Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
kde4-svn overlays for portage
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Unsupported Software
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
dleverton
Guru
Guru


Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gaspode wrote:
The (ethically) correct route to go

Is it ethical to try to forbid people from making any progress, instead holding them back to the lowest common denominator.

Gaspode wrote:
would be to suggest these improvements in an official spec that is ratified by Gentoo Council and supported by all existing package managers. That would have the benefit of allowing other ebuilds to use these features as well in the official trees.

Most of them have already been proposed for future official EAPIs, and I expect the remaining ones will be in future. But that doesn't help people who need to use them now.

Gaspode wrote:
The route chosen instead of using a very popular overlay to shove the changes into user's **** without having them accepted officially is likely to produce not only averse reactions, but also probably preventing the good parts of the kdebuild-1 spec being officially accepted anytime soon too.

I agree, people throwing their toys out of the pram and refusing progress out of spite doesn't help Gentoo.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ferdy
Retired Dev
Retired Dev


Joined: 04 May 2002
Posts: 483
Location: España

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gaspode wrote:
Berniyh wrote:

And calling config files "borked" because you don't understand them doesn't make this a bit more "true".


Doesn't matter much if I understand them. Portage not understanding them, however, is a real problem. I've tried Paludis before, not even installing -scm or any fancy stuff, just using it in a normal way for a couple days, and trying Portage afterwards resulted in tons of warnings. Other people I know had to reinstall their box, since that seemed to be easier for them than manually fix the mess left over by going back.


Sorry to spoil the fun, but that's an outright lie.

- ferdy
_________________
Paludis, the next generation in package mangling.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dleverton
Guru
Guru


Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gaspode wrote:
Doesn't matter much if I understand them. Portage not understanding them, however, is a real problem.

Is it also a real problem that emacs doesn't understand vim's configuration files? If not, why is it the case for portage and paludis, especially since the latter two are much easier to inter-convert than the former?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5618
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dleverton wrote:
Gaspode wrote:
FUDing Patrick for providing his own overlay that works with Portage.

Assuming the overlay works and doesn't break people's systems, it is absolutely the least of patrick's crimes.


What crimes? telling the truth? signs of independent thought? refusual to conform to a state being thrusted on ppl?
At least someone is doing something to unravel the mess that is the incompatable, non-standard ebuild format

so far we have had you saying configs are not mangled and that such a statement is a lie, and then a statement that configs are mangles...
someone is lying and well since a chroot of mine to test paludis now is in a state where portage want to downgrade some of my packages which paludis is happy at the present version I would say it makes configs incompatable...
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dleverton
Guru
Guru


Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
so far we have had you saying configs are not mangled and that such a statement is a lie, and then a statement that configs are mangles...
someone is lying and well since a chroot of mine to test paludis now is in a state where portage want to downgrade some of my packages which paludis is happy at the present version I would say it makes configs incompatable...

Please show a diff between the portage config files from before you installed paludis and the portage configs from after (assuming you haven't modified them manually, of course).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5618
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dleverton wrote:


Gaspode wrote:
would be to suggest these improvements in an official spec that is ratified by Gentoo Council and supported by all existing package managers. That would have the benefit of allowing other ebuilds to use these features as well in the official trees.

Most of them have already been proposed for future official EAPIs, and I expect the remaining ones will be in future. But that doesn't help people who need to use them now.


Proposed, but not accepted, so why force the matter
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dleverton
Guru
Guru


Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
Proposed, but not accepted, so why force the matter

Again with the "no progress allowed, hold everyone back"! :roll: And nothing's being forced, if the council doesn't accept them for future official EAPIs, then they won't be in future official EAPIs. That doesn't mean other people can't use or implement the features in unofficial EAPIs in the meantime.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5618
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dleverton wrote:
Naib wrote:
so far we have had you saying configs are not mangled and that such a statement is a lie, and then a statement that configs are mangles...
someone is lying and well since a chroot of mine to test paludis now is in a state where portage want to downgrade some of my packages which paludis is happy at the present version I would say it makes configs incompatable...

