| 1 |
David Shakaryan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Can't we already (automatically) remove masks for which the relevant |
| 4 |
>> ebuilds have been removed? Is there another situation for which you |
| 5 |
>> think this is useful? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> While it might be possible, we currently aren't doing that. It shouldn't |
| 8 |
> be too difficult to implement, but it would have to be semi-smart and |
| 9 |
> check if that package ever existed, as some developers add masks before |
| 10 |
> adding packages and we don't want those automatically removed. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
I thought a package removal was a slightly more complex thing than a simple |
| 13 |
dir removal? Even if it isn't, that's the point to tie in (ie when it's |
| 14 |
removed from the tree) imo. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Without saying something on whether it would be useful or not, I think |
| 17 |
> that we should change the format to sth which can be processed easily by |
| 18 |
> programs (XML for instance). To ensure human readibility, one could keep |
| 19 |
> the text file and have the xml one addtionally. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Then the whole process of adding fields is rather simple :) |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
XML is much harder to process in scripts than plain-text. Having a simple |
| 24 |
ini file format (eg [atom]), or a start and stop sequence (eg ## start |
| 25 |
atom) is much easier both to read and to process. As for parsing, ini file |
| 26 |
format parsers and the like are common libs. There are two different libs for |
| 27 |
it in gentoo already[1] |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I agree that appending would be easier; it might also mean older masks don't |
| 30 |
just get forgotten, since anyone looking at the file would have to scroll |
| 31 |
past them, decreasing the likelihood of cruft. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I concur that the expiration date sounds risky (as another poster |
| 34 |
described.) Personally I'd prefer all masks to have open bugs for as long |
| 35 |
as they are in the file, assigned to the dev who made the entry. This would |
| 36 |
be specific to the mask, and not any issues it is supposed to address |
| 37 |
(which would be dependent bugs?) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Good luck with automation! |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/45762 |
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-project@g.o mailing list |
Archives