Mailing List Archive

Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>:

> I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
> What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying that you
> should not use version numbers in DESCRIPTION? This could even be
> added to repoman.

Is this iussue that grave, that we repoman needs to whine about it?
What is the issue with it (apart from p.g.o, eix and friends not
displaying correct information) exactly?

V-Li

--
http://www.gentoo.org/
http://www.faulhammer.org/
http://www.gnupg.org/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Petteri R�ty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>:
>
>> I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
>> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
>> What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying that you
>> should not use version numbers in DESCRIPTION? This could even be
>> added to repoman.
>
> Is this iussue that grave, that we repoman needs to whine about it?
> What is the issue with it (apart from p.g.o, eix and friends not
> displaying correct information) exactly?
>
> V-Li

Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make it
impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some duplication.

Marijn


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGpeY0p/VmCx0OL2wRAttEAJ4pNQ9Ez7zz3wyOsZtBKclfEIll0gCfTW6z
w1X0FcpUJ1OnijVdd8wOJ0A=
=JsjC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make it
> impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some duplication.

I think that this is a great idea, for the reasons which you stated. I
certainly hope this will not be yet another situation where everyone
agrees and no one takes any action to actually implement anything.

--
David Shakaryan
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Marijn Schouten (hkBst) kirjoitti:
> Christian Faulhammer wrote:
>> Petteri Rýty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>:
>
>>> I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
>>> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
>>> What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying that you
>>> should not use version numbers in DESCRIPTION? This could even be
>>> added to repoman.
>> Is this iussue that grave, that we repoman needs to whine about it?
>> What is the issue with it (apart from p.g.o, eix and friends not
>> displaying correct information) exactly?
>
>> V-Li
>
> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make it
> impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some duplication.
>
> Marijn
>
>

<shortdescription>
</shortdescription>

sounds like something for EAPI-1

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=186454

Regards,
Petteri

Tiziano Müller kirjoitti:
> Petteri Räty schrieb:
>> Currently there are some ebuilds in the tree that use ${PV} in
>> description which leads to results like:
>> Description: Documentation (including API Javadocs) for
>> Java SDK version 1.6.0
>>
>> I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
>> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
>> What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying that you should
>> not use version numbers in DESCRIPTION? This could even be added to repoman.
>
> As far as I understood it, having DESCRIPTION in the ebuild itself
> (rather than in metadata) means that DESCRIPTION is allowed to change
> between versions, whether "automatically" by using a version-dependent
> variable or "manually".
>
> I'd therefore only add a note in the devmanual which recommends not to
> use ${PV} (and ${P}, ...) in the DESCRIPTION.
>
> Cheers,
> Tiziano
>

But is there anything that makes use of version specific DESCRIPTION atoms?

Regards,
Petteri

Tiziano Müller wrote:
> As far as I understood it, having DESCRIPTION in the ebuild itself
> (rather than in metadata) means that DESCRIPTION is allowed to change
> between versions, whether "automatically" by using a version-dependent
> variable or "manually".

Well, from what I understand, DESCRIPTION should generally stay the same
between different versions of the same package. While two versions of
the same package may have some slight differences, the general purpose
of the package should remain the same, and DESCRIPTION is after all just
a short general description. I don't see any/enough exceptions to
warrant all the duplication and unnecessary complexity.

--
David Shakaryan
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:06:40 +0300
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
> But is there anything that makes use of version specific DESCRIPTION
> atoms?

Yep. Have a look at sys-devel/gcc for example. Some versions include
various extensions, and say so in DESCRIPTION.

--
Ciaran McCreesh

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <hkBst@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make
> it impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some
> duplication.

Got to be careful here. In the past it's been stated that Portage won't
use XML for anything that it has to parse.

