Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/3] go-module.eclass: introduce new eclass to handle go modules
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 05:39:59
Message-Id: 06381929-4520-4284-B868-EB83D5AE3D6B@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/3] go-module.eclass: introduce new eclass to handle go modules by William Hubbs
Dnia September 11, 2019 11:11:15 PM UTC, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> napisał(a):
>On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 07:47:04PM +0000, Michał Górny wrote: >> Dnia September 11, 2019 7:40:41 PM UTC, William Hubbs ><williamh@g.o> napisał(a): >> >On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:31:16PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2019-09-11 at 13:22 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 07:38:17PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: >> >> > > On Wed, 2019-09-11 at 12:21 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: >> >> > > > Copyright: Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. >> >> > > > Signed-off-by: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> >> >> > > > --- >> >> > > > eclass/go-module.eclass | 76 >> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> > > > 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+) >> >> > > > create mode 100644 eclass/go-module.eclass >> >> > > > >> >> > > > diff --git a/eclass/go-module.eclass >b/eclass/go-module.eclass >> >> > > > new file mode 100644 >> >> > > > index 00000000000..7009fcd3beb >> >> > > > --- /dev/null >> >> > > > +++ b/eclass/go-module.eclass >> >> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ >> >> > > > +# Copyright 1999-2015 Gentoo Foundation >> >> > > >> >> > > You need to replace your calendar. And copyright holder. >> >> > >> >> > Sure, I thought I ffixed that. >> >> > >> >> > > > +# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public >> >License v2 >> >> > > > + >> >> > > > +# @ECLASS: go-module.eclass >> >> > > >> >> > > Any reason to change naming from golang-* to go-* now? >> >> > >> >> > Well, "lang" is sort of redundant, and there will be only one >> >eclass, so >> >> > I thought I would make things a bit more simple. >> >> > >> >> > > > +# @MAINTAINER: >> >> > > > +# William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> >> >> > > > +# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7 >> >> > > > +# @BLURB: basic eclass for building software written in the >go >> >> > > > +# programming language that uses go modules. >> >> > > > +# @DESCRIPTION: >> >> > > > +# This eclass provides a convenience src_prepare() phase >and >> >some basic >> >> > > > +# settings needed for all software written in the go >> >programming >> >> > > > +# language that uses go modules. >> >> > > > +# >> >> > > > +# You will know the software you are packaging uses modules >> >because >> >> > > > +# it will have files named go.sum and go.mod in its >top-level >> >source >> >> > > > +# directory. If it does not have these files, use the >golang-* >> >eclasses. >> >> > > > +# >> >> > > > +# If the software you are packaging uses modules, the next >> >question is >> >> > > > +# whether it has a directory named "vendor" at the >top-level >> >of the source tree. >> >> > > > +# >> >> > > > +# If it doesn't, you need to create a tarball of what would >be >> >in the >> >> > > > +# vendor directory and mirror it locally. This is done with >> >the >> >> > > > +# following commands if upstream is using a git repository: >> >> > > > +# >> >> > > > +# @CODE: >> >> > > > +# >> >> > > > +# $ cd /my/clone/of/upstream >> >> > > > +# $ git checkout <release> >> >> > > > +# $ go mod vendor >> >> > > > +# $ tar cvf project-version-vendor.tar.gz vendor >> >> > > > +# >> >> > > > +# @CODE: >> >> > > > +# >> >> > > > +# Other than this, all you need to do is inherit this >eclass >> >then >> >> > > > +# make sure the exported src_prepare function is run. >> >> > > > + >> >> > > > +case ${EAPI:-0} in >> >> > > > + 7) ;; >> >> > > > + *) die "${ECLASS} API in EAPI ${EAPI} not yet >established." >> >> > > > +esac >> >> > > > + >> >> > > > +if [[ -z ${_GO_MODULE} ]]; then >> >> > > > + >> >> > > > +_GO_MODULE=1 >> >> > > > + >> >> > > > +BDEPEND=">=dev-lang/go-1.12" >> >> > > > + >> >> > > > +# Do not download dependencies from the internet >> >> > > > +# make build output verbose by default >> >> > > > +export GOFLAGS="-mod=vendor -v -x" >> >> > > > + >> >> > > > +# Do not complain about CFLAGS etc since go projects do not >> >use them. >> >> > > > +QA_FLAGS_IGNORED='.*' >> >> > > > + >> >> > > > +# Upstream does not support stripping go packages >> >> > > > +RESTRICT="strip" >> >> > > > + >> >> > > > +EXPORT_FUNCTIONS src_prepare >> >> > > >> >> > > Don't you need to inherit some other eclass to make it build? >> >> > >> >> > The primary reason for all of the golang-* eclasses was the >GOPATH >> >> > variable, which is not relevant when you are using modules. >> >> > >> >> > I can look at adding a src_compile to this eclass, but I haven't >> >thought >> >> > about what it would contain yet. >> >> > >> >> > > > + >> >> > > > +# @FUNCTION: go-module_src_prepare >> >> > > > +# @DESCRIPTION: >> >> > > > +# Run a default src_prepare then move our provided vendor >> >directory to >> >> > > > +# the appropriate spot if upstream doesn't provide a vendor >> >directory. >> >> > > > +go-module_src_prepare() { >> >> > > > + default >> >> > > > + # Use the upstream provided vendor directory if it exists. >> >> > > > + [[ -d vendor ]] && return >> >> > > > + # If we are not providing a mirror of a vendor directory >we >> >created >> >> > > > + # manually, return since there may be nothing to vendor. >> >> > > > + [[ ! -d ../vendor ]] && return >> >> > > > + # At this point, we know we are providing a vendor mirror. >> >> > > > + mv ../vendor . || die "Unable to move ../vendor directory" >> >> > > >> >> > > Wouldn't it be much simpler to create appropriate directory >> >structure >> >> > > in the tarball? Then you wouldn't need a new eclass at all. >> >> > >> >> > You would definitely need an eclass (see the settings and >> >dependencies). >> >> > >> >> > Take a look at the differences in the spire and hub ebuilds in >this >> >> > series. I'm not sure what you mean by adding the directory >> >structure to >> >> > the tarball? I guess you could add something to the vendor >tarball >> >when >> >> > you create it. >> >> >> >> I mean packing it as 'spire-1.2.3/vendor' or whatever the package >> >> directory is, so that it extracts correctly instead of making a >> >tarball >> >> that needs to be moved afterwards. >> > >> >That would clobber the upstream provided vendor directory and that's >> >what I want to avoid with the first test in src_prepare. >> >> If upstream already includes vendored modules, why would you create >your own tarball in the first place? > >You are right, and currently I quietly ignore your vendor tarball if >upstream >vendors the dependencies also. I could change this to generate a >warning >or die and force you to fix the ebuild, but that would not be possible >if I follow your suggestion because I would not be able to tell whether >the vendored dependencies came from us or upstream.
Why would anyone create a vendor tarball if things work without it? That makes no sense. Also adding unused archives to SRC_URI is a QA violation.
> >Also, another concern about your suggestion is the --transform switch >that would have to be added to the tar command people use to create >the >vendor tarball, something like: > >tar -acvf package-version-vendor.tar.gz >--transform='s#^vendor#package-version-vendor#' vendor > >You suggested that a maintainer could create a new tarball and build on >top of it. I guess you mean don't use upstream's tarball if they don't >vendor and create my own tarball and add the vendor directory to it. >I'm >against that option because I don't feel that we should manually >tinker >with upstream tarballs. That opens a pretty big can of worms imo.
No. I suggested that rather than adding another git clone and checking out a tag (which sooner or later would mean someone forgetting and using master instead), you could unpack the same archive you're going to use in the ebuild.
> >William
-- Best regards, Michał Górny

Replies