[gentoo-qa] splitting up package.mask

[gentoo-qa] splitting up package.mask

[Steve Dibb]

Hey guys,

I have an idea I'd like to run by the QA team.

For a user's portage preferences, we can have /etc/package.mask be a 
file or a directory of files (package.mask/*) that will cumulatively 
create the same effect.

Because package.mask in CVS for profiles is so huge, I think it might 
help it to get organized if we split it up a bit.

halcyon had a good idea for the scheme: testing, broken, removal.  That 
seems to sum up the main 3 reason that a package would be masked.

Right now there are 679 entries in package.mask.  The reason I came up 
with the idea was to find a way to make it easier for treecleaners to 
quickly see which ones they were working on.

I'd like to take the discussion to -dev but wanted to get QA's thoughts 
first.  I haven't looked into whether or not this is technically 
feasible at all.

Steve

-- 
gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-qa] splitting up package.mask

[Alec Warner]

On 3/13/08, Steve Dibb <beandog@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
>  I have an idea I'd like to run by the QA team.
>
>  For a user's portage preferences, we can have /etc/package.mask be a
>  file or a directory of files (package.mask/*) that will cumulatively
>  create the same effect.
>
>  Because package.mask in CVS for profiles is so huge, I think it might
>  help it to get organized if we split it up a bit.
>
>  halcyon had a good idea for the scheme: testing, broken, removal.  That
>  seems to sum up the main 3 reason that a package would be masked.
>
>  Right now there are 679 entries in package.mask.  The reason I came up
>  with the idea was to find a way to make it easier for treecleaners to
>  quickly see which ones they were working on.
>
>  I'd like to take the discussion to -dev but wanted to get QA's thoughts
>  first.  I haven't looked into whether or not this is technically
>  feasible at all.

Yes, I'm sure some will want a GLEP.

my proposal would be to create in gentoo-x86, a package.mask.d type dir

Come up with a naming scheme.
Come up with a tool that can check for duplicate mask entries.
Cat all the entries together to form a legacy package.mask so we don't
have to deal with backwards compat.

Probably use this cat'd package.mask file for the PM with a stat()
call on the packge.mask.d dir to force the PM to generate the 'cache'.

-Alec

>
>  Steve
>
>
>  --
>  gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
-- 
gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-qa] splitting up package.mask

[Marius Mauch]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:59:41 -0600
Steve Dibb <beandog@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hey guys,
> 
> I have an idea I'd like to run by the QA team.
> 
> For a user's portage preferences, we can have /etc/package.mask be a 
> file or a directory of files (package.mask/*) that will cumulatively 
> create the same effect.
> 
> Because package.mask in CVS for profiles is so huge, I think it might 
> help it to get organized if we split it up a bit.
> 
> halcyon had a good idea for the scheme: testing, broken, removal.
> That seems to sum up the main 3 reason that a package would be masked.
> 
> Right now there are 679 entries in package.mask.  The reason I came
> up with the idea was to find a way to make it easier for treecleaners
> to quickly see which ones they were working on.
> 
> I'd like to take the discussion to -dev but wanted to get QA's
> thoughts first.  I haven't looked into whether or not this is
> technically feasible at all.

Well, portage supports this since 2.1 and older versions haven't been
supported for quite some time already, but don't know about other PMs,
so depends if you want to risk breaking them.

Marius
-- 
gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-qa] splitting up package.mask

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 740 bytes --]

On Thursday 13 March 2008, Steve Dibb wrote:
> Because package.mask in CVS for profiles is so huge, I think it might
> help it to get organized if we split it up a bit.
>
> halcyon had a good idea for the scheme: testing, broken, removal.  That
> seems to sum up the main 3 reason that a package would be masked.
>
> Right now there are 679 entries in package.mask.  The reason I came up
> with the idea was to find a way to make it easier for treecleaners to
> quickly see which ones they were working on.
>
> I'd like to take the discussion to -dev but wanted to get QA's thoughts
> first.  I haven't looked into whether or not this is technically
> feasible at all.

i think the real solution here is allowing masking in a package
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-qa] splitting up package.mask

[Alec Warner]

On 3/14/08, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 13 March 2008, Steve Dibb wrote:
>  > Because package.mask in CVS for profiles is so huge, I think it might
>  > help it to get organized if we split it up a bit.
>  >
>  > halcyon had a good idea for the scheme: testing, broken, removal.  That
>  > seems to sum up the main 3 reason that a package would be masked.
>  >
>  > Right now there are 679 entries in package.mask.  The reason I came up
>  > with the idea was to find a way to make it easier for treecleaners to
>  > quickly see which ones they were working on.
>  >
>  > I'd like to take the discussion to -dev but wanted to get QA's thoughts
>  > first.  I haven't looked into whether or not this is technically
>  > feasible at all.
>
>
> i think the real solution here is allowing masking in a package
>
> -mike
>
>

You want to add a metadata key and cache it you mean?

-Alec
-- 
gentoo-qa@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-qa] splitting up package.mask

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 479 bytes --]

On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 08:12 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> so depends if you want to risk breaking them.

s/want to risk/care about/

Remember, PMS isn't approved, so all we "care about" is portage.  ;]

I think this seems like a good idea.  I'd prefer that if we do make this
change, that it waits until *after* 2008.0 is released, so I don't need
to sync up all these changes from the tree.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-qa] splitting up package.mask

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 906 bytes --]

Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> said:
> On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 08:12 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > so depends if you want to risk breaking them.
> 
> s/want to risk/care about/
> 
> Remember, PMS isn't approved, so all we "care about" is portage.  ;]

Well, PMS being approved is the direction we are going, so it would be
nice for us to inform the other PM maintainers what we plan on doing so
they know they should have support.

> I think this seems like a good idea.  I'd prefer that if we do make this
> change, that it waits until *after* 2008.0 is released, so I don't need
> to sync up all these changes from the tree.

Sounds good to me.  Is it still looking like we are on schedule for that
release to go out?

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Loeser
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email         -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-qa] splitting up package.mask

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1320 bytes --]

On Friday 14 March 2008, Alec Warner wrote:
> On 3/14/08, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 March 2008, Steve Dibb wrote:
> >  > Because package.mask in CVS for profiles is so huge, I think it might
> >  > help it to get organized if we split it up a bit.
> >  >
> >  > halcyon had a good idea for the scheme: testing, broken, removal. 
> >  > That seems to sum up the main 3 reason that a package would be masked.
> >  >
> >  > Right now there are 679 entries in package.mask.  The reason I came up
> >  > with the idea was to find a way to make it easier for treecleaners to
> >  > quickly see which ones they were working on.
> >  >
> >  > I'd like to take the discussion to -dev but wanted to get QA's
> >  > thoughts first.  I haven't looked into whether or not this is
> >  > technically feasible at all.
> >
> > i think the real solution here is allowing masking in a package
>
> You want to add a metadata key and cache it you mean?

i dont care terribly much about the logistics, just the results.  as long as 
an ebuild can declare itself masked, it sounds good to me.

this doesnt preclude the other ideas as there are often times where you want 
to have 1 global package mask piece (like large package set bumps ... so X or 
KDE or GNOME or ...).
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]