--
Ciaran McCreesh

Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:06:40 +0300
> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> But is there anything that makes use of version specific DESCRIPTION
>> atoms?
>
> Yep. Have a look at sys-devel/gcc for example. Some versions include
> various extensions, and say so in DESCRIPTION.
>

I did say in my original mail that there are ebuilds building dynamic
DESCRIPTION variables but the my question was that does anything make
use of their dynamic nature. I think for example eix only looks at the
latest.

Regards,
Petteri

Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
> "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <hkBst@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make
>> it impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some
>> duplication.
>
> Got to be careful here. In the past it's been stated that Portage won't
> use XML for anything that it has to parse.
>

Well here we need to answer the question whether searching DESCRIPTION
strings is a core feature. I have never used emerge --searchdesc but
that might be just me.

Regards,
Petteri

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Petteri Räty wrote:
> Marijn Schouten (hkBst) kirjoitti:
>> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make it
>> impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some duplication.
>
> <shortdescription>
> </shortdescription>
>
> sounds like something for EAPI-1
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=186454

right, we can just get rid of DESCIRPTION

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:06:40 +0300
> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> But is there anything that makes use of version specific DESCRIPTION
>> atoms?
>
> Yep. Have a look at sys-devel/gcc for example. Some versions include
> various extensions, and say so in DESCRIPTION.

and put details like this in <longdescription>.

Marijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGpfZZp/VmCx0OL2wRAqnsAJ4s1QCF2X+DZlxupyRjLGm3getRVwCeMrmx
bwX7qP5PeseQ4B8ypNIcQIA=
=V04j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
> "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <hkBst@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make
>> it impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some
>> duplication.
>
> Got to be careful here. In the past it's been stated that Portage won't
> use XML for anything that it has to parse.

Ah, that one is easy. Switch to s-expressions :P

Marijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGpfbOp/VmCx0OL2wRAgpmAJ0WNw4fh7EGRgHStnRknB41F1kcNgCdGC+X
wgZ/SW6fs7NPVePumqh00ts=
=YpPL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Tuesday, 24. July 2007 14:26, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
> >
> > "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <hkBst@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would
> >> make it impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove
> >> some duplication.
> >
> > Got to be careful here. In the past it's been stated that Portage
> > won't use XML for anything that it has to parse.
>
> Well here we need to answer the question whether searching
> DESCRIPTION strings is a core feature. I have never used emerge
> --searchdesc but that might be just me.

I believe it to be a core feature. How else am I to find an rss reader
in portage without having any preference or knowledge before
installing? Or some random tool to convert X to Y.
Often, features are not part of the name.

Robert
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:18:46 +0200
Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
> > "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <hkBst@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would
> >> make it impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove
> >> some duplication.
> >
> > Got to be careful here. In the past it's been stated that Portage
> > won't use XML for anything that it has to parse.
>
> Well, if/when DESCRIPTION is moved to metadata, this must be changed.

The intention was to stick with things that could be parsed quickly and
easily, without relying upon slow library code. Whether that's still an
issue these days what with the Portage people who were saying that the
loudest not being around any more is up for debate...

Although, at the other end of the scale, Daniel claims that he wanted
to move all ebuild metadata into metadata.xml...

> Unless we change the metadata format as well (to yaml for example :-)

The only specification-compliant yaml parser is written in C, has
only the bottom two layers of the stack and no usable external
bindings... Perhaps you mean "something that's basically yaml except
with reserved string-start characters not handled correctly", in which
case there's Syck...

--
Ciaran McCreesh

Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> Christian Faulhammer wrote:
>> Petteri Rýty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>:
>
>>> I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
>>> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
>>> What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying that you
>>> should not use version numbers in DESCRIPTION? This could even be
>>> added to repoman.
>> Is this iussue that grave, that we repoman needs to whine about it?
>> What is the issue with it (apart from p.g.o, eix and friends not
>> displaying correct information) exactly?
>
>> V-Li
>
> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata.

