Re: [gentoo-dev] Defining the Tree: a proto-GLEP.

[Daniel Ostrow]

On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 19:04 -0400, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > Continuing in the series of issues raised during the previous package
> > manager discussions, I'd like to continue by mentioning the tree
> > format. At present, it isn't defined beyond "what the current portage
> > supports", which is frankly a fairly silly way to do things. Following
> > discussion in #gentoo-portage, I'd like to set out to change that.
> >
> > My current idea is to draw up a formal specification of what ebuilds
> > are allowed to do, and what to assume about the environment in which
> > they run, as well as defining the formats of everything under
> > profiles/, metadata.xml files, and other auxiliary information in the
> > tree. I would envision the first version of this document to more or
> > less codify existing practise, perhaps excluding some dubious tricks
> > that are known to break in some cases. Generally, it should be possible
> > to make the tree conform to the first version of the specification by
> > changes no more significant than currently have QA bugs filed for them.
> >
> > It seems fairly obvious that any effort of this kind could potentially
> > have implications, albeit hopefully very minor, across more or less all
> > aspects of the tree, and so I'd like to seek as wide a range of input
> > as possible before going ahead with it. The QA and Portage teams, based
> > on my enquiries in IRC, seem broadly in favour, and I would imagine
> > that this could be very helpful to Gentoo/ALT as well, so I'd like
> > opinions from others at this point. Would you support such an effort,
> > whether passively or actively? Would you oppose it? If so, why? Final
> > implementation of it would I assume require the Council's approval;
> > while I won't ask at this stage for a formal discussion I'd appreciate
> > the views of its members on whether such an initiative is likely to
> > pass.
> >
> > Any input is gratefully received.
> >
> I like the idea. This would be some kind of portage-tree standard?

It's been one of the missing cornerstones of the whole equation. Lets
get it done and get it done right.

One thing I do ask...Lets all start now getting used to calling the
"portage tree" something different. I'm all for terms like "the tree" or
"the ebuild tree" or "the package tree" but at this point, given the
prompting subject matter, the idea of it being a tree which belongs to
portage seems outdated. This may seem like a small thing (like the teams
vs. herds argument that has been brought up countless times before) but
it is the silly little things like this that really do lower the mental
bar for new and exciting things to happen.

Thanks,

--Dan