1 |
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 09:18:28PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
2 |
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 20:46, Brian Harring wrote: |
3 |
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 08:27:22PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
4 |
> > > On Wednesday 25 January 2006 18:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
5 |
> > > > Jason Stubbs wrote: |
6 |
> > > > > DEPEND="x11-base/xorg-x11" # wrong |
7 |
> > > > > DEPEND="virtual/x11" # wrong |
8 |
> > > > > DEPEND="|| ( x11? ( virtual/x11 ) )" # wrong |
9 |
> > > > > DEPEND="|| ( misc/atoms virtual/x11 )" # right |
10 |
> > > > > |
11 |
> > > > > There's a small possibility that broken packages will be missed by |
12 |
> > > > > this, but is there any chance that valid packages will be incorrectly |
13 |
> > > > > flagged? If this gets a go-ahead, it'll be easy enough to get in for |
14 |
> > > > > the next release (which is likely this coming Saturday). |
15 |
> > > > |
16 |
> > > > It sounds right. There should be no valid instance of virtual/x11 that |
17 |
> > > > is not within an || dep. |
18 |
> > > |
19 |
> > > I've implemented and tested the check locally but haven't committed it |
20 |
> > > yet. Repoman isn't really structured to allow for tests against a set of |
21 |
> > > ebuilds so the checks are done on every version. There is also definitely |
22 |
> > > one false positive (virtual/x11-6.8) so, for this and the fact that every |
23 |
> > > version is tested, it would probably better to just make it a warning. |
24 |
> > > Thoughts? |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> > Curious about the mechanism you're using for this... a hardcoded set |
27 |
> > of atoms in repoman doesn't sound very nice to me ;) |
28 |
> |
29 |
> There's no other way to do it given repoman's state and the |
30 |
> requirements. |
31 |
|
32 |
I was talking long term. One time kludges suck (but occur), would |
33 |
like to see something a bit less short sighted for this though- |
34 |
variants of this request will come up sooner or later (most likely in |
35 |
the form of can we warn/error on new commits of deprecated deps). |
36 |
|
37 |
Might be wise discussing potential solutions for it. |
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
> If you'd like to make repoman pluggable, convert all the |
41 |
> current checks to plugins and then make a new plugin for this one and do it |
42 |
> all by this weekend, be my guest. :P |
43 |
|
44 |
Harass antarus, he's been working on integrating swegeners rewrite of |
45 |
repoman checks (plugins effectively) into mainline repoman. :P |
46 |
|
47 |
Besides, a massive change to repoman with 3 days to go is a no go |
48 |
anyways (kind of limited the choices there) ;) |
49 |
|
50 |
> Besides, what's wrong with hardcoded atoms in repoman anyway? |
51 |
|
52 |
portage (by extension repoman) is used beyond gentoo. Not everyone |
53 |
may be at the same step as we are for mod x. End result of hardcoding |
54 |
gentoo specific crap into repoman is that you force derivatives of |
55 |
gentoo (vidalinux or genux fex) to start hacking up portage source to |
56 |
remove said hardcoding. |
57 |
|
58 |
Portage exists beyond gentoo; thus gentoo specific hacks should be |
59 |
avoided when possible. |
60 |
|
61 |
So... long term? |
62 |
|
63 |
~harring |