Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
So, :: vs @ apart, is it something that is worth looking and implementing in future EAPIs? -- Fabio Erculiani signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
On Tue, 26 May 2009 10:13:51 +0200 (CEST) lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote: So, :: vs @ apart, is it something that is worth looking and implementing in future EAPIs? Isn't it just a user issue, not one we want used anywhere where EAPI rules are in effect? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, 26 May 2009 10:13:51 +0200 (CEST) lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote: So, :: vs @ apart, is it something that is worth looking and implementing in future EAPIs? Isn't it just a user issue, not one we want used anywhere where EAPI rules are in effect? Indeed. Since the consensus is for using it as part of the UI, you don't need to wait for EAPI=4, you (lxnay) can start writing patches for portage (regardless of which operator is used) to recognize such atoms on the command line. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote: So, :: vs @ apart, is it something that is worth looking and implementing in future EAPIs? I don't see the main tree referring to other repositories any time soon so this is not a pressing issue. But as said earlier this makes sense for /etc/portage stuff so there going forward seems prudent. I suggest using :: as it's more established in these circles. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote: Am Sonntag, den 24.05.2009, 20:04 +0200 schrieb lx...@sabayonlinux.org: And then it's a pm thing. So the person you want to talk about it is zmedico. And zmedico told me to start discussing here. -- Tiziano Müller Gentoo Linux Developer, Council Member Areas of responsibility: Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor E-Mail : dev-z...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5 4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30 -- Fabio Erculiani signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
On So, 2009-05-24 at 20:04 +0200, lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote: [...] app-admin/equo (sabayon overlay -- Entropy Framework client) supports the postfix @repository to let users force the installation of a package from a specific repository. @ is used by Portage for sets. Paludis has been using ::repo for repo dependencies for years. Why not go with the established syntax? I wrote postfix not prefix. Sets use @ prefix. Your @ is still a prefix for the repository name. For usability's sake, please don't do this. I can imagine users getting confused over the different meanings of the @ sign. I do not want to trigger a discussion like the one PHP had when choosing namespace separators, but we got the :: established in Paludis and Paludis is used by way more Gentoo people than equo. So it only seems logical to me to use the wider-known and at the same time ambiguity-free operator. Alex signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Alex Legler a...@gentoo.org wrote: On So, 2009-05-24 at 20:04 +0200, lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote: [...] app-admin/equo (sabayon overlay -- Entropy Framework client) supports the postfix @repository to let users force the installation of a package from a specific repository. @ is used by Portage for sets. Paludis has been using ::repo for repo dependencies for years. Why not go with the established syntax? I wrote postfix not prefix. Sets use @ prefix. Your @ is still a prefix for the repository name. Yeah but emerge @overlay would be obviously illegal. So your argument is a bit pointless ;) For usability's sake, please don't do this. I can imagine users getting confused over the different meanings of the @ sign. I do not want to trigger a discussion like the one PHP had when choosing namespace separators, but we got the :: established in Paludis and Paludis is used by way more Gentoo people than equo. :: C++/PHP/whatever separator has nothing to do with the purpose of @overlay. Paludis is not a Gentoo project and doesn't follow Gentoo features validation rules. So is Entropy. If Paludis has its own syntax it doesn't automatically mean that Gentoo Portage *has to* follow it. I prefer a more democratic way = discussing here. So it only seems logical to me to use the wider-known and at the same time ambiguity-free operator. Alex -- Fabio Erculiani signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote: On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Alex Legler a...@gentoo.org wrote: On So, 2009-05-24 at 20:04 +0200, lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote: [...] app-admin/equo (sabayon overlay -- Entropy Framework client) supports the postfix @repository to let users force the installation of a package from a specific repository. @ is used by Portage for sets. Paludis has been using ::repo for repo dependencies for years. Why not go with the established syntax? I wrote postfix not prefix. Sets use @ prefix. Your @ is still a prefix for the repository name. Yeah but emerge @overlay would be obviously illegal. So your argument is a bit pointless ;) For usability's sake, please don't do this. I can imagine users getting confused over the different meanings of the @ sign. I do not want to trigger a discussion like the one PHP had when choosing namespace separators, but we got the :: established in Paludis and Paludis is used by way more Gentoo people than equo. :: C++/PHP/whatever separator has nothing to do with the purpose of @overlay. Personally I think the PHP namespace syntax issue is a very good analogy. There's an established syntax, even if it's not a written standard, already used in a very similar situation, and that should be taken into account. Paludis is not a Gentoo project and doesn't follow Gentoo features validation rules. So is Entropy. If Paludis has its own syntax it doesn't automatically mean that Gentoo Portage *has to* follow it. I prefer a more democratic way = discussing here. As far as I can see, a discussion is happening. You started a discussion here and others mentioned that there is a specific syntax already used for this by a very similar application. You appear to be the only one who's arguing against that syntax. As a user, I have to agree that using @ for multiple purposes, even if it can't be applied to the same purposes in different locations, is potentially confusing, even if not just plain silly. As a side note, I think I've read somewhere that it may in the future be possible to specify sets in package.* (which I assume would be done using the @set-name syntax), but can't remember where off-hand. This may have just been a suggestion, but if it ever is implemented, it would surely add to the confusion. AllenJB So it only seems logical to me to use the wider-known and at the same time ambiguity-free operator. Alex