No

> That would make it
> impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some duplication.
>

It isn't duplicated, description is per ebuild and could change,
metadata is for the package as whole.

lu

--

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The only specification-compliant yaml parser is written in C, has
> only the bottom two layers of the stack and no usable external
> bindings... Perhaps you mean "something that's basically yaml except
> with reserved string-start characters not handled correctly", in which
> case there's Syck...
>

what about libyaml?

lu

--

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:46:05 +0200
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > The only specification-compliant yaml parser is written in C, has
> > only the bottom two layers of the stack and no usable external
> > bindings... Perhaps you mean "something that's basically yaml except
> > with reserved string-start characters not handled correctly", in
> > which case there's Syck...
>
> what about libyaml?

libyaml's the compliant one, but it only supports the bottom part of the
stack. You'd still have to write the composer and constructor by hand,
which is a lot of work. It also can't read many documents generated by
Syck because it's strictly specification compliant and rejects invalid
input.

Yaml looks nicer than XML on the surface, but unfortunately it's still a
pain in the ass to handle...

--
Ciaran McCreesh

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

>
> Yaml looks nicer than XML on the surface, but unfortunately it's still a
> pain in the ass to handle...
>

Basically because there aren't nicer libraries for languages different
than ruby python and perl... =/

lu

--

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:11:35 +0200
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Yaml looks nicer than XML on the surface, but unfortunately it's
> > still a pain in the ass to handle...
> >
>
> Basically because there aren't nicer libraries for languages different
> than ruby python and perl... =/

And there aren't specification-compliant Yaml libraries for Ruby,
Python or Perl. That's important. If you're using the thing that Syck
generates, you're not using Yaml.

--
Ciaran McCreesh

On Tuesday 24 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > But is there anything that makes use of version specific DESCRIPTION
> > atoms?
>
> Yep. Have a look at sys-devel/gcc for example. Some versions include
> various extensions, and say so in DESCRIPTION.

eh, i'm not really partial to such enumeration, not that it really matters
considering most search programs show 1 DESCRIPTION (the latest)

easy enough to expound upon in a long description
-mike

On Tuesday 24 July 2007, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> > That would make it
> > impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some
> > duplication.
>
> It isn't duplicated, description is per ebuild and could change,
> metadata is for the package as whole.

can you point out a package where this is actually needed let alone used ?
none of our utilities expose the DESCRIPTION on a per-ebuild basis, only
per-package
-mike

Petteri Räty schrieb:
> Currently there are some ebuilds in the tree that use ${PV} in
> description which leads to results like:
> Description: Documentation (including API Javadocs) for
> Java SDK version 1.6.0
>
> I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
> What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying that you should
> not use version numbers in DESCRIPTION? This could even be added to repoman.

As far as I understood it, having DESCRIPTION in the ebuild itself
(rather than in metadata) means that DESCRIPTION is allowed to change
between versions, whether "automatically" by using a version-dependent
variable or "manually".

I'd therefore only add a note in the devmanual which recommends not to
use ${PV} (and ${P}, ...) in the DESCRIPTION.

Cheers,
Tiziano

Petteri Räty schrieb:
> Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:06:40 +0300
>> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> But is there anything that makes use of version specific DESCRIPTION
>>> atoms?
>> Yep. Have a look at sys-devel/gcc for example. Some versions include
>> various extensions, and say so in DESCRIPTION.
>>
>
> I did say in my original mail that there are ebuilds building dynamic
> DESCRIPTION variables but the my question was that does anything make
> use of their dynamic nature. I think for example eix only looks at the
> latest.

Because it spuriously assumes that only the latest one is relevant and
it therefore doesn't do any ${PV} substitution (which is correct
behavior under this assumption).

Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
> "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <hkBst@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make
>> it impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some
>> duplication.
>
> Got to be careful here. In the past it's been stated that Portage won't
> use XML for anything that it has to parse.

Well, if/when DESCRIPTION is moved to metadata, this must be changed.
Unless we change the metadata format as well (to yaml for example :-)