1 |
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:02:57 -0700 |
2 |
Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 02:38:02PM -0300, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
5 |
> > On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 03:29:17 -0700 |
6 |
> > Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:02:44AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: |
9 |
> > > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:54:39 -0700 |
10 |
> > > > Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
11 |
> > > > |
12 |
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 08:58:07PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny |
13 |
> > > > > wrote: |
14 |
> > > > > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:47:33 -0400 |
15 |
> > > > > > Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
16 |
> > > > > > |
17 |
> > > > > > > Based on the above I do expect the reference |
18 |
> > > > > > > implementation would also need to change. I expect, for |
19 |
> > > > > > > instance, that the PM's metadata-handling would need to |
20 |
> > > > > > > occur as normal even though none of the package's phase |
21 |
> > > > > > > functions would run, that is, *DEPEND (realistically |
22 |
> > > > > > > RDEPEND as that should be the only one affected here, |
23 |
> > > > > > > maybe PDEPEND too) and USE/PKGUSE would get updated. |
24 |
> > > > > > > Since portage would not be re-emerging the package from |
25 |
> > > > > > > the tree the original ebuild would remain. |
26 |
> > > > > > |
27 |
> > > > > > Yes, unless I'm missing something that's the intent. I will |
28 |
> > > > > > re-read and update the GLEP a bit sometime this week. |
29 |
> > > > > |
30 |
> > > > > There's a fairly strong user interaction component here, |
31 |
> > > > > along w/ potential nastyness for ebuilds (the proposal assume |
32 |
> > > > > that a flag will be toggable in all cases within an ebuild if |
33 |
> > > > > IUSE_RUNTIME specified; I guarantee instances where that |
34 |
> > > > > fails can be found in the tree if a basic audit was done). |
35 |
> > > > > Additionally, this *is* useless if it's done in a form the UI |
36 |
> > > > > an't display/handle; Ciaran may bitch about REQUIRED_USE's UI |
37 |
> > > > > (which I knew going in was going to be problematic, just to |
38 |
> > > > > be clear), but he's right on that front. |
39 |
> > > |
40 |
> > > ^^^ This point still needs addressing. |
41 |
> > |
42 |
> > IUSE_RUNTIME is optional for PMs, why does the UI matter at all ? |
43 |
> > Also, the proposal doesn't assume flags are toggable at will, it |
44 |
> > assumes they are useflags and obey the same rules. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> I truly hate claims like this; "it's optional, so who cares if it's |
47 |
> whacky". Think through the proposal; for it to work reliably, it's |
48 |
> not optional. Same issue I've been y'all over the head with, |
49 |
> rendered/finalized vs raw/unfinalized deps being stored in the VDB. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> All managers have to write unfinalized if that proposal goes through, |
52 |
> even if they don't support the optional toggling after the fact. |
53 |
|
54 |
Why? _Current_ PMs will rebuild the package. The point of this is just |
55 |
to give them a hint that they do not need to rebuild it. We already |
56 |
have an implementation actually: one that ignores the hint :) |
57 |
|
58 |
> As for the UI... arguing "but it's optional!" doesn't give a blank |
59 |
> check for the UI angle. What the plan, more colorization and a new |
60 |
> char for emerge -vp? Because we're kind of running out of chars |
61 |
> there... |
62 |
|
63 |
How is this relevant ? |
64 |
|
65 |
> It's a simple enough request; one that wouldn't even need to be made |
66 |
> if there was code backing this proposal; on a related note, hell yes |
67 |
> I'm wary of having this dumped on manager authors heads and having to |
68 |
> be told "sort out the mess/make it so". So I'm asking y'all to at |
69 |
> least put in an equivalent time investment doing a quick prototype. |
70 |
> |
71 |
> This isn't an unreasonable request, and has been the norm for most |
72 |
> gleps for a long while. |
73 |
|
74 |
I guess people do not want to invest time in writing code for something |
75 |
doomed. The original request was just to have it 'accepted' so that an |
76 |
implementation can start. If the implementation is good then make it |
77 |
final, otherwise amend or reject the glep. This isn't unreasonable |
78 |
either. |
79 |
|
80 |
> > > > > Additionally, this needs to be thought out how it'll interact |
81 |
> > > > > with eclasses; what stacking, etc. It doesn't cover the |
82 |
> > > > > basics there to say the least. |
83 |
> > > > |
84 |
> > > > The proposal didn't cover eclasses at all. Is there a need to |
85 |
> > > > do so or are we chasing some kind of perfection based on |
86 |
> > > > filling all unused slots? |
87 |
> > > |
88 |
> > > Eclass stacking here matters; if it's stacked, it means ebuilds |
89 |
> > > have to use out of bound (ie, other vars) to tell the eclass when |
90 |
> > > it shouldn't mark a flag as runtime toggable. If it's not |
91 |
> > > stacked by the pm, then they have to manually stack; that differs |
92 |
> > > from the norm and makes it easier to screwup; however; does allow |
93 |
> > > for them to filter, albeit a slight pain in the ass doing so. |
94 |
> > > |
95 |
> > > There's a choice there, and the answer matters, so yes, you |
96 |
> > > should actually have a complete glep before trying to shove it up |
97 |
> > > to the council and extract a vote out of them. Lest the |
98 |
> > > intention is to just have them kick it back to the curb... |
99 |
> > |
100 |
> > It can't be stacked and it's not wise to do so; it is a simple bash |
101 |
> > variable like tons of others in eclasses: |
102 |
> |
103 |
> It cannot be stacked because y'all are trying to shove this in as an |
104 |
> optional; unlike it's brother IUSE, which stacks. |
105 |
> |
106 |
> As for "ons of others that don't stack"; very few actually influence |
107 |
> the package manager; ~14 roughly, minimally 5 of those stack (those |
108 |
> that don't, basically aren't lists). |
109 |
|
110 |
So it's not stacked, nothing else to discuss here :) |
111 |
|
112 |
> > """ |
113 |
> > Package managers not implementing this GLEP will consider |
114 |
> > the ``IUSE_RUNTIME`` variable as an irrelevant bash variable |
115 |
> > """ |
116 |
> > """ |
117 |
> > 2. introduce additional ``IUSE_RUNTIME`` variable listing names of |
118 |
> > USE flags related to optional runtime dependencies (without prefixes |
119 |
> > related to IUSE defaults). |
120 |
> > """ |
121 |
> > |
122 |
> > Treating bash variables as bash variables is rather the norm, |
123 |
> > stacking is the exception. As I understand it, your only objection |
124 |
> > here is that you want to see written 'IUSE_RUNTIME gets no special |
125 |
> > treatment' in the proposal ? |
126 |
> |
127 |
> My objection is punting it to the council till it's actually nailed |
128 |
> down/sane; having them mark it accepted means we're stuck w/ the |
129 |
> results if it turns out to be shit at the implementation/UI level as |
130 |
> a lot of us think it will be. |
131 |
> |
132 |
> So yes, I want it actually finalized. Bluntly; there's zero point |
133 |
> having the council comment if it ain't finalized. |
134 |
|
135 |
Then the proposal itself should be discussed, not the implementation |
136 |
details: chars for emerge -pv are irrelevant; you pointed the raw dep |
137 |
issue in the VDB, that's good, but never said anything as of why they |
138 |
can't additionally be stored, making this a non-issue for the |
139 |
_proposal_ acceptation. |
140 |
|
141 |
Anyway, without implementation I expect the council to just give a vote |
142 |
of opinion, showing support or non-support to the proposal; the |
143 |
proposal will be final only once the council will be happy with |
144 |
portage's implementation. And I agree, the council doesn't need to be |
145 |
involved to start the implementation, but knowing this proposal has |
146 |
supporters will motivate people to do the implementation, vs. not even |
147 |
being sure the idea itself will get some support. |
148 |
|
149 |
Would you support the proposal if you are happy with its |
150 |
implementation ? |
151 |
|
152 |
A. |