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
AllenJB wrote: As a side note, I think I've read somewhere that it may in the future be possible to specify sets in package.* (which I assume would be done using the @set-name syntax), but can't remember where off-hand. This may have just been a suggestion, but if it ever is implemented, it would surely add to the confusion. AllenJB Is this the location you are talking about? r...@smoker / # ls -al /etc/portage/sets/ total 21 drwxrwsr-x 2 root portage 128 Apr 22 19:04 . drwxr-xr-x 7 root portage 536 May 21 00:53 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 root portage 1353 Feb 23 04:49 dk-kde -rw-r--r-- 1 root portage 6453 Apr 22 19:04 dk-kde-full -rw-r--r-- 1 root portage 6795 Apr 17 21:59 rebuild r...@smoker / # I already have a couple of those in use with Portage 2.2_rc33. If you are talking about something else, please ignore. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
On Monday 25 May 2009, lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote: On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Alex Legler a...@gentoo.org wrote: On So, 2009-05-24 at 20:04 +0200, lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote: [...] app-admin/equo (sabayon overlay -- Entropy Framework client) supports the postfix @repository to let users force the installation of a package from a specific repository. @ is used by Portage for sets. Paludis has been using ::repo for repo dependencies for years. Why not go with the established syntax? I wrote postfix not prefix. Sets use @ prefix. Your @ is still a prefix for the repository name. Yeah but emerge @overlay would be obviously illegal. So your argument is a bit pointless ;) # emerge --update lsof @system versus # emerge --update l...@system would have completely different meanings. This is what I would dislike about the '@' character. I'm ok with :: though. If we use repo_name as the overlay identifier, we must rethink how layman-global.txt is currently handled. Many overlays in there have that file missing, and some have different identifiers than what layman displays as their name. Is this specifier stored and considered on future dependency calculations (e.g. updates, dependencies of other ebuilds on the package that was installed via @overlay)? Where is it stored, how is it displayed to the user in emerge/eix output? Robert signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote: Adding @overlay atoms/deps postfix support could really make life easier, especially because forcing specific atoms in *DEPEND hoping that these will be always pulled in from the same overlay is not something reliable, as you already know. No. This is a terrible idea. The solution is to *fix the overlays*, not force the user to intervene and fix things himself. Conflicting overlay issues turn up on the Gentoo forums (check Unsupported Software), and in pretty much all cases, once the maintainer(s) of the overlay(s) are contacted about the issue, the overlays are quickly fixed so that the next update sorts out the user's tree. Users should *not *have to take steps to fix overlay blocks and breaks ahead of time; that should be the overlay maintainer's job, not the poor end user. Comments are welcome, flames are not. On that note, I'd like to offer a friendly word of caution, in the interests of us all talking together and working through the ideas presented in your threads. In your last visit to our mailing list (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/55180), you stated that you'd like to make some sweeping changes to Gentoo, then you started telling the developers why they all sucked ahead of time for not implementing said ideas. And then you kept telling developers that they sucked throughout the rest of the replies. You expressed unwillingness to work with Gentoo developers through our admittedly long recruitment process, instead wanting to push your changes to our tree directly. There wasn't very much accomplished on either side at the end of that debacle, except some hurt feelings. It seems that the discussions you're having in the binary packages and overlay threads are already heading the same direction, and I for one don't want that to happen. Telling people they're not allowed to express disagreement is counterproductive.[1][2] [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/61555/focus=61568 [2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/61530/focus=61560 So, folks, just take it easy. We don't have to accept every suggestion offered to the list, nor do we have to reject it out of hand. Thanks. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
Robert Buchholz wrote: # emerge --update lsof @system versus # emerge --update l...@system would have completely different meanings. This is what I would dislike about the '@' character. I'm ok with :: though. I agree the :: looks like the better option here. If we use repo_name as the overlay identifier, we must rethink how layman-global.txt is currently handled. Many overlays in there have that file missing, and some have different identifiers than what layman displays as their name. I think layman should simply start to use the repo_name as identifier. That should result in less confusion, I'd think. Overlays that miss the repo_name file are broken and should be fixed, and should be ignored until they are. Cheers, -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc) Gentoo Linux Release Engineering PR liaison __
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
On Monday 25 May 2009, Ben de Groot wrote: Robert Buchholz wrote: If we use repo_name as the overlay identifier, we must rethink how layman-global.txt is currently handled. Many overlays in there have that file missing, and some have different identifiers than what layman displays as their name. I think layman should simply start to use the repo_name as identifier. That should result in less confusion, I'd think. Overlays that miss the repo_name file are broken and should be fixed, and should be ignored until they are. Unfortunately, that value is not known until the repository is checked out. Doing that on every list operation would be too much overhead. We do need a script to verify the layman list, nevertheless. (Don't look at me for this! :-) Robert signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
On Sun, 24 May 2009 19:04:08 +0200 (CEST) lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote: app-admin/equo (sabayon overlay -- Entropy Framework client) supports the postfix @repository to let users force the installation of a package from a specific repository. @ is used by Portage for sets. Paludis has been using ::repo for repo dependencies for years. Why not go with the established syntax? Users of multiple repositories seem to appreciate the freedom that is brought with this small-but-effective(TM) feature. Note that Portage doesn't support multiple repositories, so this one's probably not very straight-forward... It supports overlays, which means only one thing is ultimately visible for a c/p-v. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:34 PM, lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote: Adding @overlay atoms/deps postfix support could really make life easier, especially because forcing specific atoms in *DEPEND hoping that these will be always pulled in from the same overlay is not something reliable, as you already know. Examples: app-foo/f...@overlay app-foo/foo:2...@overlay foo:2...@overlay f...@overlay Comments are welcome, flames are not. Won't this just lead to dependency hell? With horrible dependencies between different overlays? The current system of overlays being restrictive is (IMO) beneficial in the long-term because it forces people to move stuff to the main tree instead of going the lazy way and putting inter-overlay dependencies. If the concept of overlay is taken as feature overlays, then dependencies should not go beyond the main tree + the overlay itself. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
On Sun, 24 May 2009 22:50:45 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: Won't this just lead to dependency hell? With horrible dependencies between different overlays? It's primarily a user feature. It's not a good way of solving most inter-repository dependency issues. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Sun, 24 May 2009 22:50:45 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: Won't this just lead to dependency hell? With horrible dependencies between different overlays? It's primarily a user feature. It's not a good way of solving most inter-repository dependency issues. If that's the case (usage being command-line use), then I'm all for it. But not in *DEPEND. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Sun, 24 May 2009 22:50:45 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: Won't this just lead to dependency hell? With horrible dependencies between different overlays? It's primarily a user feature. It's not a good way of solving most inter-repository dependency issues. If that's the case (usage being command-line use), then I'm all for it. But not in *DEPEND. I'm also very much for it, especially for use in /etc/portage, to be able to mask/unmask a version from a specific overlay. -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc) Gentoo Linux Release Engineering PR liaison __
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Sun, 24 May 2009 19:04:08 +0200 (CEST) lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote: app-admin/equo (sabayon overlay -- Entropy Framework client) supports the postfix @repository to let users force the installation of a package from a specific repository. @ is used by Portage for sets. Paludis has been using ::repo for repo dependencies for years. Why not go with the established syntax? I wrote postfix not prefix. Sets use @ prefix. Regarding your why, why not going through GLEP and gentoo-dev acceptance ;) ? Users of multiple repositories seem to appreciate the freedom that is brought with this small-but-effective(TM) feature. Note that Portage doesn't support multiple repositories, so this one's probably not very straight-forward... It supports overlays, which means only one thing is ultimately visible for a c/p-v. I know. -- Ciaran McCreesh I am wondering if enabling @overlay postfix support could be just restricted to command line arguments, at least for the beginning. -- Fabio Erculiani signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support
Am Sonntag, den 24.05.2009, 20:04 +0200 schrieb lx...@sabayonlinux.org: On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Sun, 24 May 2009 19:04:08 +0200 (CEST) lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote: app-admin/equo (sabayon overlay -- Entropy Framework client) supports the postfix @repository to let users force the installation of a package from a specific repository. @ is used by Portage for sets. Paludis has been using ::repo for repo dependencies for years. Why not go with the established syntax? I wrote postfix not prefix. Sets use @ prefix. Regarding your why, why not going through GLEP and gentoo-dev acceptance ;) ? Users of multiple repositories seem to appreciate the freedom that is brought with this small-but-effective(TM) feature. Note that Portage doesn't support multiple repositories, so this one's probably not very straight-forward... It supports overlays, which means only one thing is ultimately visible for a c/p-v. I know. -- Ciaran McCreesh I am wondering if enabling @overlay postfix support could be just restricted to command line arguments, at least for the beginning. And then it's a pm thing. So the person you want to talk about it is zmedico. -- Tiziano Müller Gentoo Linux Developer, Council Member Areas of responsibility: Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor E-Mail : dev-z...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5 4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30 signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