Please show a diff between the portage config files from before you installed paludis and the portage configs from after (assuming you haven't modified them manually, of course).


/etc/paludis/keywords.conf

app-editors/vim ~x86



and a few others like that



portage want to downgrade vim-7.1.213 to vim-7.1.123 while portage is happy with it staying at the lastest ~ARCH version
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gaspode
n00b
n00b


Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dleverton wrote:

Paludis doesn't make any configs incompatible.
[...]
Paludis doesn't add invalid atoms to world. If you choose, you can make it add things that aren't atoms (and before you complain, be aware portage 2.2 does that too, so no double-standards please). It doesn't do that without you asking it to, however, and they're trivial to remove if you change your mind.

Haven't tried Portage 2.2 yet. In Paludis' case, however, me using it resulted in warnings because of invalid stuff in world. All I did was installing Paludis, using the migration script, and using it a few days for normal maintenance stuff. Not using any special config. Never asked me if it was allowed to invalidate my world file though.
dleverton wrote:

The KDE ebuilds are in seperate slots, so there shouldn't be much harm in portage ignoring them. But really, trying to regularly use more than one package manager on the same system is only slightly less silly than trying to use multiple bootloaders.

So what happens if you install, say, kdelibs-scm with Paludis, and then decide to install kdelibs with Portage? It will ignore the already installed version, happily install its own version over it. Maybe that's avoided for the KDE builds with slots (not sure what happens if I continue to use the mono ebuilds with Portage), but it's a problem to be aware of for other programs.

Anyway, yes, using more than one package manager on the system is probably not a good idea if they use different config files. However, it is no problem to use pkgcore and Portage at the same time. That's the whole point of drop-in replacements. Using Paludis, on the other hand, requires me to make a choice between the official package manager and Paludis. The way back is at least painful, if possible at all. So if there turn out to be problems with Paludis, I can't just go back to using Portage (which I could when I had problems with pkgcore earlier). That is exactly what I meant when I called this a "one-way street".

Now of course, people will tell me "but once you use Paludis, you don't want to go back anyway!". Well, it would be nice if one could at least try without taking the risk of said problems.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5618
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dleverton wrote:
Naib wrote:
Proposed, but not accepted, so why force the matter

Again with the "no progress allowed, hold everyone back"! :roll: And nothing's being forced, if the council doesn't accept them for future official EAPIs, then they won't be in future official EAPIs. That doesn't mean other people can't use or implement the features in unofficial EAPIs in the meantime.


you sure no progress has not been made?
even with the recent cleaning of the tree no guts of portage were changed? can you honestly say that without lying?
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gaspode
n00b
n00b


Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dleverton wrote:
Gaspode wrote:
Doesn't matter much if I understand them. Portage not understanding them, however, is a real problem.

Is it also a real problem that emacs doesn't understand vim's configuration files? If not, why is it the case for portage and paludis, especially since the latter two are much easier to inter-convert than the former?


I don't care about local config files, they can be as incompatible as they want to be. I think files directly related to your package database, however, shouldn't be treated as "local" in this respect. I consider the stuff in /etc/portage, in particular .use, .mask, .unmask and .keywords, as being part of the package database, because they clearly influence the set of packages on your system. Hence my criticism of Paludis using its own, incompatible version of those. Plus the thing with invalid atoms in world file, which some people claim doesn't happen, but which certainly happened on my system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dleverton
Guru
Guru


Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
dleverton wrote:
Please show a diff between the portage config files from before you installed paludis and the portage configs from after (assuming you haven't modified them manually, of course).


/etc/paludis/keywords.conf

...that's quite special. Funnily enough, /etc/paludis/keywords.conf isn't a portage config file....

Gaspode wrote:
All I did was installing Paludis, using the migration script, and using it a few days for normal maintenance stuff. Not using any special config. Never asked me if it was allowed to invalidate my world file though.

Again, paludis doesn't invalidate anything. If you mean, "adds things that portage doesn't recognise", it won't do that unless you tell it to.

Gaspode wrote:
So if there turn out to be problems with Paludis, I can't just go back to using Portage (which I could when I had problems with pkgcore earlier).

Sure you can.

