[gentoo-project] Re: Automation: Making package.mask better
Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:27:32
David Shakaryan wrote:
> Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
>> Can't we already (automatically) remove masks for which the relevant
>> ebuilds have been removed? Is there another situation for which you
>> think this is useful?
> While it might be possible, we currently aren't doing that. It shouldn't
> be too difficult to implement, but it would have to be semi-smart and
> check if that package ever existed, as some developers add masks before
> adding packages and we don't want those automatically removed.
I thought a package removal was a slightly more complex thing than a simple
dir removal? Even if it isn't, that's the point to tie in (ie when it's
removed from the tree) imo.
> Without saying something on whether it would be useful or not, I think
> that we should change the format to sth which can be processed easily by
> programs (XML for instance). To ensure human readibility, one could keep
> the text file and have the xml one addtionally.
> Then the whole process of adding fields is rather simple :)
XML is much harder to process in scripts than plain-text. Having a simple
ini file format (eg [atom]), or a start and stop sequence (eg ## start
atom) is much easier both to read and to process. As for parsing, ini file
format parsers and the like are common libs. There are two different libs for
it in gentoo already
I agree that appending would be easier; it might also mean older masks don't
just get forgotten, since anyone looking at the file would have to scroll
past them, decreasing the likelihood of cruft.
I concur that the expiration date sounds risky (as another poster
described.) Personally I'd prefer all masks to have open bugs for as long
as they are in the file, assigned to the dev who made the entry. This would
be specific to the mask, and not any issues it is supposed to address
(which would be dependent bugs?)
Good luck with automation!
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list