 |
|
|
|
Next: Accepted autotrust 0.3.1~rc1-2 (source amd64)
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Dec 30, 2008
Posts: 58
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:20 pm
Post subject: [gentoo-dev] Diff between Funtoo and Gentoo as an overlay
Archived from groups: linux>gentoo>dev (more info?)
|
|
|
Hi there!
With the GSoC deadline behind me I took the liberty to put a few hours
into something Funtoo-related that I've been wanting to do before.
Funtoo's tree is a melting pot currently combining ebuilds from the
trees (from [1])
- gentoo
- mpd
- perl-experimental
- sunrise
with
- Funtoo-only ebuilds
- version bumps
>From a Funtoo perspective it makes sense to keep it all in one
repository. Still, wouldn't it be nice to have ..
an overlay with stuff that's available in Funtoo only?
I've been working on a tool ("funtoo-ripper" [2], written in Python) to
automate dissection and keeping a dedicated overlay ("pure-funtoo" [3])
in sync. Commits are done automatically, triggering and pushing is
manual at the moment.
A nice pure-funtoo summary will be auto-added to
http://gentoo-overlays.zugaina.org/pure-funtoo
soon I guess.
I hope this overlay enables collaboration on a level that was
technically difficult so far. I'm curious how it turns out.
So long,
Sebastian
[1] http://funtoo.org/en/articles/funtoo/quick-install-howto/
[2] http://git.goodpoint.de/?p=funtoo-ripper.git;a=summary
[3] http://git.goodpoint.de/?p=pure-funtoo.git;a=summary |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Dec 30, 2008
Posts: 58
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:20 pm
Post subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Diff between Funtoo and Gentoo as an overlay [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Commits are done automatically, triggering and pushing is
> manual at the moment.
By now a cron-based setup is running syncing the pure-funtoo overlay
(and therefore also its atom and rss feeds) every 24 hours.
Sebastian |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 11, 2006
Posts: 263
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:20 pm
Post subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Diff between Funtoo and Gentoo as an overlay [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 08/22/2009 05:39 AM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>> Commits are done automatically, triggering and pushing is
>> manual at the moment.
>
> By now a cron-based setup is running syncing the pure-funtoo overlay
> (and therefore also its atom and rss feeds) every 24 hours.
There seems to be a bit of (minimal) duplication between pure-funtoo and
sunrise:
app-office/thinking-rock-bin
dev-tex/mimetex
x11-drivers/xf86-video-nouveau
And since sunrise is the most popular overlay, it might be a good idea
to also omit packages found in sunrise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 11, 2006
Posts: 263
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:20 pm
Post subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Diff between Funtoo and Gentoo as an overlay [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 08/22/2009 05:59 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 08/22/2009 05:39 AM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>> Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>>> Commits are done automatically, triggering and pushing is
>>> manual at the moment.
>>
>> By now a cron-based setup is running syncing the pure-funtoo overlay
>> (and therefore also its atom and rss feeds) every 24 hours.
>
> There seems to be a bit of (minimal) duplication between pure-funtoo and
> sunrise.
Uhm, I just discovered that there are conflicts with portage too. That
is not good. After I added pure-funtoo, it messed up my emerge -u world
(stuff like wanting to upgrade to sys-apps/baselayout-2.1.5).
pure-funtoo should not offer packages available in portage (sunrise is
the lesser evil). |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 03, 2009
Posts: 16
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:20 pm
Post subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Diff between Funtoo and Gentoo as an overlay [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 08/22/2009 05:59 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> On 08/22/2009 05:39 AM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>>> Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>>>> Commits are done automatically, triggering and pushing is
>>>> manual at the moment.
>>>
>>> By now a cron-based setup is running syncing the pure-funtoo overlay
>>> (and therefore also its atom and rss feeds) every 24 hours.
>>
>> There seems to be a bit of (minimal) duplication between pure-funtoo and
>> sunrise.
>
> Uhm, I just discovered that there are conflicts with portage too. That
> is not good. After I added pure-funtoo, it messed up my emerge -u world
> (stuff like wanting to upgrade to sys-apps/baselayout-2.1.5).
>
> pure-funtoo should not offer packages available in portage (sunrise is
> the lesser evil).
Huh? This is true of all overlays. If my overlay had baselayout-5.0 in
it, you would be upgrading to that version if you had my overlay... By
nature of overlays themselves, you should know what you are doing and
how to handle it (ie. mask >=sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.1)
-Jeremy |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 30, 2008
Posts: 58
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:20 pm
Post subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Diff between Funtoo and Gentoo as an overlay [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> There seems to be a bit of (minimal) duplication between pure-funtoo and
> sunrise:
>
> app-office/thinking-rock-bin
> dev-tex/mimetex
> x11-drivers/xf86-video-nouveau
>
> And since sunrise is the most popular overlay, it might be a good idea
> to also omit packages found in sunrise.
Sunrise ebuilds are subtracted already.
The reason app-office/thinking-rock-bin ends up in pure-funtoo is that
newer version of existing ebuilds are also taking into account:
Sunrise: 2.0_pre2-r2
Funtoo: 2.0.1
That's why app-office/thinking-rock-bin-2.0.1 is in pure-funtoo.
Sebastian |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 30, 2008
Posts: 58
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:20 pm
Post subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Diff between Funtoo and Gentoo as an overlay [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 11, 2006
Posts: 263
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 5:20 am
Post subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Diff between Funtoo and Gentoo as an overlay [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 08/22/2009 06:40 AM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> On 08/22/2009 05:59 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>> On 08/22/2009 05:39 AM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>>>> Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>>>>> Commits are done automatically, triggering and pushing is
>>>>> manual at the moment.
>>>>
>>>> By now a cron-based setup is running syncing the pure-funtoo overlay
>>>> (and therefore also its atom and rss feeds) every 24 hours.
>>>
>>> There seems to be a bit of (minimal) duplication between pure-funtoo and
>>> sunrise.
>>
>> Uhm, I just discovered that there are conflicts with portage too. That
>> is not good. After I added pure-funtoo, it messed up my emerge -u
>> world (stuff like wanting to upgrade to sys-apps/baselayout-2.1.5).
>>
>> pure-funtoo should not offer packages available in portage (sunrise is
>> the lesser evil).
>
> Huh? This is true of all overlays.
Not the ones I'm using.
> If my overlay had baselayout-5.0 in
> it, you would be upgrading to that version if you had my overlay... By
> nature of overlays themselves, you should know what you are doing and
> how to handle it (ie. mask >=sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.1)
I use overlays for packages I can't get through portage. If they
conflict, I don't use them. Masking is no solution. If I mask
">=sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.1", I mask it for good, not only in the
specific overlay it comes from. If portage updates to it, I'll never
get it.
This is quite a major pain in the ass and the reason I stay far away
from overlays that offer conflicting packages. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicett
|
External
Since: Sep 09, 2006
Posts: 27
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 9:20 am
Post subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Diff between Funtoo and Gentoo as an overlay [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 08/22/2009 06:40 AM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
>> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> Huh? This is true of all overlays.
>
> Not the ones I'm using.
Have you ever used the X11, GNOME or KDE teams overlays? Most of the
overlays around exist so that people can work on important updates to
existing packages or to test new ideas / features.
In that respect, sunrise is a "special overlay" as it follows the rule
that it must not contain any package in the tree. IOW, overlays having
just new packages, not present in the tree or other overlays, are the
exception, not the norm.
- --
Regards,
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkqP8k0ACgkQcAWygvVEyAKZnACgn3cRXNvfDsyGtswbYZCWEKjf
VfgAn0Tbhej3uRw/wjtF5vc0XjvieLqZ
=81nF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 11, 2006
Posts: 263
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:20 am
Post subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Diff between Funtoo and Gentoo as an overlay [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 08/22/2009 04:27 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> On 08/22/2009 06:40 AM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
>>> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>> Huh? This is true of all overlays.
>>
>> Not the ones I'm using.
>
> Have you ever used the X11, GNOME or KDE teams overlays?
Nope. I had to remove them again due to the problem I mentioned.
> Most of the
> overlays around exist so that people can work on important updates to
> existing packages or to test new ideas / features.
> In that respect, sunrise is a "special overlay" as it follows the rule
> that it must not contain any package in the tree. IOW, overlays having
> just new packages, not present in the tree or other overlays, are the
> exception, not the norm.
They are pretty much the only ones I use though (at this time,
interactive-fiction, oss-overlay and sunrise.) The others are a pain to
keep due to portage not being able to use only packages from overlays
that don't exist in portage.
Of course that's my personal opinion. I don't use
"developer/experimental" overlays, I only use those who provide some
extra packages I want. And I was under the impression that pure-funtoo
falls under this category: providing packages that don't exist in portage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 03, 2009
Posts: 16
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:20 am
Post subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Diff between Funtoo and Gentoo as an overlay [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> Of course that's my personal opinion. I don't use
> "developer/experimental" overlays, I only use those who provide some
> extra packages I want. And I was under the impression that pure-funtoo
> falls under this category: providing packages that don't exist in portage.
By the nature of Funtoo being a entirely different distribution, that is
a wrong assumption. It is unreasonable to expect the pure-funtoo overlay
owner to mask everything that is an upgrade but not in portage yet. I
would recommend that you remove the pure-funtoo overlay, because your
expectations don't match reality.
-Jeremy |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 03, 2009
Posts: 16
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:20 am
Post subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Diff between Funtoo and Gentoo as an overlay [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> Uhm, I just discovered that there are conflicts with portage too. That
>> is not good. After I added pure-funtoo, it messed up my emerge -u world
>> (stuff like wanting to upgrade to sys-apps/baselayout-2.1.5).
>
> Hopefully fixed
> http://git.goodpoint.de/?p=pure-funtoo.git;a=commitdiff;h=341663321f0c...6390fff
See, the problem with this is when Gentoo itself gets a
baselayout-2.1.x, then it is masked for them if they have the
pure-funtoo overlay. IOW, people will complain one way, and then they
will complain the other way. IMO, it is "busy work" for the overlay
owner and should be left to the user to "know what they are doing"
because all overlays are experimental.
2 cents,
-Jeremy |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 11, 2006
Posts: 263
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:20 am
Post subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Diff between Funtoo and Gentoo as an overlay [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 08/22/2009 05:56 PM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>> Uhm, I just discovered that there are conflicts with portage too. That
>>> is not good. After I added pure-funtoo, it messed up my emerge -u world
>>> (stuff like wanting to upgrade to sys-apps/baselayout-2.1.5).
>>
>> Hopefully fixed
>> http://git.goodpoint.de/?p=pure-funtoo.git;a=commitdiff;h=341663321f0c...6390fff
>>
>
> See, the problem with this is when Gentoo itself gets a
> baselayout-2.1.x, then it is masked for them if they have the
> pure-funtoo overlay. IOW, people will complain one way, and then they
> will complain the other way. IMO, it is "busy work" for the overlay
> owner and should be left to the user to "know what they are doing"
> because all overlays are experimental.
That is not true generally though. Most of them are of "experimental"
nature, but some try to provide good, working and stable packages for
stuff that can't make it into portage (no dev willing to adopt it,
unpopular software, policy reasons, etc.) Just because something isn't
in portage doesn't mean it's always "experimental". |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 30, 2008
Posts: 58
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 1:20 pm
Post subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Diff between Funtoo and Gentoo as an overlay [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> I use overlays for packages I can't get through portage. If they
> conflict, I don't use them.
Why do you apply such a general rule?
For instance I have been using dev-util/diffuse from the zugaina
overlay until a newer version went into the gentoo tree.
Portage tells you which overlays the packages you're about
to install come from.
I agree though, that masking is not a perfect solution here, or not even
a solution if you want. Support for overlay-specific atoms could be a
solution I think. In case you have the time helping us bring that to
Gentoo that would be cool, I actually want support for that, too.
Sebastian |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 30, 2008
Posts: 58
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 1:20 pm
Post subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Diff between Funtoo and Gentoo as an overlay [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> And I was under the impression that pure-funtoo
> falls under this category: providing packages that don't exist in portage.
If you want to you can adjust funtoo-ripper to do just that on your
local machine. All you have to do is adjust the
EbuildTree._minus
function:
http://git.goodpoint.de/?p=funtoo-ripper.git;a=blob;f=funtoo-ripper
Let me know if you have trouble with setting it up or if you have
patches for me.
Sebastian |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
Linux