Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: mgorny@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/3] go-module.eclass: introduce new eclass to handle go modules
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 23:11:24
Message-Id: 20190911231115.GA20687@whubbs1.dev.av1.gaikai.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/3] go-module.eclass: introduce new eclass to handle go modules by "Michał Górny"
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. 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. William

Attachments

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

Replies