Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship

Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-council
Lists: gentoo-council: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
To: Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>
From: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: Comparison of GLEP 54 and 'live ebuild' proposal
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:56:57 +0100
Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:55:52 +0100
> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote:
>> Ryan Hill wrote:
>>> I have some questions about the -live proposal.  I'm sorry if some
>>> of this has been answered already; I haven't had the opportunity to
>>> follow it more closely.
>>> The draft ( says
>>> that "At resolution the live keyword is substituted with a
>>> timestamp in the form of iso date".  What is meant by "resolution"
>>> here?  Does this mean that, having a gcc-4.4.0_prelive ebuild,
>>> 'emerge -p gcc' would show something like:
>>> [ebuild     U ] sys-devel/gcc-4.4.0_pre20090310
>>> If so, is there any way to identify that this is a live ebuild?
>> The ebuild itself has some embedded information so portage
>> could/should provide something like.
>> [ebuild     U ] sys-devel/gcc-4.4.0_pre20090310 [from svn master
>> r12345]
> As you said in another mail, this could only be shown for a rebuild,
> but not an update, true?

on update you'd have the ref to the live template as in

[ebuild     U ] sys-devel/gcc-4.4.0_prelive

Having src_fetch trigged by pretend is wrong.

>>> If I have an eclass that needs to do stuff to only live ebuilds
>>> (like kde4-base.eclass setting SLOT=live when PV is 9999), how can I
>>> differentiate between live ebuilds and snapshots?  Do eclasses see
>>> -live or the expanded datestamp in PV?
>> it see the expanded datestamp but sees also LIVE_URI LIVE_REVISION 
>> LIVE_BRANCH (the variables that keep track of the exact revision of
>> the sources you are going to use), so you can also slot by branch
> Yeah, immediately after posting I remembered there would be certain
> variables present.  Even if they weren't you could just stick a
> LIVE="yes" in the live ebuilds or check PROPERTIES or whatever.


>>> How do I know if a user has a live ebuild installed when they file a
>>> bug without having to check if there's a snapshot with that date in
>>> the tree every single time the PV has a datestamp in it?  (minor
>>> gripe admittedly)
>> He will provide the revision and branch so you have more information
>> not less.
>>> If I build a live package today, will I see it as an update when
>>> running emerge -pu @world tomorrow?
>> the template will be evaluated again so you get another snapshot 
>> proposed for update.
> Ooh, i really don't like that.  This would force me to either do daily
> updates manually package by package or mask any live ebuilds before i
> do.  That would _really_ suck if I were still running the kde-crazy
> overlay and had 50+ live ebuilds installed.

Well the alternative is to have the installed live templates reside in 

>>> If I have 20090309 installed what does 'emerge
>>> =gcc-4.4.0_pre20090309' do tomorrow?  (It might be a neat trick to
>>> disable fetch and just rebuild the current checkout in this case.)
>> it will try to build the exact revision it used by the time you
>> issued the previous emerge.
> Cool.
>>> Does 'emerge =gcc-4.4.0_pre<date>' even work, or just `..._prelive`?
>> =gcc-4.4.0_pre<date> will try to reinstall what you installed by
>> <date>
> Will a list of date -> revision mappings be kept?  Where is this info
> stored?

the same way USE or SLOT variables are stored.

>> =gcc-4.4.0_prelive will get resolved out of the template and then 
>> installed as =gcc-4.4.0_pre<now>
>>> Does the user at any point ever see "live" in the ebuild version or
>>> is it always replaced by the date?  If the latter, how do users
>>> know they have to put '=sys-devel/gcc-4.4.0_prelive' in package.*
>>> and not pre<date>?
>> the user will get the version render but also from where it is
>>> Are there any facilities to allow a user to checkout a specific
>>> revision from the repo, or is that beyond the scope of this GLEP?
>>> If we ever do implement such a thing, it seems like the datestamp
>>> approach wouldn't mesh well; 20090310 doesn't make much sense when
>>> the revision is from a month ago.
>> if you want to checkout a specific revision from the repo you aren't 
>> creating a live ebuild but a snapshot with a specific src uri.
>> so you don't use a template but just the specific eclasses and mark
>> the ebuild so you can show up on emerge -p the informations as stated
>> above.
> I was thinking about dynamic revisions, where the user could do
> something like 'emerge -av gcc --rev 123456'.  I just checked a couple
> eclasses and it seems we already have this feature, for example
> ESVN_REVISION in subversion.eclass, so let's abandon this train of
> thought. ;)

Could be interesting adding it later, it would depend in a standard 
interface for live eclasses as well.

> Thanks for your answers.  I'd like to think about it a bit, but off the
> top of my head what would you say to a hybrid approach where the ebuild
> doesn't have the datestamp expansion on resolution, but rather this
> information were available after building?  In all cases, the ebuild
> would be referred to by its proper name (ie., but
> enough information would be recorded at build time so the package
> manager could do groovy things like
> [ebuild     U ] sys-devel/ (last built 20090310 - rev.
> 14991) USE="use -flags"
> and 
> # emerge --info gcc
> sys-devel/gcc-4.4.0_pre9999 was built with the following:
> CFLAGS="-O2 -march=core2 -pipe"
> CXXFLAGS="-O2 -march=core2 -pipe"
>>>> Attempting to run pkg_info() for 'sys-devel/gcc-4.4.0_pre9999'
> svn: 20081206 23:31:22 - gcc-4.3.3_pre9999:4.3-svn was merged at revision 142535
> svn: 20090123 17:09:12 - gcc-4.4.0_pre9999:4.4-svn was merged at revision 143592
> svn: 20090131 16:35:23 - gcc-4.4.0_pre9999:4.4-svn was merged at revision 143833
> svn: 20090131 17:05:29 - gcc-4.4.0_pre9999:4.4-svn was merged at revision 143834
> svn: 20090223 00:33:50 - gcc-4.4.0_pre9999:4.4-svn was merged at revision 144379
> svn: 20090226 22:10:09 - gcc-4.4.0_pre9999:4.4-svn was merged at revision 144460
> svn: 20090226 23:00:57 - gcc-4.3.3_pre9999:4.3-svn was merged at revision 144460
> svn: 20090304 20:16:48 - gcc-4.4.0_pre9999:4.4-svn was merged at revision 144634
> svn: 20090307 15:12:27 - gcc-4.4.0_pre9999:4.4-svn was merged at revision 144702
> (note the latter is already possible with zero modifications to anything)
> It seems to me that the datestamp expansion is a lot of complication
> for very little gain.

There is some gain, still probably we could start implementing the rest 
first and then decide later about that detail.

>> - you cannot do exact reemerges and that may break revdep-rebuild
> You can use eclass features that skip the updating phase and just build the
> current sources (eg. ESVN_OFFLINE).  And as I mentioned above, some can
> build a specific revision.

That would work only if you aren't keeping different slots, looks like 
standardizing eclasses and having portage exporting those data is 
getting something we could consider alone. That gets problematic with 
multislot we either have to rely on templates or try to support better 
multislot otherwise.

>> - the package manager isn't aware of the "liveness" condition.
> Solved by both this and the -scm GLEP.
>> - in order to refresh/update the installed package automatically you
>> need either to rely on script or on sets hand produced or
>> heuristically defined (e.g "all ebuilds that inherit eclass svn go in
>> svn set").
> Do people really want live ebuilds updating automatically?  It sounds
> like a recipe for breakage.  I don't want live sources updating until
> i explicitly tell them to, but maybe that's just me.  If someone does
> want this behaviour, I'd suggest using cron. Also, doesn't portage have
> a @live-rebuild set that makes this trivial?

Sure, that is a point that need to be considered thoroughly. I think 
everybody agrees that the default behavior should be conservative.

>> - since you fetch on unpack phase you cannot use emerge --fetch
>>   consistently.
> How does either proposal address this?
> In the end, I don't see anything that datename expansion does that
> can't be done more easily and less confusingly with other techniques.

The proposal requires src_fetch implemented so emerge -f will work as 
expected about fetching the sources, then you can either rely on 
variable/custom command or on the template generation to have portage 
pick it. So, yes, you can do it in other ways, both have to be 
implemented somehow.

 > Is there a specific problem it solves that can't be addressed through
 > other means?

The templating part alone is useful to get snapshot and binpkg easily, 
having pkg-scm or pkg-9999 isn't as descriptive as pkg-${a definite time}.

Thank you again for the ideas and proposals =)



Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC

Re: Comparison of GLEP 54 and 'live ebuild' proposal
-- Ryan Hill
Re: Re: Comparison of GLEP 54 and 'live ebuild' proposal
-- Luca Barbato
Re: Comparison of GLEP 54 and 'live ebuild' proposal
-- Ryan Hill
Lists: gentoo-council: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Comparison of GLEP 54 and 'live ebuild' proposal
Next by thread:
Question about Absence for today's meeting
Previous by date:
Re: Comparison of GLEP 54 and 'live ebuild' proposal
Next by date:
Re: #237381 - Document appeals process [WAS] Council meeting summary for 23 October 2008

Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-council mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.