Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>
To: ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 23:57:45
Message-Id: 20140118005636.107ac4af@TOMWIJ-GENTOO
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:28:41 +0000
2 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
4 > On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 17:47:58 +0100
5 > Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote:
6 > > Maybe we can let the package managers only perceive it as keyworded
7 > > or stable if all of its dependencies are keyworded or stable on the
8 > > architecture that the user runs. Then we can have repoman just
9 > > ignore checking dependencies' keywords when we keyword or stabilize
10 > > them.
11 > >
12 > > Not sure how implementable this idea is though...
13 >
14 > It's going to hurt for four reasons that I can think of right now.
15 >
16 > Firstly, things you think are "obviously portable" sometimes aren't.
18 We could write a search for architecture dependent / specific code.
20 > Secondly, users already get confused by "stable use masks". This is
21 > going to be even worse: users aren't going to understand why a noarch
22 > package isn't available for them.
24 We can improve the output of the package manager to make this easier
25 to understand; one way is to clarify it, the other way is to just
26 replace it by the actual archictecture the user runs.
28 As a side note, I think we might want to name this anyarch... :)
30 > Thirdly, you have to decide how to deal with long chains and cycles in
31 > noarch dependencies.
32 >
33 > Fourthly, the interaction with || deps is an awful mess.
35 Yes, these are though problems to resolve; my mind came up with that
36 this idea needs recursion, hence the "not sure how implementable".
38 A cycle can be broken by stopping to continue to a certain dependency
39 if that dependency is of the parent reverse dependencies, capture the
40 set of packages as a cycle. Then check for each package in the cycle if
41 their dependencies satisfy each package; if so, all the packages in
42 the cycle are satisfied.
44 Of course, this doesn't take into account more complex cycles were two
45 cycles are connected to each other; but if we would have such thing,
46 I'd rather see that get fixed in the Portage tree as that sounds like a
47 needlessly complex set of ebuilds.
49 Long chains might or might exist and might or might not be problematic,
50 that's something we would need to test out when this is implemented.
52 || deps can be done, just check them in the same order like before;
53 what I'm more scared of is the amount of anyarch/noarch there would be
54 added to the Portage tree, just a few can be easily done.
56 If it is going to be a large share of the Portage tree we'll want to
57 look for another design or just not change how this works at all.
59 --
60 With kind regards,
62 Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
63 Gentoo Developer
65 E-mail address : TomWij@g.o
66 GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D
67 GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] arch="any" (Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy) "Steven J. Long" <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>