/[gentoo]/xml/htdocs/proj/en/glep/glep-0033.html
Gentoo

Contents of /xml/htdocs/proj/en/glep/glep-0033.html

Parent Directory Parent Directory | Revision Log Revision Log


Revision 1.1 - (show annotations) (download) (as text)
Wed Feb 16 21:34:55 2005 UTC (9 years, 4 months ago) by g2boojum
Branch: MAIN
File MIME type: text/html
new glep

1 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
2 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
3 <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
4 <!--
5 This HTML is auto-generated. DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE! If you are writing a new
6 PEP, see http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0001.html for instructions and links
7 to templates. DO NOT USE THIS HTML FILE AS YOUR TEMPLATE!
8 -->
9 <head>
10 <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
11 <meta name="generator" content="Docutils 0.3.3: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/" />
12 <title>GLEP 33 -- Eclass Restructure/Redesign</title>
13 <link rel="stylesheet" href="tools/glep.css" type="text/css" />
14 </head>
15 <body bgcolor="white">
16 <table class="navigation" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"
17 width="100%" border="0">
18 <tr><td class="navicon" width="150" height="35">
19 <a href="http://www.gentoo.org/" title="Gentoo Linux Home Page">
20 <img src="http://www.gentoo.org/images/gentoo-new.gif" alt="[Gentoo]"
21 border="0" width="150" height="35" /></a></td>
22 <td class="textlinks" align="left">
23 [<b><a href="http://www.gentoo.org/">Gentoo Linux Home</a></b>]
24 [<b><a href="http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep">GLEP Index</a></b>]
25 [<b><a href="./glep-0033.txt">GLEP Source</a></b>]
26 </td></tr></table>
27 <div class="document">
28 <table class="rfc2822 field-list" frame="void" rules="none">
29 <col class="field-name" />
30 <col class="field-body" />
31 <tbody valign="top">
32 <tr class="field"><th class="field-name">GLEP:</th><td class="field-body">33</td>
33 </tr>
34 <tr class="field"><th class="field-name">Title:</th><td class="field-body">Eclass Restructure/Redesign</td>
35 </tr>
36 <tr class="field"><th class="field-name">Version:</th><td class="field-body">1.1</td>
37 </tr>
38 <tr class="field"><th class="field-name">Last-Modified:</th><td class="field-body"><a class="reference" href="http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/xml/htdocs/proj/en/glep/glep-0033.txt?cvsroot=gentoo">2005/02/16 21:30:44</a></td>
39 </tr>
40 <tr class="field"><th class="field-name">Author:</th><td class="field-body">John Mylchreest &lt;johnm&#32;&#97;t&#32;gentoo.org&gt;, Brian Harring &lt;ferringb&#32;&#97;t&#32;gentoo.org&gt;</td>
41 </tr>
42 <tr class="field"><th class="field-name">Status:</th><td class="field-body">Draft</td>
43 </tr>
44 <tr class="field"><th class="field-name">Type:</th><td class="field-body">Standards Track</td>
45 </tr>
46 <tr class="field"><th class="field-name">Content-Type:</th><td class="field-body"><a class="reference" href="glep-0012.html">text/x-rst</a></td>
47 </tr>
48 <tr class="field"><th class="field-name">Created:</th><td class="field-body">29-Jan-2005</td>
49 </tr>
50 <tr class="field"><th class="field-name">Post-History:</th><td class="field-body">29-Jan-2005</td>
51 </tr>
52 </tbody>
53 </table>
54 <hr />
55 <div class="contents topic" id="contents">
56 <p class="topic-title first"><a name="contents">Contents</a></p>
57 <ul class="simple">
58 <li><a class="reference" href="#abstract" id="id2" name="id2">Abstract</a></li>
59 <li><a class="reference" href="#terminology" id="id3" name="id3">Terminology</a></li>
60 <li><a class="reference" href="#motivation-and-rationale" id="id4" name="id4">Motivation and Rationale</a></li>
61 <li><a class="reference" href="#specification" id="id5" name="id5">Specification.</a><ul>
62 <li><a class="reference" href="#ebuild-libraries-elibs-for-short" id="id6" name="id6">Ebuild Libraries (elibs for short)</a></li>
63 <li><a class="reference" href="#the-reduced-role-of-eclasses-and-a-clarification-of-existing-eclass-requirements" id="id7" name="id7">The reduced role of Eclasses, and a clarification of existing Eclass requirements</a></li>
64 <li><a class="reference" href="#the-end-of-backwards-compatability" id="id8" name="id8">The end of backwards compatability...</a></li>
65 <li><a class="reference" href="#tree-restructuring" id="id9" name="id9">Tree restructuring.</a></li>
66 <li><a class="reference" href="#the-start-of-a-different-phase-of-backwards-compatability" id="id10" name="id10">The start of a different phase of backwards compatability</a></li>
67 <li><a class="reference" href="#migrating-to-the-new-setup" id="id11" name="id11">Migrating to the new setup</a></li>
68 </ul>
69 </li>
70 <li><a class="reference" href="#backwards-compatibility" id="id12" name="id12">Backwards Compatibility</a></li>
71 <li><a class="reference" href="#copyright" id="id13" name="id13">Copyright</a></li>
72 </ul>
73 </div>
74 <div class="section" id="abstract">
75 <h1><a class="toc-backref" href="#id2" name="abstract">Abstract</a></h1>
76 <p>For any design, the transition from theoretical to applied exposes inadequacies
77 in the original design. This document is intended to document, and propose a
78 revision of the current eclass setup to address current eclass inadequacies.</p>
79 <p>This document proposes several thing- the creation of ebuild libraries, 'elibs',
80 a narrowing of the focus of eclasses, a move of eclasses w/in the tree, the
81 addition of changelogs, and a way to allow for simple eclass gpg signing.
82 In general, a large scale restructuring of what eclasses are and how they're
83 implemented. Essentially version two of the eclass setup.</p>
84 </div>
85 <div class="section" id="terminology">
86 <h1><a class="toc-backref" href="#id3" name="terminology">Terminology</a></h1>
87 <p>From this point on, the proposed eclass setup will be called 'new eclasses', the
88 existing crop (as of this writing) will be referenced as 'old eclasses'. The
89 destinction is elaborated on within this document.</p>
90 </div>
91 <div class="section" id="motivation-and-rationale">
92 <h1><a class="toc-backref" href="#id4" name="motivation-and-rationale">Motivation and Rationale</a></h1>
93 <p>Eclasses within the tree currently are a bit of a mess- they're forced to
94 maintain backwards compatability w/ all previous functionality. In effect,
95 their api is constant, and can only be added to- never changing the existing
96 functionality. This obviously is quite limiting, and leads to cruft accrueing in
97 eclasses as a eclasses design is refined. This needs to be dealt with prior to
98 eclass code reaching a critical mass where they become unmanagable/fragile
99 (recent pushes for eclass versioning could be interpretted as proof of this).</p>
100 <p>Beyond that, eclasses were originally intended as a method to allow for ebuilds
101 to use a pre-existing block of code, rather then having to duplicate the code in
102 each ebuild. This is a good thing, but there are ill effects that result from
103 the current design. Eclasses inherit other eclasses to get a single function- in
104 doing so, modifying the the exported 'template' (default src_compile, default
105 src_unpack, various vars, etc). All the eclass designer was after was reusing a
106 function, not making their eclass sensitive to changes in the template of the
107 eclass it's inheriting. The eclass designer -should- be aware of changes in the
108 function they're using, but shouldn't have to worry about their default src_*
109 and pkg_* functions being overwritten, let alone the env changes.</p>
110 <p>Addressing up front why a collection of eclass refinements are being rolled into
111 a single set of changes, parts of this proposal -could- be split into multiple
112 phases. Why do it though? It's simpler for developers to know that the first
113 eclass specification was this, and that the second specification is that,
114 rather then requiring them to be aware of what phase of eclass changes is in
115 progress.</p>
116 <p>By rolling all changes into one large change, a line is intentionally drawn in
117 the sand. Old eclasses allowed for this, behaved this way. New eclasses allow
118 for that, and behave this way. This should reduce misconceptions about what is
119 allowed/possible with eclasses, thus reducing bugs that result from said
120 misconceptions.</p>
121 </div>
122 <div class="section" id="specification">
123 <h1><a class="toc-backref" href="#id5" name="specification">Specification.</a></h1>
124 <p>The various parts of this proposal are broken down into a set of changes and
125 elaborations on why a proposed change is preferable. It's advisable to the
126 reader that this be read serially, rather then jumping around.</p>
127 <div class="section" id="ebuild-libraries-elibs-for-short">
128 <h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id6" name="ebuild-libraries-elibs-for-short">Ebuild Libraries (elibs for short)</a></h2>
129 <p>As briefly touched upon in Motivation and Rationale, the original eclass design
130 allowed for the eclass to modify the metadata of an ebuild, metadata being the
131 DEPENDS, RDEPENDS, SRC_URI, IUSE, etc, vars that are required to be constant,
132 and used by portage for dep resolution, fetching, etc. Using the earlier
133 example, if you're after a single function from an eclass (say epatch from
134 eutils), you -don't- want the metadata modifications the eclass you're
135 inheriting might do. You want to treat the eclass you're pulling from as a
136 library, pure and simple.</p>
137 <p>A new directory named elib should be added to the top level of the tree to serve
138 as a repository of ebuild function libraries. Rather then relying on using the
139 source command, an 'elib' function should be added to portage to import that
140 libraries functionality. The reason for the indirection via the function is
141 mostly related to portage internals, but it does serve as an abstraction such
142 that (for example) zsh compatability hacks could be hidden in the elib function.</p>
143 <p>Elib's will be collections of bash functions- they're not allowed to do anything
144 in the global scope aside from function definition, and any -minimal-
145 initialization of the library that is absolutely needed. Additionally, they
146 cannot modify any ebuild functions- src_compile, src_unpack fex. Since they are
147 required to not modify the metadata keys, nor in any way affect the ebuild aside
148 from providing functionality, they can be conditionally pulled in. They also
149 are allowed to pull in other elibs, but strictly just elibs- no eclasses, just
150 other elibs. A realworld example would be the eutils eclass.</p>
151 <p>Portage, since the elib's don't modify metadata, isn't required to track elibs
152 as it tracks eclasses. Thus a change in an elib doesn't result in half the tree
153 forced to be regenerated/marked stale when changed (this is more of an infra
154 benefit, although regen's that take too long due to eclass changes have been
155 known to cause rsync issues due to missing timestamps). The only thing portage
156 will do for elibs, aside from provide the elib function, is track what elibs
157 have been loaded thus far, and load an elib only if it hasn't been loaded once
158 already. An implication of this (if it wasn't clear from the elib description)
159 is that elibs cannot change their exported api dependant on the api (as some
160 eclass do for example).</p>
161 <p>Regarding maintainability of elibs, it should be a less of a load then old
162 eclasses. One of the major issues with old eclasses is that their functions are
163 quite incestuous- they're bound tightly to the env they're defined in. This
164 makes eclass functions a bit fragile- the restrictions on what can, and cannot
165 be done in elibs will address this, making functionality less fragile (thus a
166 bit more maintainable).</p>
167 <p>There is no need for backwards compatability with elibs- they just must work
168 against the current tree. Thus elibs can be removed when the tree no longer
169 needs them. The reasons for this are explained below.</p>
170 <p>Structuring of the elibs directory will be exactly the same as that of the new
171 eclass directory (detailed below), sans a different extension.</p>
172 </div>
173 <div class="section" id="the-reduced-role-of-eclasses-and-a-clarification-of-existing-eclass-requirements">
174 <h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id7" name="the-reduced-role-of-eclasses-and-a-clarification-of-existing-eclass-requirements">The reduced role of Eclasses, and a clarification of existing Eclass requirements</a></h2>
175 <p>Since elibs are now intended on holding common bash functionality, the focus of
176 eclasses should be in defining an appropriate template for ebuilds. For example,
177 defining common DEPENDS, RDEPENDS, src_compile functions, src_unpack, etc.
