information along the scm > > > suffix? > > > > Branches. > > How would I handle branches that aren't numbers but are instead > strings, which seems to grow increasingly more common as VCSs can > handle it? Just give them arbitrary numbers? Feature as opposed to release branches would still have to be separate packages, especially if you need to depend upon a particular feature. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On 18:57 Sun 09 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:45:27 +0100 > Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What is the point of using version information along the scm suffix? > > Branches. How would I handle branches that aren't numbers but are instead strings, which seems to grow increasingly more common as VCSs can handle it? Just give them arbitrary numbers? Thanks, Donnie -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:45:27 +0100 Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is the point of using version information along the scm suffix? Branches. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
> Specification > = > > ``scm`` is a special suffix. It can be used on its own, but also in any other > valid version spec, just before the place where revision would go. And just > like > revision it can be used only once in a version spec, e.g.: > > * ``cat/pkg-1.0_alpha0-scm`` > * ``cat/pkg-1.0_alpha-scm`` > * ``cat/pkg-1.0-scm-r3`` > * ``cat/pkg-1-scm`` > * ``cat/pkg-1-scm-r2`` > * ``cat/pkg-scm`` > > These package atoms are sorted in ascending order (see `Version Comparison`_). What is the point of using version information along the scm suffix? From the logical POV, scm is a special decorator saying "this is a special tarball that can change in time and we don't know its version when parsing ebuild, we'd have to ask the repository". Surely I can think of uses for *revision* specification (as in "revision of the ebuild"), but why to support full version for scm packages? Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On Sunday 09 of December 2007 18:52:22 Petteri Räty wrote: > "Portage versions prior to 2.1.2.12 (included in 2007.0) doesn't handle > arbitrary > version suffixes" > > doesn't --> don't thanks, fixed. -- Best Regards, Piotr Jaroszyński -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
"Portage versions prior to 2.1.2.12 (included in 2007.0) doesn't handle arbitrary version suffixes" doesn't --> don't signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
On Sunday 09 of December 2007 17:18:08 Josh Sled wrote: > Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Current html version available here: > > http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0054.html > > Until reading the abstract, I thought this was Scheme related. > > I'd suggest "-vc" (version controlled) or "-vcs" instead. $ wtf vc vc: nothing appropriate $ wtf vcs vcs (4) - virtual console memory $ wtf scm SCM: software configuration management source code management scm wins :) -- Best Regards, Piotr Jaroszyński -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Current html version available here: > http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0054.html Until reading the abstract, I thought this was Scheme related. I'd suggest "-vc" (version controlled) or "-vcs" instead. (...not that it matters much, of course.) -- ...jsled http://asynchronous.org/ - a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpnfRvZpove4.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix
Hello, Attaching the GLEP source. Current html version available here: http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0054.html -- Best Regards, Piotr Jaroszyński GLEP: 54 Title: scm package version suffix Version: $Revision: $ Last-Modified: $Date: $ Author: Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Content-Type: text/x-rst Created: 09-Dec-2007 Post-History: 09-Dec-2007 Abstract This GLEP proposes addition of a new special package version suffix - ``scm`` - for ebuilds checking out source directly from a source code management system. Motivation == Currently there is no standard way of marking SCM ebuilds. Using as the version is pretty common, but it is handled like any other ebuild and hence portage cannot provide any additional features for packages with such a version. Another way is adding separate package with -cvs suffix in its name, but that forces to use ``|| ( cat/pkg cat/pkg-cvs )`` dependencies. The closest to what is proposed in this GLEP is the ``cvs`` version part, but its implementation is of very limited use. It has strange comparison rules, no documentation, has never been used in the tree and has a misleading name. The possibility for package managers to recognise SCM ebuilds would allow them to add features dedicated specially to said ebuilds. One such feature could be automatic re-installation of SCM packages once a day or week, but that's beyond this GLEP. Specification = ``scm`` is a special suffix. It can be used on its own, but also in any other valid version spec, just before the place where revision would go. And just like revision it can be used only once in a version spec, e.g.: * ``cat/pkg-1.0_alpha0-scm`` * ``cat/pkg-1.0_alpha-scm`` * ``cat/pkg-1.0-scm-r3`` * ``cat/pkg-1-scm`` * ``cat/pkg-1-scm-r2`` * ``cat/pkg-scm`` These package atoms are sorted in ascending order (see `Version Comparison`_). Version Comparison == The addition of the scm suffix yields changes in version comparison: * When comparing version components from left to right the scm component has the highest priority. * Current suffixes with no number part no longer default to zero if they are followed by an scm suffix. If that's the case the number part is considered to be of a maximum value. Hence ``1_alpha2-scm < 1_alpha-scm``, but still ``1_alpha == 1_alpha0``. Example parsing: * ``cat/pkg-scm > cat/pkg-1`` When parsing from left to right the first difference is ``scm`` and ``1``. ``cat/pkg-scm`` wins. * ``cat/pkg-1-scm > cat/pkg-1.0-scm`` When parsing from left to right the first difference is ``scm`` and ``0``. ``cat/pkg-1-scm`` wins. * ``cat/pkg-1_alpha-scm > cat/pkg-1_alpha1-scm`` In the first package version ``alpha`` doesn't have a number part *and* is followed by an ``scm`` suffix, hence it is considered to have a maximum value as the number part. When parsing from left to right the first difference is the number part of the ``alpha`` suffix. Maximum value yielded by the following ``scm`` suffix wins with ``1``. List of version specs in ascending order: * ``1`` * ``1.1-scm`` * ``1.2_alpha-scm`` * ``1.2_beta_p`` * ``1.2_beta_p0-scm`` * ``1.2_beta_p1-scm`` * ``1.2_beta_p-scm`` * ``1.2_beta1_p-scm`` * ``1.2_beta10`` * ``1.2_beta10_p1-scm`` * ``1.2_beta10-scm`` * ``1.2_beta-scm`` * ``1.2`` * ``1.2-scm`` * ``1.2-scm-r1`` * ``1-scm`` * ``10`` * ``scm`` * ``scm-r3`` Backwards Compatibility === Portage versions prior to 2.1.2.12 (included in 2007.0) doesn't handle arbitrary version suffixes and die during various tasks making portage hard or impossible to use. Later versions just ignore them displaying warnings. Hence use of ``scm`` suffixes in gentoo-x86 tree will probably have to wait till 2008.0 release or later. Copyright = This document has been placed in the public domain. .. vim: set tw=80 fileencoding=utf-8 spell spelllang=en et :