Gaspode wrote:
Well, it would be nice if one could at least try without taking the risk of said problems.

That's what the portage config support is for, if you're really picky. There's also an option in the paludis config format to mask packages that aren't compatible with portage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dleverton
Guru
Guru


Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
you sure no progress has not been made?
even with the recent cleaning of the tree no guts of portage were changed? can you honestly say that without lying?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Kindly explain what "cleaning of the tree" has to do with "guts of portage".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Berniyh
l33t
l33t


Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 677

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gaspode wrote:
while at the same time getting down to a personal level and insulting and FUDing Patrick for providing his own overlay that works with Portage. Which, of course, he is as free to offer as are the gentoo kde developers with theirs.

I really don't care (and neither do the other ones managing the KDE overlay). As long as:
- The users of his overlay bug him if they have problems
- The users of his overlay don't rant about ours not being Portage-compatible
- He doesn't bug us because he has some problems converting the stuff
- They keep out of our thread (which is about the KDE overlay with the kdebuilds _only_)

Apart from that, do whatever you want. If we wouldn't want that, the kdebuilds wouldn't be published under GPLv2.
So noone is FUDing him.

And just for clarification:
kdebuild has not been invented to torture the users. It's the exact opposite. kdebuild is a lot more user friendly and at the same time a lot more developer friendly (since it is easier to maintain).
You might not realize this from the start, but it definitely is.

And it's really amazing how people get afraid from progress. Everyone's going like "Ooooh noo, progress, bad bad bad."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dleverton
Guru
Guru


Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gaspode wrote:
I think files directly related to your package database, however, shouldn't be treated as "local" in this respect. I consider the stuff in /etc/portage, in particular .use, .mask, .unmask and .keywords, as being part of the package database, because they clearly influence the set of packages on your system. Hence my criticism of Paludis using its own, incompatible version of those.

*shrug* Well, that's clearly a philosophical difference. The Paludis team considers improving things more important than supporting legacy nonsense for all time. That said, those particular files are similar enough between portage and paludis that it's not difficult to keep them synced, if you really want that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Berniyh
l33t
l33t


Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 677

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gaspode wrote:
The route chosen instead of using a very popular overlay to shove the changes into user's **** without having them accepted officially is likely to produce not only averse reactions, but also probably preventing the good parts of the kdebuild-1 spec being officially accepted anytime soon too.

Huh? How should the overlay have any influence on parts of the specs not being integrated?

It's rather likely that it goes in the other direction, because people can see, if the stuff really works. At least it is not delaying anything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5618
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dleverton wrote:
Naib wrote:
dleverton wrote:
Please show a diff between the portage config files from before you installed paludis and the portage configs from after (assuming you haven't modified them manually, of course).


/etc/paludis/keywords.conf

...that's quite special. Funnily enough, /etc/paludis/keywords.conf isn't a portage config file....


I know it is a paludis [b]specific[/b[ config file and it is a file that on the paludis quickstart webpage that is mentioned for keywording NOT /etc/portage/package.keywords
I mean why, why change 1) the file 2) the format such that they are incompatable.

and as such portage and paludis are not compatable from this perspective. I can get other instances later
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rbrown_
Retired Dev
Retired Dev


Joined: 21 Jan 2004
Posts: 20
Location: Under the bridge

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gaspode wrote:
Berniyh wrote:

Believe me, if kdebuilds would be allowed in the tree, there would be quite a few people who would like to use it because of several feature (use deps, ranged deps, labels...).


That may very well be possible. The (ethically) correct route to go would be to suggest these improvements in an official spec that is ratified by Gentoo Council and supported by all existing package managers. That would have the benefit of allowing other ebuilds to use these features as well in the official trees.


If we waited for all* package managers to support something we still wouldn't have EAPI 1 in the tree thanks to the pkgcore guys refusing to write simple unit tests.

* I'm assuming by all you're referring to portage, paludis and pkgcore, or were you suggesting we wait for things like rpm and apt?


Last edited by rbrown_ on Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dleverton
Guru
Guru


Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
dleverton wrote:
Funnily enough, /etc/paludis/keywords.conf isn't a portage config file....


I know it is a paludis specific config file

Oh, good, does this mean that we're going to drop the silly "paludis corrupts portage configuration files" nonsense now?

Naib wrote:
I mean why, why change 1) the file

Portage config files go in /etc/portage (except for the ones that don't), Paludis config files go in /etc/paludis. Is that really so hard to understand?

Naib wrote:
2) the format such that they are incompatable.

Because the paludis format is more logical (although not vastly different from the portage one).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Berniyh
l33t
l33t


Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 677

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
I know it is a paludis [b]specific[/b[ config file and it is a file that on the paludis quickstart webpage that is mentioned for keywording NOT /etc/portage/package.keywords
I mean why, why change 1) the file 2) the format such that they are incompatable.

1) It's really just the name. If you want it to be called package.keywords. Just set a link. Names are really the least of your problems. ;)

2) The format _is_ the same, except that it doesn't support -* keywords (those are deprecated anyway) and uses * instead of ** (which is only a result of the -* mess). The difference is, that Paludis _can_ make use of more features and those are features that are very handy.
But nobody forces you to make use of the additional features. And if you don't use them you can just copy the keywords.conf file and double the *s (which you can do with a simple sed) and that's pretty much it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HiFidk
n00b
n00b


Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 28
Location: Aalborg, Denmark

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@Naib

it's becoming pretty clear that you are talking about stuff you haven't tried to understand.

If you enable the portage USE flag on paludis, it will use portage config files in /etc/portage

This has been stated over and over again, still you keep on going about /etc/paludis being incopatible....
_________________
BALUL(adj)

"Farmer expression describing the state of breating madness a sheep gets in once it has tasted human flesh"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gaspode
n00b
n00b


Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Berniyh wrote:
Gaspode wrote:
The route chosen instead of using a very popular overlay to shove the changes into user's **** without having them accepted officially is likely to produce not only averse reactions, but also probably preventing the good parts of the kdebuild-1 spec being officially accepted anytime soon too.

Huh? How should the overlay have any influence on parts of the specs not being integrated?

It's rather likely that it goes in the other direction, because people can see, if the stuff really works. At least it is not delaying anything.


It's delaying things because the way certain people handle this matter pisses off other people, which is burning down bridges for cooperation. If all that mattered were the technical issues of the spec, and people would actually get together and discuss technical merits rather than trying to push their egos, it would probably be made official by now. The current way of handling things (on both sides, I might add) clearly does not help progress.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dleverton
Guru
Guru


Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 517

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gaspode wrote:
If all that mattered were the technical issues of the spec, and people would actually get together and discuss technical merits rather than trying to push their egos, it would probably be made official by now.

You mean, it would probably be in the sixth-odd year of waiting for portage to implement it. Oh, wait....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gaspode
n00b
n00b


Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HiFidk wrote:
@Naib

it's becoming pretty clear that you are talking about stuff you haven't tried to understand.

If you enable the portage USE flag on paludis, it will use portage config files in /etc/portage

This has been stated over and over again, still you keep on going about /etc/paludis being incopatible....


Yes, and the side-effect of this is that it also only uses Portage capabilities, which in particular means that you can NOT use the kde-svn overlay (or any -scm ebuild) with Paludis in Portage compat mode.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HiFidk
n00b
n00b


Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 28
Location: Aalborg, Denmark

PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gaspode wrote:
HiFidk wrote:
@Naib

it's becoming pretty clear that you are talking about stuff you haven't tried to understand.

If you enable the portage USE flag on paludis, it will use portage config files in /etc/portage

This has been stated over and over again, still you keep on going about /etc/paludis being incopatible....


Yes, and the side-effect of this is that it also only uses Portage capabilities, which in particular means that you can NOT use the kde-svn overlay (or any -scm ebuild) with Paludis in Portage compat mode.


ehm yes... since portage doesn't support it, but that was not the issue being discussed. The issue was the claim the paludis creates incompatible configuration files.
_________________
BALUL(adj)

"Farmer expression describing the state of breating madness a sheep gets in once it has tasted human flesh"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Unsupported Software All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum