Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-21 Thread William Hubbs
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 11:22:40AM -0700, Alec Warner wrote: > On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 1:03 AM Alexander Tsoy wrote: > > > В Сб, 21/03/2020 в 00:53 -0700, Matt Turner пишет: > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 9:55 PM Kent Fredric > > > wrote: > > > > If X is "noarch" and its dependency Y is "amd64",

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-21 Thread Alec Warner
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 1:03 AM Alexander Tsoy wrote: > В Сб, 21/03/2020 в 00:53 -0700, Matt Turner пишет: > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 9:55 PM Kent Fredric > > wrote: > > > If X is "noarch" and its dependency Y is "amd64", then a user on > > > "sparc" > > > will be able to install "X", but not

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-21 Thread James Le Cuirot
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 22:03:41 +1300 Kent Fredric wrote: > On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 11:03:19 +0300 > Alexander Tsoy wrote: > > > Binary distros usually have separate repositories for each > > architecture. > > One aspect: They don't have a package database that's a collection of > bash scripts

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-21 Thread Kent Fredric
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 11:03:19 +0300 Alexander Tsoy wrote: > Binary distros usually have separate repositories for each > architecture. One aspect: They don't have a package database that's a collection of bash scripts that have to be routinely executed. And they also don't have USE flags to

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-21 Thread Alexander Tsoy
В Сб, 21/03/2020 в 00:53 -0700, Matt Turner пишет: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 9:55 PM Kent Fredric > wrote: > > If X is "noarch" and its dependency Y is "amd64", then a user on > > "sparc" > > will be able to install "X", but not its dependency "Y". > > Thank you. This is a good explanation of

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-21 Thread Matt Turner
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 9:55 PM Kent Fredric wrote: > If X is "noarch" and its dependency Y is "amd64", then a user on "sparc" > will be able to install "X", but not its dependency "Y". Thank you. This is a good explanation of the problem. How do other distributions handle this? Arch, Fedora,

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-20 Thread Kent Fredric
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 15:40:20 -0400 Mike Gilbert wrote: > I'm not sure what you mean by "stabilization graph". I'm guessing you > mean the dependency graph for stable keywords? > > Valid dependency graphs are determined by whatever our tooling deems > valid. The tooling could be updated to

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-20 Thread Michał Górny
On Thu, 2020-03-19 at 12:17 -0500, Gordon Pettey wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:47 AM Alec Warner wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 6:52 AM Gerion Entrup > > wrote: > > > > > Am Donnerstag, 19. März 2020, 02:59:56 CET schrieb Kent Fredric: > > > > On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 17:52:25 + > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-19 Thread Thomas Deutschmann
On 2020-03-19 04:03, Kent Fredric wrote: > Because that experiment basically failed. > > Bugs with that flag, basically were treated (repeatedly) like that flag > wasn't there. Hehe, maybe because of missing tooling. Common tools like tatt don't understand "ALLARCHES" :) -- Regards, Thomas

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-19 Thread Mike Gilbert
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 9:59 PM Kent Fredric wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 17:52:25 + > James Le Cuirot wrote: > > > Not quite. Tools like repoman will need to be updated to understand > > that an ebuild with KEYWORDS="amd64" can depend on another ebuild with > > only KEYWORDS="noarch". I

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-19 Thread Kent Fredric
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 14:52:08 +0100 Gerion Entrup wrote: > Maybe I misunderstand something but shouldn't that be the normal case? > Every single Python package (candidates for noarch) for example depends > on the Python interpreter, which must have non noarch keywords. Yeah. So Basically, this

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-19 Thread Gordon Pettey
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:47 AM Alec Warner wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 6:52 AM Gerion Entrup > wrote: > >> Am Donnerstag, 19. März 2020, 02:59:56 CET schrieb Kent Fredric: >> > On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 17:52:25 + >> > James Le Cuirot wrote: >> > >> > > Not quite. Tools like repoman will

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-19 Thread Alec Warner
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 6:52 AM Gerion Entrup wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 19. März 2020, 02:59:56 CET schrieb Kent Fredric: > > On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 17:52:25 + > > James Le Cuirot wrote: > > > > > Not quite. Tools like repoman will need to be updated to understand > > > that an ebuild with

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-19 Thread Gerion Entrup
Am Donnerstag, 19. März 2020, 02:59:56 CET schrieb Kent Fredric: > On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 17:52:25 + > James Le Cuirot wrote: > > > Not quite. Tools like repoman will need to be updated to understand > > that an ebuild with KEYWORDS="amd64" can depend on another ebuild with > > only

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-19 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 3/18/20 10:54 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > So, my question is, why can't we add a noarch/~noarch keyword and see > how things go? If it gets abused we can always nuke it later. > This is a good goal, but as others have pointed out, adding a new magic keyword poses some workflow problems. We

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-19 Thread David Seifert
On Thu, 2020-03-19 at 14:57 +1300, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 11:59:25 -0500 > William Hubbs wrote: > > > Sure, but if you run into something like that you just don't use the > > noarch keyword for those packages. > > But as soon as this happens, all dependent packages that are

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Kent Fredric
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 03:07:21 +0100 Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > Why can't we use "ALLARCHES" stabilization for that? Because that experiment basically failed. Bugs with that flag, basically were treated (repeatedly) like that flag wasn't there. And that approach still has the weakness of it

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Kent Fredric
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 09:54:42 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > So, my question is, why can't we add a noarch/~noarch keyword and see > how things go? If it gets abused we can always nuke it later. > > Thanks, I'm just gonna say I disagree with this proposal as stated. Stability and arch support,

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Thomas Deutschmann
Hi, please don't introduce another keyword. Why can't we use "ALLARCHES" stabilization for that? However, this will getting more complicated than it will help. Any Python package which compiles something can fail. During my x86 work I have seen a lot of problems when it comes to anything math

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Kent Fredric
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 17:52:25 + James Le Cuirot wrote: > Not quite. Tools like repoman will need to be updated to understand > that an ebuild with KEYWORDS="amd64" can depend on another ebuild with > only KEYWORDS="noarch". I do think the idea has merit though. But the inverse is _not_ true,

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Kent Fredric
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 11:59:25 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > Sure, but if you run into something like that you just don't use the > noarch keyword for those packages. But as soon as this happens, all dependent packages that are noarch will need to also transition to not using no-arch. So it

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
> So, my question is, why can't we add a noarch/~noarch keyword and see > how things go? If it gets abused we can always nuke it later. I'm pretty sure we already discussed this in very much detail in the past at least once, and came to the conclusion that there are problems with that approach.

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2020, 19:40:57 CET schrieb William Hubbs: > There would be no need to cc all arches on the bug, just make noarch@g.o > an alias that emails to all arch teams. We might as well just make an allarches@... alias. -- Andreas K. Hüttel dilfri...@gentoo.org Gentoo Linux

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 07:12:08PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 12:47 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:12:37PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 09:54 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > this came up again on the recent thread

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 05:52:25PM +, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 12:47:53 -0500 > William Hubbs wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:12:37PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 09:54 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > this came up again on the

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 12:47 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:12:37PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 09:54 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > > this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 > > > support for python packages, and I

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread James Le Cuirot
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 12:47:53 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:12:37PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 09:54 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > > this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 > > > support for python packages, and

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:12:37PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 09:54 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > > this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 > > support for python packages, and I want to bring it up again on its own > > thread. > > > > How

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 09:54 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 > support for python packages, and I want to bring it up again on its own > thread. > > How often do architecture specific bugs really exist in languages like > perl,

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 05:11:17PM +0100, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > Am 2020-03-18 15:54, schrieb William Hubbs: > > All, > > > > this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 > > support for python packages, and I want to bring it up again on its own > > thread. > > > > How

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Rolf Eike Beer
Am 2020-03-18 16:10, schrieb Jaco Kroon: Hi, I'd be in support.  Especially for "data only" kind of packages, like: net-misc/asterisk-moh-opsound net-misc/asterisk-extra-sounds net-misc/asterisk-core-sounds My immediate target was aspell dictionaries and fonts.

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Rolf Eike Beer
Am 2020-03-18 15:54, schrieb William Hubbs: All, this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 support for python packages, and I want to bring it up again on its own thread. How often do architecture specific bugs really exist in languages like perl, python etc? From

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread Jaco Kroon
Hi, I'd be in support.  Especially for "data only" kind of packages, like: net-misc/asterisk-moh-opsound net-misc/asterisk-extra-sounds net-misc/asterisk-core-sounds For all three these I've already dropped the DEPEND on net-misc/asterisk anyway, and upgraded the PDEPEND on net-misc/asterisk

[gentoo-dev] rfc: noarch keyword

2020-03-18 Thread William Hubbs
All, this came up again on the recent thread about dropping non x86/amd64 support for python packages, and I want to bring it up again on its own thread. How often do architecture specific bugs really exist in languages like perl, python etc? From what I've seen they are pretty rare. Not to