178 Additionally, eclasses should pull in any elibs they need for functionality.</p>
179 <p>Eclass functionality that isn't directly related to the metadata, or src_* and
180 pkg_* funcs should be shifted into elibs to allow for maximal code reuse. This
181 however isn't a hard requirement, merely a strongly worded suggestion.</p>
182 <p>Previously, it was 'strongly' suggested by developers to avoid having any code
183 executed in the global scope that wasn't required. This suggestion is now a
184 requirement. Execute only what must be executed in the global scope. Any code
185 executed in the global scope that is related to configuring/building the package
186 must be placed in pkg_setup. Metadata keys (already a rule, but now stated as
187 an absolute requirement to clarify it) <em>must</em> be constant. The results of
188 metadata keys exported from an ebuild on system A, must be <em>exactly</em> the same as
189 the keys exported on system B.</p>
190 <p>If an eclass (or ebuild for that matter) violates this constant requirement, it
191 leads to portage doing the wrong thing for rsync users- for example, wrong deps
192 pulled in, leading to compilation failure.</p>
193 <p>If the existing metadata isn't flexible enough for what is required for a
194 package, the parsing of the metadata is changed to address that. Cases where
195 the constant requirement is violated are known, and a select few are allowed-
196 these are exceptions to the rule that are required due to inadequacies in
197 portage. In other words, those <em>few</em> exceptions are allowed because it's the
198 only way to do it at this time. Any case where it's determined the constant
199 requirement may need to be violated the dev must make it aware to the majority
200 of devs, and the portage devs- violation of the constant rule has far reaching
201 effects.</p>
202 <p>It's quite likely there is a way to allow what you're attempting- if you just go
203 and do it, the rsync users (our userbase) suffer the results of compilation
204 failures and unneeded deps being pulled in.</p>
205 <p>After that stern reminder, back to new eclasses. Defining INHERITED and ECLASS
206 within the eclass is no longer required. Portage already handles those vars if
207 they aren't defined.</p>
208 <p>As with elibs, it's no longer required backwards compatability be maintained
209 indefinitely- compatability must be maintained against the current tree, but
210 just that. As such new eclasses (the true distinction of new vs old is
211 elaborated in the next section) can be removed from the tree once they're no
212 longer in use.</p>
213 </div>
214 <div class="section" id="the-end-of-backwards-compatability">
215 <h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id8" name="the-end-of-backwards-compatability">The end of backwards compatability...</a></h2>
216 <p>With current eclasses, once the eclass is in use, it's api can no longer be
217 changed, nor can the eclass ever be removed from the tree. This is why we still
218 have <em>ancient</em> eclasses that are completely unused sitting in the tree, for
219 example inherit.eclass . The reason for this, not surprisingly is a portage
220 deficiency- on unmerging an installed ebuild, portage used the eclass from the
221 current tree.</p>
222 <p>For a real world example of this, if you merged a glibc 2 years back, whatever
223 eclasses it used must still be compatible, or you may not be able to unmerge the
224 older glibc version during an upgrade to a newer version. So either the glibc
225 maintainer is left with the option of leaving people using ancient versions out
226 in the rain, or maintaining an ever increasing load of backwards compatability
227 cruft in any used eclasses.</p>
228 <p>Binpkgs suffer a similar fate. Merging of a binpkg pulls needed eclasses from
229 the tree, so you may not be able to even merge a binpkg if the eclasses api has
230 changed. If the eclass was removed, you can't even merge the binpkg, period.</p>
231 <p>The next major release of portage will address this- the environment that the
232 ebuild was built in already contains the eclasses functions, as such the env can
233 be re-used rather then relying on the eclass. In other words, binpkgs and
234 installed ebuilds will no longer go and pull needed eclasses from the tree,
235 they'll use the 'saved' version of the eclass they were built/merged with.</p>
236 <p>So the backwards compatability requirement for users of the next major portage
237 version (and beyond) isn't required. All the cruft can be dropped.</p>
238 <p>The problem is that there will be users using older versions of portage that
239 don't support this functionality. So backwards compatability must be maintained
240 for them. Additionally, earlier versions of portage haven't always handled the
241 env correctly- for broken saved envs, the eclasses backwards compatability is
242 still required. Waiting N months preserving backwards compatability in current
243 eclasses, then dropping the support isn't much of an option. There always are
244 stragglers who don't upgrade, beyond that, there is the possibility of cases
245 where users -will- upgrade, but still be bitten (broken saved envs from earlier
246 portage installations). More importantly, it doesn't provide a route to
247 upgrade/fix things if a user lags behind, exempting trying to find a compatabile
248 version of the eclass in viewcvs (assuming it hasn't been sent to the attic
249 already). Obviously, that isn't acceptable.</p>
250 <p>With the next major portage release, it will be possible to drop backwards
251 compatability for eclasses, and all lingering cruft. What is needed is a way to
252 take full advantage of this functionality, without completely screwing over the
253 unfortunates and those who don't upgrade.</p>
254 <p>Unfortunately, the creation of new eclasses within the tree has an additional
255 snag due to portage. The existing inherit function that is used to pull in old
256 eclasses- basically, whatever it's passed (inherit kernel or inherit
257 kernel/kernel) it will pull in (kernel.eclass, and kernel/kernel.eclass
258 respectively). So even if the new eclasses were implemented within a
259 subdirectory of the eclass dir in the tree, all current portage versions would
260 still be able to access them.</p>
261 <p>In other words, these new eclasses would in effect, be old eclasses since older
262 portage versions could still access them.</p>
263 </div>
264 <div class="section" id="tree-restructuring">
265 <h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id9" name="tree-restructuring">Tree restructuring.</a></h2>
266 <p>There are only two way to block the existing (as of this writing) inherit
267 functionality from accessing the new eclasses- either change the extension of
268 eclasses to something other then 'eclass', or to have them stored in a seperate
269 subdirectory of the tree then eclass.</p>
270 <p>The latter is preferable, and the proposed solution. Reasons are- the current
271 eclass directory is already overgrown. Structuring of the new eclass dir
272 (clarified below) will allow for easier signing, ChangeLogs, and grouping of
273 eclasses. New eclasses allow for something akin to a clean break and have new
274 capabilities/requirements, thus it's advisable to start with a clean directory,
275 devoid of all cruft from the old eclass implementation.</p>
276 <p>If it's unclear as to why the old inherit function <em>cannot</em> access the new
277 eclasses, please reread the previous section. It's unfortunately a requirement
278 to take advantage of all that the next major portage release will allow.</p>
279 <p>The proposed directory sructure is ${PORTDIR}/include/{eclass,elib}.
280 Something like ${PORTDIR}/new-eclass, or ${PORTDIR}/eclass-ng could be used
281 (although many would cringe at the -ng), but such a name is unwise. Consider the
282 possibility (likely a fact) that new eclasses someday may be found lacking, and
283 refined further (version three as it were). Or perhaps we want to add yet more
284 functionality with direct relation to sourcing new files, and we would then need
285 to further populate ${PORTDIR}.</p>
286 <p>The new-eclass directory will be (at least) 2 levels deep- for example:</p>
287 <dl>
288 <dt>::</dt>
289 <dd>kernel/
290 kernel/linux-info.eclass
291 kernel/linux-mod.eclass
292 kernel/kernel-2.6.eclass
293 kernel/kernel-2.4.eclass
294 kernel/ChangeLog
295 kernel/Manifest</dd>
296 </dl>
297 <p>No eclasses will be allowed in the base directory- grouping of new eclasses will
298 be required to help keep things tidy, and for the following reasons. Grouping
299 of eclasses allows for the addition of ChangeLogs that are specific to that
300 group of eclasses, grouping of files/patches as needed, and allows for
301 saner/easier signing of eclasses- basically, you can just stick a signed
302 Manifest file w/in that grouping, thus providing the information portage needs
303 to ensure no files are missing, and that nothing has been tainted.</p>
304 <p>The elib directory will be structured in the same way, for the same reasons.</p>
305 <p>Repoman will have to be extended to work within new eclass and elib groups, and
306 to handle signing and commiting. This is intentional, and a good thing. This
307 gives repoman the possibility of doing sanity checks on elibs/new eclasses.
308 It won't solve developers doing dumb things with eclasses (no technological
309 solution would, exempting a tazering), but it will give us a way to automate
310 checks to try and prevent honest mistakes from slipping through and breaking
311 things for our users.</p>
312 </div>
313 <div class="section" id="the-start-of-a-different-phase-of-backwards-compatability">
314 <h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id10" name="the-start-of-a-different-phase-of-backwards-compatability">The start of a different phase of backwards compatability</a></h2>
315 <p>As clarified above, new eclasses will exist in a seperate directory that will be
316 intentionally inaccessible to the inherit function. As such, users of older
317 portage versions <em>will</em> have to upgrade to merge any ebuild that uses elibs/new
318 eclasses. A depend on the next major portage version would address
319 transparently handle this for rsync users.</p>
320 <p>There still is the issue of users who haven't upgraded to the required portage
321 version. This is a minor concern frankly- portage releases include new
322 functionality, and bug fixes. If they won't upgrade, it's assumed they have
323 their reasons and are big boys, thus able to handle the complications themselves.</p>
324 <p>The real issue is broken envs, whether in binpkgs, or for installed packages.
325 Two options exist- either the old eclasses are left in the tree indefinitely, or
326 they're left for N months, then shifted out of the tree, and into a tarball that
327 can be merged.</p>
328 <p>Shifting them out of the tree is advisable for several reasons- less cruft in
329 the tree, but more importantly the fact that they are not signed (thus an angle
330 for attack). Note that the proposed method of eclass signing doesn't even try
331 to address them. Frankly, it's not worth the effort supporting two variations
332 of eclass signing, when the old eclass setup isn't designed to allow for easy
333 signing.</p>
334 <p>If this approach is taken, then either the old eclasses would have to be merged
335 to an overlay directory's eclass directory (ugly), or to a safe location that
336 portage's inherit function knows to look for (less ugly).</p>
337 <p>For users who do not upgrade within the window of N months while the old
338 eclasses are in the tree, as stated, it's assumed they know what they are doing.
339 If they specifically block the new portage version, as the ebuilds in the tree
340 migrate to the new eclasses, they will have less and less ebuilds available to
341 them. If they tried injecting the new portage version (lieing to portage,
342 essentially), portage would bail since it cannot find the new eclass. Note that
343 for them to even get to this point, they'd have to somehow disable the DEPEND on
344 a new version of portage- either hack up the ebuild, or do an injection.
345 Essentially they'd have to actively try to sidestep sanity checks implemented to
346 make the shift over from old to new transparent. If they've
347 disabled/sidestepped our attempt at a transparent migration, they can deal with
348 the repercussions of it.</p>
349 <p>What is a bit more annoying is that once the old eclasses are out of the tree,
350 users will lose the ability to unmerge any installed ebuild that used an old
351 eclass, further users will lose the ability to merge any tbz2 that uses old
352 eclasses.</p>
353 <p>They however will <em>not</em> be left out in the rain. For merging old eclass
354 binpkgs, and unmerging installed packages, they can merge the old eclass compat
355 ebuild. The compat ebuild provides the missing eclasses, thus providing that
356 lost functionality.</p>
357 <p>The intention isn't to force them to upgrade, hence the ability to restore the
358 lost functionality. The intention is to clean up the existing mess, and allow us
359 to move forward. The saying &quot;you've got to break a few eggs to make an omelete&quot;
360 is akin, exempting the fact we're providing a way to make the eggs whole again
361 (the king's men would've loved such an option).</p>
362 <p>It's advisable that once all old eclasses are no longer in use in the tree, the
363 old eclass package is added to system default. Remember that even those who
364 have upgraded to a portage version that handles the env correctly, may run into
365 instances where an installed packages env is corrupt. For new bootstraps (which
366 automatically upgrade portage right off the bat), an injection of the compat
367 package would be advisable- unless they downgrade portage, they will never need
368 the old eclasses.</p>
369 </div>
370 <div class="section" id="migrating-to-the-new-setup">
371 <h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id11" name="migrating-to-the-new-setup">Migrating to the new setup</a></h2>
372 <p>As has been done in the past whenever a change in the tree results in ebuilds
373 requiring a specific version of portage, as ebuilds migrate to the new eclasses,
374 they should depend on a version of portage that supports it. From the users
375 viewpoint, this transparently handles the migration.</p>
376 <p>This isn't so transparent for devs or a particular infrastructure server however.
377 Devs, due to them using cvs for their tree, lack the pregenerated cache rsync
378 users have. Devs will have to be early adopters of the new portage. Older
379 portage versions won't be able to access the new eclasses, thus the local cache
380 generation for that ebuild will fail, ergo the depends on a newer portage
381 version won't transparently handle it for them.</p>
382 <p>Additionally, prior to any ebuilds in the tree using the new eclasses, the
383 infrastructure server that generates the cache for rsync users will have to
384 either be upgraded to a version of portage supporting new eclasses, or patched.
385 The former being much more preferable then the latter for the portage devs.</p>
386 <p>Beyond that, an appropriate window for old eclasses to exist in the tree must be
387 determined, and prior to that window passing an ebuild must be added to the tree
388 so users can get the old eclasses if needed.</p>
389 <p>For eclass devs to migrate from old to new, it is possible for them to just
390 transfer the old eclass into an appropriate grouping in the new eclass directory,
391 although it's advisable they cleanse all cruft out of the eclass. You can
392 migrate ebuilds gradually over to the new eclass, and don't have to worry about
393 having to support ebuilds from X years back.</p>
394 <p>Essentially, you have a chance to nail the design perfectly/cleanly, and have a
395 window in which to redesign it. It's humbly suggested eclass devs take
396 advantage of it. :)</p>
397 </div>
398 </div>
399 <div class="section" id="backwards-compatibility">
400 <h1><a class="toc-backref" href="#id12" name="backwards-compatibility">Backwards Compatibility</a></h1>
401 <p>All backwards compatability issues are addressed inline, but a recap is offered-
402 it's suggested that if the a particular compatability issue is
403 questioned/worried over, the reader read the relevant section. There should be
404 a more in depth discussion of the issue, along with a more extensive explanation
405 of the potential solutions, and reasons for the choosen solution.</p>
406 <p>To recap:</p>
407 <pre class="literal-block">
408 New eclasses and elib functionality will be tied to a specific portage
409 version. A DEPENDs on said portage version should address this for rsync
410 users who refuse to upgrade to a portage version that supports the new
411 eclasses/elibs and will gradually be unable to merge ebuilds that use said
412 functionality. It is their choice to upgrade, as such, the gradual
413 'thinning' of available ebuilds should they block the portage upgrade is
414 their responsibility.
415
416 Old eclasses at some point in the future should be removed from the tree,
417 and released in a tarball/ebuild. This will cause installed ebuilds that
418 rely on the old eclass to be unable to unmerge to behave as expected, with
419 the same applying for merging of binpkgs.
420
421 This eclass ebuild should be a system depends target to make the transition
422 transparent. Future portage ebuilds, and the old eclass compat ebuild should
423 not inherit any eclasses. The reason for this is that in doing so, it may
424 block upgrade paths. At least for portage, this already is something of a
425 known issue for ebuild functionality- due to what it is/provides, it must
426 essentially be standalone, and cannot benefit from any eclass/elib
427 functionality.
428 </pre>
429 </div>
430 <div class="section" id="copyright">
431 <h1><a class="toc-backref" href="#id13" name="copyright">Copyright</a></h1>
432 <p>This document has been placed in the public domain.</p>
433 </div>
434 </div>
435
436 <hr class="footer" />
437 <div class="footer">
438 <a class="reference" href="glep-0033.txt">View document source</a>.
439 Generated on: 2005-02-16 21:31 UTC.
440 Generated by <a class="reference" href="http://docutils.sourceforge.net/">Docutils</a> from <a class="reference" href="http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html">reStructuredText</a> source.
441 </div>
442 </body>
443 </html>

  ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.20