Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:50:53
Message-Id: 20060125124727.GA8222@nightcrawler.had1.or.comcast.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X by Jason Stubbs
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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>