Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/3] go-module.eclass: introduce new eclass to handle go modules

[Michał Górny]

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