| 1 |
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 20:25:20 +0100 |
| 2 |
"Justin Lecher (jlec)" <jlec@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Dear all, |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> the Gentoo Council will meet again on Sunday, February 14 at 19:00 UTC |
| 7 |
> in #gentoo-council on FreeNode. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Please reply to this message with any items you would like us to discuss |
| 10 |
> or vote on. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Since the agenda hasn't been sent yet, I would like the Council to |
| 13 |
consider helping out with removing cases of 'use*' function calls in |
| 14 |
global scope. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The issue is known for quite some time already, and the offending |
| 17 |
ebuilds and eclasses are currently tracked in bug #566518 [1]. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Those functions can not be used in global scope as their results depend |
| 20 |
on configuration. This causes two major issues: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
1. it breaks metadata invariancy -- the ebuild metadata may change |
| 23 |
dependening on value of USE flags, therefore either invalidating caches |
| 24 |
or causing the package manager to obtain incorrect results from cache, |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
2. it causes circular dependencies in configuration -- USE flags can be |
| 27 |
applied to specific SLOTs, SLOTs may depend on USE flags... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
The global scope use calls were always forbidden by the PMS. Portage |
| 30 |
bans it in EAPI 6 but we'd like to extend the ban to the remaining |
| 31 |
EAPIs. However, at the moment we can't because that would cause |
| 32 |
existing violations to prevent users from installing toolchain. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
So far most of the developers understood the issue and fixed their |
| 35 |
violations. However, for years toolchain is actively refusing to do so, |
| 36 |
and either closing our requests or blocking them with request to |
| 37 |
provide support for USE-dynamic SLOTs. Which is quite unlikely to be |
| 38 |
fulfilled since it would still cause the second issue listed above. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Sadly, our inability to ban this is causing new violations to be |
| 41 |
committed accidentally by developers. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Therefore, I would like to ask for Council's help on this issue. I see |
| 44 |
the possible following actions that would help the cause: |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
a. officially refusing the 'dynamic slot' request [2] so that it would |
| 47 |
not be used to block fixing the QA violations indefinitely, |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
b. setting an official deadline on fixing the remaining violations |
| 50 |
and making the calls fatal. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
[1]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=566518 |
| 53 |
[2]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174407 |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
-- |
| 56 |
Best regards, |
| 57 |
Michał Górny |
| 58 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives