Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: POSIX capability in Gentoo
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:29:29 -0700 Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 06:39:18PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400 Jonathan Callen a...@gentoo.org wrote: That statement needs one more qualification: and doesn't use portage. Portage will (by default) remove files on uninstall even if they *do not* match the checksum recorded in the vdb. This implies that most people will *not* see any issues due to something other than the package manager modifying the files behind the package manager's back. Ugh, seriously? When did that happen? That's a massive change to how VDB is supposed to work. That's been in place a long while; pkgcore has done it from day one also. That's not a massive change to vdb behaviour either; file collisions aren't supposed to occur, as such ownership of the file is basically guranteed back to a single package. Throw in CONFIG_PROTECT for adjusting the behaviour, and you have a far more preferable norm than lets just leave a shit ton of .pyc/.pyo on the fs. It is a massive change, since if the feature is there then people don't feel bad about writing lousy pkg_ functions that leave a load of .pyc / .pyo files all over the place. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: POSIX capability in Gentoo
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 12:34:21PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:29:29 -0700 Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote: That's not a massive change to vdb behaviour either; file collisions aren't supposed to occur, as such ownership of the file is basically guranteed back to a single package. Throw in CONFIG_PROTECT for adjusting the behaviour, and you have a far more preferable norm than lets just leave a shit ton of .pyc/.pyo on the fs. It is a massive change, since if the feature is there then people don't feel bad about writing lousy pkg_ functions that leave a load of .pyc / .pyo files all over the place. Quoting the good spec: The unmerge process removes an installed package's files. It is not covered in detail in this specification. Aka, ebuild's should be written to assume the files they install get wiped; there is *zero* mention of mtime, nor could any ebuild rely on it and be compliant. Background as to why we ever relied on mtime- it was a hack to work around a bad implementation in portage (treewalk function); it didn't actually know if it was replacing or what not, so mtime was what was relied on- afaik, that being the sole reason we shoved mtime into the vdb also. At least from the portage standpoint, shifting away from mtime reliance was on the radar since '05 and implemented at least initially by '06... exact date it was released from a stable branch I couldn't tell you, but it's been there a long while. ~brian
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: POSIX capability in Gentoo
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:26:56 -0700 Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote: Aka, ebuild's should be written to assume the files they install get wiped; there is *zero* mention of mtime, nor could any ebuild rely on it and be compliant. But as it's a FEATURE, they can't assume that at all. So either we spec VDB and the unmerge process, which gets horrible for all kinds of reasons, or ebuilds can't assume that things that have been modified get wiped. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: POSIX capability in Gentoo
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 10:28:51PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:26:56 -0700 Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote: Aka, ebuild's should be written to assume the files they install get wiped; there is *zero* mention of mtime, nor could any ebuild rely on it and be compliant. But as it's a FEATURE, they can't assume that at all. It's outside the ebuild's area of concern (think seperation of concerns), just the same as INSTALL_MASK. The ebuild, per spec, should be written to assume it's wiped. If the user overrides portages make.globals setting FEATURES=unmerge-orphans it is on the *users* head to maintain the fallout, just the same as if they go and set INSTALL_MASK to do something special. So either we spec VDB and the unmerge process, which gets horrible for all kinds of reasons, or ebuilds can't assume that things that have been modified get wiped. This is getting more into the sky is falling territory. If you'd like to tighten the spec, go nuts, but there isn't anything to see here nor is there a real issue. This really is no different than INSTALL_MASK. ~brian
[gentoo-dev] Re: POSIX capability in Gentoo
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:05:54 +0100 as excerpted: Because going behind the package mangler's back results in horribly screwed up systems (as anyone who's ever used lafilefixer will tell you...). Well, not anyone. I never had any problems with it. (YMMV, but soon enough, I switched to an installmask with an exception for libtool, then rebuilt the system. No *.la file worries since! =:^) (Observation: Unqualified any/all statements are rather like greedy .* regex handling, sometimes they include more than one might intend!) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: POSIX capability in Gentoo
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:11:28 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:05:54 +0100 as excerpted: Because going behind the package mangler's back results in horribly screwed up systems (as anyone who's ever used lafilefixer will tell you...). Well, not anyone. I never had any problems with it. You did, you just didn't notice it. You'll find out sooner or later when you get bitten by one of the will-never-be-uninstalled-now .la files that it modified on your system without updating VDB. (Observation: Unqualified any/all statements are rather like greedy .* regex handling, sometimes they include more than one might intend!) Well, if you prefer, anyone who's ever used lafilefixer and then either looked carefully at what happened or got hit by random nastiness later on. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: POSIX capability in Gentoo
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:11:28 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:05:54 +0100 as excerpted: Because going behind the package mangler's back results in horribly screwed up systems (as anyone who's ever used lafilefixer will tell you...). Well, not anyone. I never had any problems with it. You did, you just didn't notice it. You'll find out sooner or later when you get bitten by one of the will-never-be-uninstalled-now .la files that it modified on your system without updating VDB. (Observation: Unqualified any/all statements are rather like greedy .* regex handling, sometimes they include more than one might intend!) Well, if you prefer, anyone who's ever used lafilefixer and then either looked carefully at what happened or got hit by random nastiness later on. That statement needs one more qualification: and doesn't use portage. Portage will (by default) remove files on uninstall even if they *do not* match the checksum recorded in the vdb. This implies that most people will *not* see any issues due to something other than the package manager modifying the files behind the package manager's back. -- Jonathan Callen
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: POSIX capability in Gentoo
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400 Jonathan Callen a...@gentoo.org wrote: That statement needs one more qualification: and doesn't use portage. Portage will (by default) remove files on uninstall even if they *do not* match the checksum recorded in the vdb. This implies that most people will *not* see any issues due to something other than the package manager modifying the files behind the package manager's back. Ugh, seriously? When did that happen? That's a massive change to how VDB is supposed to work. Maybe we need to spec VDB after all to avoid that kind of nonsense. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: POSIX capability in Gentoo
2011-08-02 19:39:18 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400 Jonathan Callen a...@gentoo.org wrote: That statement needs one more qualification: and doesn't use portage. Portage will (by default) remove files on uninstall even if they *do not* match the checksum recorded in the vdb. This implies that most people will *not* see any issues due to something other than the package manager modifying the files behind the package manager's back. Ugh, seriously? When did that happen? http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=a133cb89d5279df7febcd0c8ab3890e2ccfb897a Maybe we need to spec VDB after all to avoid that kind of nonsense. I think that unmerge-orphans is a useful feature. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: POSIX capability in Gentoo
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 06:39:18PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400 Jonathan Callen a...@gentoo.org wrote: That statement needs one more qualification: and doesn't use portage. Portage will (by default) remove files on uninstall even if they *do not* match the checksum recorded in the vdb. This implies that most people will *not* see any issues due to something other than the package manager modifying the files behind the package manager's back. Ugh, seriously? When did that happen? That's a massive change to how VDB is supposed to work. That's been in place a long while; pkgcore has done it from day one also. That's not a massive change to vdb behaviour either; file collisions aren't supposed to occur, as such ownership of the file is basically guranteed back to a single package. Throw in CONFIG_PROTECT for adjusting the behaviour, and you have a far more preferable norm than lets just leave a shit ton of .pyc/.pyo on the fs. Moving on... ~brian
[gentoo-dev] Re: POSIX capability in Gentoo
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis posted on Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:46:54 +0200 as excerpted: 2011-08-02 19:39:18 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400 Jonathan Callen a...@gentoo.org wrote: That statement needs one more qualification: and doesn't use portage. Portage will (by default) remove files on uninstall even if they *do not* match the checksum recorded in the vdb. This implies that most people will *not* see any issues due to something other than the package manager modifying the files behind the package manager's back. Ugh, seriously? When did that happen? http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/ portage.git;a=commit;h=a133cb89d5279df7febcd0c8ab3890e2ccfb897a Maybe we need to spec VDB after all to avoid that kind of nonsense. I think that unmerge-orphans is a useful feature. Indeed. FEATURES=unmerge-orphans is optional which is good, but I'm glad it's there. I've no idea what the default is as I've had that on ever since I saw the changelog entry where it was introduced. That'd likely explain why I never had problems with lafilefixer tho. I'd guess the unmerge-orphans feature and lafilefixer appeared about the same time, at least for ~arch. Of course, I have FEATURES=fixlafiles set too, so it'd be handled by portage automatically now if I didn't have (PKG_)INSTALL_MASK=*.la killing them but for libtool itself. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman