Mailing List Archive

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:45:17 +0800 Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com>
wrote:
| So, what you're telling me is that gentoo's ebuilds are the same as
| RPM's Spec files?

Sort of. The pathspec stuff will change that, but right now we install
into ${ROOT}/usr (except for core system stuff). Things would get very
very broken if we allowed users to change that.

--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, Sparc, Mips)
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm

On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 15:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:45:17 +0800 Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com>
> wrote:
> | So, what you're telling me is that gentoo's ebuilds are the same as
> | RPM's Spec files?
>
> Sort of. The pathspec stuff will change that, but right now we install
> into ${ROOT}/usr (except for core system stuff). Things would get very
> very broken if we allowed users to change that.

Okay.. Cool, you're a Gentoo Developer. I'll shoot now okay?

Since you mentioned it like that, then there isn't very much that
differers between Gentoo and RH in terms of package management? .spec is
equivalent to .ebuild for gentoo right?

So.. will there ever come a time when things go into "legacy" mode like
in RH/FC?

How dependent are end-users to gentoo's ebuilds? I know there are other
ebuild locations on the net, places like breakmygentoo and others I
imagine, but what I like to know, truly, is how does one take a simple
tarball and get it to be installed into all the "right" places?

After some thinking, I doubt users can do that, and do a good enough job
to not fsck things up. So, there's no such thing as

wget tarball
tar -xvzf tarball -C /usr/local/src/
cd /usr/local/src/tarball
configure (that's it, just one word)
make
make install

and all will be good? Meaning, things by default gets installed into
/usr/local

Does this happen for apps not already in portage?
Can emerge -C still happen?

Thanks

/newbie (3 weeks and counting)

--
Ow Mun Heng
Fedora GNU/Linux Core 2 on D600 1.4Ghz CPU kernel
2.6.7-2.jul1-interactive
Neuromancer 15:42:21 up 6:40, 10 users, load average: 1.76, 1.66, 1.46

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:47:53 +0800 Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com>
wrote:
| Since you mentioned it like that, then there isn't very much that
| differers between Gentoo and RH in terms of package management? .spec
| is equivalent to .ebuild for gentoo right?

Not really. There's a hell of a lot more information in an ebuild file.

| So.. will there ever come a time when things go into "legacy" mode
| like in RH/FC?

What's legacy mode? I gave up on RH years ago.

| How dependent are end-users to gentoo's ebuilds? I know there are
| other ebuild locations on the net, places like breakmygentoo and
| others I imagine, but what I like to know, truly, is how does one take
| a simple tarball and get it to be installed into all the "right"
| places?

If you can run an rsync server you can provide an alternate or
additional tree. It's dead easy to do, but nobody has ever really done
it since our main tree is generally pretty good :)

| After some thinking, I doubt users can do that, and do a good enough
| job to not fsck things up. So, there's no such thing as
|
| wget tarball
| tar -xvzf tarball -C /usr/local/src/
| cd /usr/local/src/tarball
| configure (that's it, just one word)
| make
| make install

Well, if that's really all you need to do to build the package, it's
*really* trivial to make an ebuild... Here ya go:

DESCRIPTION="Some package"
HOMEPAGE="http://foo.com/"
SRC_URI="http://foo.com/blah.tar.bz2"
LICENSE="gpl-2"
SLOT="0"
KEYWORDS="~x86 ~sparc ~mips"
IUSE=""
DEPEND=""

src_install() {
make DESTDIR=${D} install
}

Note that you can use the default src_unpack and src_compile here. Also
note that if you're doing serious ebuild writing, you should probably
read the docs. As it stands, the above wouldn't be suitable for the main
tree.

| Does this happen for apps not already in portage?
| Can emerge -C still happen?

emerge -C can only work on packages installed via portage.

--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, Sparc, Mips)
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm

On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 23:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:47:53 +0800 Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com>
> wrote:
> | Since you mentioned it like that, then there isn't very much that
> | differers between Gentoo and RH in terms of package management? .spec
> | is equivalent to .ebuild for gentoo right?
>
> Not really. There's a hell of a lot more information in an ebuild file.

Well, looking at the ebuild file for apache2, I learned how to do sed -i
(inline!)

But seriously, what's different? You guys still use macros right? stuffs
like src_unpack etc, pass the configure flags and such

>
> | So.. will there ever come a time when things go into "legacy" mode
> | like in RH/FC?
>
> What's legacy mode? I gave up on RH years ago.

Sorry.. I'm still on FC2. Trying to move over once everything's done.

Legacy means, a time when a particular Distro is not supported anymore
by RH/Fedora and support for RPMS like security and such is transferred
to the "legacy" people.

At this juncture, it begins to be hard to get any _app_ updates. eg:
Mplayer or stuffs like that.

>
> | How dependent are end-users to gentoo's ebuilds? I know there are
> | other ebuild locations on the net, places like breakmygentoo and
> | others I imagine, but what I like to know, truly, is how does one take
> | a simple tarball and get it to be installed into all the "right"
> | places?
>
> If you can run an rsync server you can provide an alternate or
> additional tree. It's dead easy to do, but nobody has ever really done
> it since our main tree is generally pretty good :)

I know about that. And I don't mean to suggest that there's something
not right with the current tree. I just want to enquire if, there's some
app not already in portage and not already in any of the other ebuild
locations, what can a end_user do to install that app?

> | After some thinking, I doubt users can do that, and do a good enough
> | job to not fsck things up. So, there's no such thing as
> |
> | wget tarball
> | tar -xvzf tarball -C /usr/local/src/
> | cd /usr/local/src/tarball
> | configure (that's it, just one word)
> | make
> | make install
>
> Well, if that's really all you need to do to build the package, it's
> *really* trivial to make an ebuild... Here ya go:

Is it?

>
> DESCRIPTION="Some package"
> HOMEPAGE="http://foo.com/"
> SRC_URI="http://foo.com/blah.tar.bz2"
> LICENSE="gpl-2"
> SLOT="0"
> KEYWORDS="~x86 ~sparc ~mips"
> IUSE=""
> DEPEND=""
>
> src_install() {
> make DESTDIR=${D} install
> }
>
> Note that you can use the default src_unpack and src_compile here. Also
> note that if you're doing serious ebuild writing, you should probably
> read the docs. As it stands, the above wouldn't be suitable for the main
> tree.

I understand. I've read about it and gentoo not being able to include an
ebuild if it does not pass the license over to gentoo. (read this in
bugzilla on xmms-weasel, which doesn't work under gentoo but do in FC2)
>
> | Does this happen for apps not already in portage?
> | Can emerge -C still happen?
>
> emerge -C can only work on packages installed via portage.
Okay.. That's what I am afraid of, how else can an end_user track which
files are being installed and know how to un-install it?

Is there such a thing as "checkinstall" in FC/RH?

Checkinstall is a program that does simple .spec files and generate an
rpm file so that users can package and unpackage files for
uninstallation.

Thanks for the replies. Appreciate the hand-holding and guidance to this
gentoo newbie

--
Ow Mun Heng
Fedora GNU/Linux Core 2 on D600 1.4Ghz CPU kernel
2.6.7-2.jul1-interactive
Neuromancer 10:49:50 up 1:25, 8 users, load average: 0.73, 1.41, 1.66

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Ow Mun Heng wrote:

> Since you mentioned it like that, then there isn't very much that
> differers between Gentoo and RH in terms of package management? .spec is
> equivalent to .ebuild for gentoo right?

There's a big difference: ebuilds are basically shell scripts and so give
you a lot more power and flexibility (even more so than FeeeBSD's ports
which use makefiles).



--
wugga wugga /wuh'g* wuh'g*/ n.

Imaginary sound that a
computer program makes as it labors with a tedious or difficult
task.grind (sense 4).


--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:58:44 +0800 Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com>
wrote:
| On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 23:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:47:53 +0800 Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com>
| > wrote:
| > | Since you mentioned it like that, then there isn't very much that
| > | differers between Gentoo and RH in terms of package management?
| > | .spec is equivalent to .ebuild for gentoo right?
| >
| > Not really. There's a hell of a lot more information in an ebuild
| > file.
|
| Well, looking at the ebuild file for apache2, I learned how to do sed
| -i(inline!)

Careful... sed -i is a GNU sed 4 thing.

| But seriously, what's different? You guys still use macros right?
| stuffs like src_unpack etc, pass the configure flags and such

No. ebuilds are bash scripts, not macros.

| > What's legacy mode? I gave up on RH years ago.
|
| Sorry.. I'm still on FC2. Trying to move over once everything's done.
|
| Legacy means, a time when a particular Distro is not supported anymore
| by RH/Fedora and support for RPMS like security and such is
| transferred to the "legacy" people.

We don't have releases RH style... You can continuously update your
system along the way. We phase out old versions of packages over time,
but you can keep them around locally if you so desire.

| > | How dependent are end-users to gentoo's ebuilds? I know there are
| > | other ebuild locations on the net, places like breakmygentoo and
| > | others I imagine, but what I like to know, truly, is how does one
| > | take a simple tarball and get it to be installed into all the
| > | "right" places?
| >
| > If you can run an rsync server you can provide an alternate or
| > additional tree. It's dead easy to do, but nobody has ever really
| > done it since our main tree is generally pretty good :)
|
| I know about that. And I don't mean to suggest that there's something
| not right with the current tree. I just want to enquire if, there's
| some app not already in portage and not already in any of the other
| ebuild locations, what can a end_user do to install that app?

Well, you can either install manually to /usr/local or you can make your
own ebuild and use it via overlay.

| > Well, if that's really all you need to do to build the package, it's
| > *really* trivial to make an ebuild... Here ya go:
|
| Is it?

Yupyup.

| I understand. I've read about it and gentoo not being able to include
| an ebuild if it does not pass the license over to gentoo. (read this
| in bugzilla on xmms-weasel, which doesn't work under gentoo but do in
| FC2)

Hm. Not exactly... For inclusion in the main tree, the ebuild itself has
to be GPL-2. Currently we also require that copyright on the ebuild is
assigned to the Gentoo Foundation. The latter is under discussion,
however...

| > | Does this happen for apps not already in portage?
| > | Can emerge -C still happen?
| >
| > emerge -C can only work on packages installed via portage.
| Okay.. That's what I am afraid of, how else can an end_user track
| which files are being installed and know how to un-install it?

There're various projects out there that can handle this sort of thing,
same as for with any other distro, or you can make your own ebuilds.

| Is there such a thing as "checkinstall" in FC/RH?
|
| Checkinstall is a program that does simple .spec files and generate an
| rpm file so that users can package and unpackage files for
| uninstallation.

Not really. Since ebuilds build everything from source it's somewhat
trickier... It's not just a case of slapping a bunch of files onto a
filesystem. Although, there're third party apps to do it.

--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, Sparc, Mips)
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm

On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 22:32, Ajai Khattri wrote:
> ebuilds are basically shell scripts and so give
> you a lot more power and flexibility (even more so than FeeeBSD's ports
> which use makefiles).

I heard that the FreeBSD ports are crap. That's according to the FreeBSD
ports creator. Seems like he announced it at one of the conferences.

So..

--
Ow Mun Heng
Fedora GNU/Linux Core 2 on D600 1.4Ghz CPU kernel
2.6.7-2.jul1-interactive
Neuromancer 10:11:28 up 1:05, 8 users, load average: 1.41, 1.15, 1.08

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Ow Mun Heng wrote:

> > ebuilds are basically shell scripts and so give
> > you a lot more power and flexibility (even more so than FeeeBSD's ports
> > which use makefiles).
>
> I heard that the FreeBSD ports are crap. That's according to the FreeBSD
> ports creator. Seems like he announced it at one of the conferences.

I work with FreeBSD also. I wouldn't say they're crap, they're just not
as easy to work with. portupgrade attempts to make things easier, but it
still has trouble with certain things, such as any upgrades that also
involve upgrading things like gettext. If you're using jails, sometimes
it's easier to just create a new jail. portupgrade also attempts to
resolve the issue that you can't just update packages - you have to
uninstall the old and install the new.

Oh, and dealing with perl packages can be quite interesting too. And php
is now the same way, although making it modular does have advantages. To
add a feature, you just add the new module, you don't have to recompile
all of php.

I am hoping that FreeBSD 6 will steal a lot of stuff from Gentoo. :)

--
Sometimes the garbage disposal gods demand a spoon
() The ASCII Ribbon Campaign against HTML Email,
/\ vCards, and proprietary formats.
http://www.georgedillon.com/web/html_email_is_evil.shtml

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 11:40, Marshal Newrock wrote:
> >On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> > I heard that the FreeBSD ports are crap. That's according to the FreeBSD
> > ports creator. Seems like he announced it at one of the conferences.
>
> I work with FreeBSD also. I wouldn't say they're crap, they're just not
> as easy to work with.

Noted. Not as easy or as flexible is what I would interpret that
sentence above.

> Oh, and dealing with perl packages can be quite interesting too. And php
> is now the same way, although making it modular does have advantages. To
> add a feature, you just add the new module, you don't have to recompile
> all of php.

Just like apache.

>
> I am hoping that FreeBSD 6 will steal a lot of stuff from Gentoo. :)

Such as?? I'm new with Gentoo and I would like to learn more if
possible. It would take a while before FreeBSD goes to 6 right? I mean,
the 5 tree is still considered experimental and not meant for
production.

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list