Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Mask packages that don't cross-compile

[Daniel Barkalow]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Brian Harring wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 05:04:36PM -0500, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> >
> > I wouldn't change ACCEPT_KEYWORDS at all or anything in the computation of
> > pgroups or mygroups in portdbapi.gvisible(), so package.keywords is
> > unchanged and the whole incremental ACCEPT_KEYWORDS is also unchanged.
>
> Find that a bit hard to believe frankly; inserting cross into a
> packages keywords _has_ to undergo the transformation somewhere.  If
> you're not doing it there, then you're probably doing it somewhere
> that you shouldn't be ;)

I'm not inserting cross into a package's keywords. I'm saying that perl 
ebuilds (for example) should have in their KEYWORDS "-cross" to indicate 
that they don't work with the "cross" keyword. The logic is the completely 
universal thing where a package puts its keywords in KEYWORDS, and the 
configuration has keywords in make.conf. The proper place for an ebuild to 
specify that it doesn't work when cross-compiling is, obviously, in the 
ebuild, since the maintainers obviously know, or can be told.

With mainline emerge (and a locally-modified perl ebuild that adds 
"-cross" to KEYWORDS) and ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="cross", I get:

mygroups = "alpha amd64 arm hppa ia64 m68k mips ppc ~ppc-macos ppc64 s390 
 sh sparc ~sparc-fbsd x86 ~x86-fbsd -cross"
pgroups = "arm cross"

> > The present documentation (Ebuild HOWTO, for example) says "If the
> > KEYWORDS flag has a preceding -, then the package does not work with the
> > given keyword." But this is ignored by portage, because "Packages that do
> > not support the native architecture are automatically masked by Portage",
> > which means that "-x86" has no effect, because an ebuild with "-x86" won't
> > have "x86" or "~x86", and is therefore masked. I'm proposing that "-foo"
> > be taken seriously as meaning that the package does not work with the
> > "foo" keyword, even if the ebuild would otherwise be visible.
>
> Why would you propose that?  That's already the case as is, folks just
> have a way around it if they try hard enough (which isn't necessarily
> a bad thing).

That is not the case currently. If a package has "-foo" (when the user has 
"foo" and doesn't have "-foo"), the ebuild still can pass the keyword 
check. E.g., if an ebuild has KEYWORDS="* -x86", it will be built on x86.

In the example above, the package is not masked under the current 
implementation, because "arm" matches and "-cross" is completely ignored.

> Not seeing how that proposal is related to xcompile either.

It's not specificly connected to xcompile. It just lets ebuilds specify 
negative keywords that have actual effects. It's just that "I'm 
cross-compiling" is a property that isn't tied to a particular profile and 
which a number of ebuilds could use to say "this ebuild won't work for 
you".

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list