Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: multiple inheritance support for profiles, Round 2
On Sat, 2006-10-07 at 23:19 -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote: Should we add multiple inheritance support now? The changes necessary to add this support are minimal and we can have this feature in portage-2.1.2 [3], which I estimate will be ready for a final release in approximately 3 to 5 weeks. Are you proposing just adding the support or creating the new profiles as well? If it's just the support, adding it into portage now certainly won't hurt anything (unless someone really fscks up the current single-parent cascaded profiles in the tree) and is probably a good idea. If you're talking about putting together the new profiles now as well, is it going to be a separate profile tree (much as default-linux/ was created for cascaded profiles)? Will it be directly under profiles/? default-linux/? I have a set of profiles already (to replace default-linux) that use default/linux as the base. It can live side-by-side with the current profiles quite easily. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: multiple inheritance support for profiles, Round 2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thanks for your feedback, everyone. I've gone ahead and enabled multiple inheritance in portage-2.1.2_pre2-r7. I would appreciate it if people would start experimenting with it (of course, please don't use multiple inheritance in the live tree in ways that will hurt users of the current single inheritance profiles). Zac -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFKqiW/ejvha5XGaMRAjl3AKCwhjRcXibtTsk0DANsusiBcbfJnwCg5btA ybwPzQvwyyXXafRic+Habyo= =8P/q -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: multiple inheritance support for profiles, Round 2
Zac Medico wrote: (of course, please don't use multiple inheritance in the live tree in ways that will hurt users of the current single inheritance profiles). If someone does, can we blame you? :) -- Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project Today's lesson in political correctness: Go asphyxiate on a phallus -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: multiple inheritance support for profiles, Round 2
Andrew Gaffney wrote: Zac Medico wrote: (of course, please don't use multiple inheritance in the live tree in ways that will hurt users of the current single inheritance profiles). If someone does, can we blame you? :) Don't blame the tool, blame the tool using the tool improperly. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: multiple inheritance support for profiles, Round 2
On Saturday 07 October 2006 23:04, Zac Medico wrote: Should we add multiple inheritance support now? yes -mike pgpJagfj7FpY3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: multiple inheritance support for profiles, Round 2
Hi Zac, On 10/8/06, Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm only proposing that we add support to portage now because it seems like it will be useful in the future. How and when people make use of this support does not concern me much. Zac I believe that multiple parent support would be useful for the Seeds project; it would allow the LAMP Developer Desktop (for example) to inherit from both the generic 2006.1/x86 profile and the LAMP Server profile. I'm not saying we'd definitely end up going that way, but it would be something worth testing when the time comes. Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: multiple inheritance support for profiles, Round 2
Am Sonntag, 8. Oktober 2006 12:05 schrieb Stuart Herbert: Hi Zac, On 10/8/06, Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm only proposing that we add support to portage now because it seems like it will be useful in the future. How and when people make use of this support does not concern me much. Zac I believe that multiple parent support would be useful for the Seeds project; it would allow the LAMP Developer Desktop (for example) to inherit from both the generic 2006.1/x86 profile and the LAMP Server profile. Well, once we have that support the structure of profiles will radically change. The following is also something I'd like to be done while i'm in council. This is why i asked Zac to send the RFC to gentoo-dev. Thanks Zac :-) I for one favour a more flattened profiles/ and a way to mark a profile as 'not standalone', similar to a deprecated file, that isn't inherited, to stop users biting their own asses. The following sample is not complete, but should give the right impressions. profiles +-obsolete, which contains the old cascaded profiles. Let's remove | the current obsolete/ contents. | +-default-linux, minimal default useflags here | | | +-linux-2.4, would be handy for x86 :-) amd64 has no supported 2.4 | kernel. | +-hardened, minimal default useflags here | +-default-bsd, minimal default useflags here | | | +fbsd, inherits default-bsd/ | +-base | | | +amd64, inherits base/ | +-releases | +-2006.1, does not inherit anything, stuff like nptl nptlonly here | +-amd64-linux, inherits default-linux/, base/amd64; standalone | +-amd64-hardened, inherits hardened, base/amd64; standalone | +-amd64-fbsd, inherits default-bsd/fbsd/, base/amd64; standalone This is a hot shot and I'm waiting for comments. Wolf? Agaffney? I'm prepared to do the work here and, as this new layout would take some time, it should be done in a seperate repository for the time being. The Seeds project could do something like this: +-Seeds | +-amd64-lamp, inherits releases/2006.1/amd64-hardened and adds lamp specific useflags/packages. But i lack knowledge here. Stuart? Danny -- Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: multiple inheritance support for profiles, Round 2
Danny van Dyk wrote: I for one favour a more flattened profiles/ and a way to mark a profile as 'not standalone', similar to a deprecated file, that isn't inherited, to stop users biting their own asses. The following sample is not complete, but should give the right impressions. By 'not standalone', I assume you mean this profile does not work by itself, and is only meant to be inherited by other profiles. If that's not what you meant, we also need something that does that :) profiles +-obsolete, which contains the old cascaded profiles. Let's remove | the current obsolete/ contents. Doing this will break portage for people who are using old cascaded profiles. Portage would freak out if there wasn't a profile where there was one before, and there wouldn't be a way to do a 'deprecated' file to tell them about the new ones. +-default-linux, minimal default useflags here | | | +-linux-2.4, would be handy for x86 :-) amd64 has no supported 2.4 | kernel. | +-hardened, minimal default useflags here | +-default-bsd, minimal default useflags here | | | +fbsd, inherits default-bsd/ | +-base | | | +amd64, inherits base/ | +-releases | +-2006.1, does not inherit anything, stuff like nptl nptlonly here | +-amd64-linux, inherits default-linux/, base/amd64; standalone | +-amd64-hardened, inherits hardened, base/amd64; standalone | +-amd64-fbsd, inherits default-bsd/fbsd/, base/amd64; standalone This is a hot shot and I'm waiting for comments. Wolf? Agaffney? I can't really comment on the structure, since I don't really do much with profiles myself (no gentoo-x86 commit access). I'm prepared to do the work here and, as this new layout would take some time, it should be done in a seperate repository for the time being. Not necessary. It can just be a separate directory tree under profiles/ much like default-linux/ was created for cascaded profiles originally, and they can all be marked as deprecated or something. -- Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project Today's lesson in political correctness: Go asphyxiate on a phallus -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] RFC: multiple inheritance support for profiles, Round 2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi everyone, Some of you may recall that I proposed the addition of multiple inheritance to profiles a couple of months ago [1]. The idea is to extend the parent file in profiles so that it supports any number of parents (one per line). Parents listed closer to the bottom of the file will have the ability to override the settings of those listed nearer the top of file. As of portage-2.1 (included in the 2006.1 release media), portage will automatically generate an error if it encounters multiple inheritance (earlier versions would simply ignore anything after the first parent). As long as users follow the profile updating instructions [2] and update portage prior to a profile update, they won't have any trouble. However, if a user has =portage-2.0* and fails to follow the upgrade instructions, portage may attempt to build and install packages without the entire profile being correctly parsed. Should we add multiple inheritance support now? The changes necessary to add this support are minimal and we can have this feature in portage-2.1.2 [3], which I estimate will be ready for a final release in approximately 3 to 5 weeks. Zac [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/41453 [2] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml#doc_chap3 [3] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147007 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFKGrV/ejvha5XGaMRAv1iAKDNhz4CxfonP3nexIlu+SyRPRjffgCeNA76 GKHMg+DTMzHwBq0PPX6kV/U= =DcWj -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: multiple inheritance support for profiles, Round 2
Zac Medico wrote: Some of you may recall that I proposed the addition of multiple inheritance to profiles a couple of months ago [1]. The idea is to extend the parent file in profiles so that it supports any number of parents (one per line). Parents listed closer to the bottom of the file will have the ability to override the settings of those listed nearer the top of file. As of portage-2.1 (included in the 2006.1 release media), portage will automatically generate an error if it encounters multiple inheritance (earlier versions would simply ignore anything after the first parent). As long as users follow the profile updating instructions [2] and update portage prior to a profile update, they won't have any trouble. However, if a user has =portage-2.0* and fails to follow the upgrade instructions, portage may attempt to build and install packages without the entire profile being correctly parsed. Should we add multiple inheritance support now? The changes necessary to add this support are minimal and we can have this feature in portage-2.1.2 [3], which I estimate will be ready for a final release in approximately 3 to 5 weeks. Are you proposing just adding the support or creating the new profiles as well? If it's just the support, adding it into portage now certainly won't hurt anything (unless someone really fscks up the current single-parent cascaded profiles in the tree) and is probably a good idea. If you're talking about putting together the new profiles now as well, is it going to be a separate profile tree (much as default-linux/ was created for cascaded profiles)? Will it be directly under profiles/? default-linux/? -- Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project Today's lesson in political correctness: Go asphyxiate on a phallus -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: multiple inheritance support for profiles, Round 2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andrew Gaffney wrote: Are you proposing just adding the support or creating the new profiles as well? If it's just the support, adding it into portage now certainly won't hurt anything (unless someone really fscks up the current single-parent cascaded profiles in the tree) and is probably a good idea. I'm only proposing that we add support to portage now because it seems like it will be useful in the future. How and when people make use of this support does not concern me much. Zac -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFKIE5/ejvha5XGaMRApbxAJ94JjcRroZFUcwwkWEDbNtw4J+fXQCeJGH0 KlPrgI4NoVJKSKMFnjKuQVA= =swdD -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
