1 |
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:02:10 +0000 |
2 |
"Steven J. Long" <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Yeah but it already outshines under the hood: all you're talking |
5 |
> about is EAPI and radhermit is working on it; |
6 |
|
7 |
pkgcore's response to EAPI 6 is something to hold your breath for. |
8 |
|
9 |
> I'm sure he and dol-sen would be happy for more help as well, so long |
10 |
> as it's supportive. ISTR TomWij is involved too. |
11 |
|
12 |
Yes and no, in the short run I'm going to do some repoman work as to |
13 |
benefit both the QA and Portage teams (and the community as a whole); |
14 |
from that point on I'll try to look at Portage and pkgcore from a broad |
15 |
view (software re-engineering style) to see how I want to continue. |
16 |
|
17 |
As stated in other mails, I'll definitely help keep Portage alive for |
18 |
as long as possible regardless; I will thus have to see if remaining |
19 |
time permits to help out with pkgcore as well. |
20 |
|
21 |
So, in the short run; no, also, I'm devaway for the next two weeks. |
22 |
|
23 |
Like Portage made out a call for people, I think pkgcore should in the |
24 |
near future make out a call for more people; there definitely are some |
25 |
people here and there that have deep interest in it, thus contributions |
26 |
to it might just be waiting around the corner... |
27 |
|
28 |
> Updating both in parallel isn't hard: once pkgcore is up to EAPI-5, |
29 |
> EAPI-6 isn't that much work (mostly bash afair.) |
30 |
|
31 |
Its feature set is unknown afaik, thus it could become easy but just |
32 |
as well become huge; this depends on the approach that the PMS team |
33 |
takes going forward. But for all I know I've seen some things get |
34 |
implemented in Portage, is the same true for pkgcore? |
35 |
|
36 |
> At that point, put portage into feature-freeze, and only bugfix it. |
37 |
|
38 |
Impossible with a new EAPI around the corner. |
39 |
|
40 |
> Call a hiatus on new EAPIs for 6 months and put all effort into |
41 |
> making damn sure pkgcore is a drop-in replacement. |
42 |
|
43 |
This stops the progress of part of the distribution; actually, we've |
44 |
stopped progress on that for quite some time already as we're already |
45 |
running a bit behind on the yearly release of a new EAPI. |
46 |
|
47 |
> > > We could have a technical |
48 |
> > > discussion on the merits of pkgcore vs. portage, but in the end, |
49 |
> > > it's about the users. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> I don't think anyone who's serious can come down on any side but |
52 |
> pkgcore in that debate, so I agree we skip that discussion. |
53 |
|
54 |
I could indeed conclude the opposite, evening it out; it's pointless to |
55 |
discuss that right now. We're currently discussing the PMs' futures; |
56 |
but we're not discussing "the new package manager default" yet, neither |
57 |
are we discussing a well planned proper migration yet at this time. |
58 |
|
59 |
> > We can blah blah about performance of resolving package dependencies |
60 |
> > all day long, but it's clearly not a game changer feature for users. |
61 |
> > (or they just don't know) |
62 |
> |
63 |
> They just don't know: and it really is a game-changer, once you've |
64 |
> tried it. We must be able to finally deliver pkgcore speed, 5 years |
65 |
> after the event. |
66 |
|
67 |
With Portage only spending half a minute* a day on it here, /care; and |
68 |
as seen in benchmarks, Portage allows quite some improvements to it. |
69 |
So, if needed, it is certainly possible to bring its time down. |
70 |
|
71 |
* --backtrack=0 is my new favorite parameter, don't need more. :) |
72 |
|
73 |
> > [1] /* Side details */ |
74 |
> > In a nutshell we make it possible to track the results of "make |
75 |
> > check" or equivalent test coverage for every source package. |
76 |
> > There's a little work involved for setting up each package, but it |
77 |
> > gives the easy ability to *know* and prove that between xyz |
78 |
> > ${FLAGS} there's no regressions. For example: How do you *know* |
79 |
> > that fftw or ssl is regression free when you enable avx, fma or |
80 |
> > some other higher level of optimization (-O3). By knowing I don't |
81 |
> > mean just result correctness, but also potentially runtime |
82 |
> > performance, code size and potentially compile times. (If those are |
83 |
> > things you care about) |
84 |
> |
85 |
> OFC they are, or we wouldn't be using Gentoo ;) And that does sound |
86 |
> like an interesting project, of wider interest to the community. |
87 |
> (hint hint;) |
88 |
|
89 |
Now that I read this again: |
90 |
|
91 |
Performance, size and compile times mean nothing if you don't get a |
92 |
correct result; it all gets funny when the scrollbar of your browser |
93 |
breaks just because one of its many deep dependencies was built with |
94 |
-Ofast, then that small bit of extra performance can be laughed at. |
95 |
|
96 |
<OT> And yeah, searching that dependency is also a lot of fun; which |
97 |
means you'll want to recompile libraries with -O2 again until you have |
98 |
found it, unless you want to spend days figuring it out. And for this |
99 |
last thing, it's handy you can grep flags in the /var/db/pkg/. </OT> |
100 |
|
101 |
<OT2> At which point you can be lucky it isn't done by some package |
102 |
that has bad QA and has overridden CFLAGS or something like that. </OT2> |
103 |
|
104 |
-- |
105 |
With kind regards, |
106 |
|
107 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
108 |
Gentoo Developer |
109 |
|
110 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
111 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
112 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |