Gentoo: dev-lang/erlang

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Gentoo: dev-lang/erlang

Bruce Fitzsimons-3
Hi George (cc to the helpful people on erlang-questions -- George maintains,
amongst other things, the ebuild package for erlang in the Gentoo linux
distribution),

I agree it is complicated, I wasn't aware of those restrictions on ebuilds.
I would suggest simplifying the version number by treating the letters as
numbers, where A = 0, so R9B-1 becomes 9.1.1, R8A-0 becomes 8.0.0. A note in
the description that says the untranslated Erlang version number might be
handy too.

What do you think?

Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed response.

/Bruce

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Shapovalov" <george>
To: "Bruce Fitzsimons" <bruce.fitzsimons>
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Gentoo: dev-lang/erlang


> Hi Bruce.
>
> Thank you for your interest in Gentoo and erlang in particular.
> Regarding the versioning of the package: I should say that I am not happy
with
> such versioning either, however I could not find any better approach at
the
> moment.
> The naming scheme for ebuilds is described here:
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-howto.xml#doc_chap2
>
> The relevant part ("Naming ebuild Files ") says that the PV (version) part
of
> ebuild name should contain set of dot-separated numbers with optional
> (single) letter right after the last number. For example 1.2.3a. There can
be
> no numbers following the letter. It is possible to append a suffix, one of
> _alpha, _beta, _pre or _rc, however any suffix denotes (diferent stage of)
> pre-release version. Thus after having erlang R9b with ebuild named -9b
with
> the r9b-1 version I did not have much room in selecting the valid PV
> construct, so that new version would indeed denote another version and
would
> be recognized by portage as newer. I settled for 9c as an easy fix in the
> hope that, as it was with 8b, new version will have increased numeric
number.
>
> The alternative might be to use the revisions by appending -rX to the
ebuild
> name. However this is really undesirable because:
> 1. -rX are supposed to mark updates to the ebuilds corresponding to the
same
> version of package.
> 2. this will very easily go out of sync should I need to do any updates to
> ebuild taht would require a revision bump.
> Thus this does not resolve the situation in any way either.
>
> If you can come up with some naming scheme that would resolve this
situation I
> would greatly appreciate your help. It would be best to avoid the
out-of-sync
> versioning issue and keep the posibility of "automated" updates by just
> renaming the ebuild, however this part is from the "desirable" category
and

> is optional :).
>
> George
>
>
> On Thursday 22 May 2003 20:27, you wrote:
> > Hi George,
> >
> > Thanks for maintaining the gentoo erlang entry. Can I make a suggestion
> > that the erlang version numbers should more closely reflect the current
> > erlang?
> >
> > The Erlang version numbers are little odd, but you've just defined
> > version "9c", which maps to R9B-1. There will be a real R9C (R9C-0) out
> > soon with a bunch of new stuff.
> >
> > Its not a big thing, but I did have to manually inspect the package file
> > to see which version it was really installing.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bruce
>
>
>




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Gentoo: dev-lang/erlang

George Shapovalov
Hi Bruce.

Replying to the list, since this will probably concern many people. Pelease
note, I am not on the list atm (though if more issues come up I believe I
will have to sign up to this one :as well )), so if you want me to get your
reply lease put me in CC.

On Monday 26 May 2003 21:48, Bruce Fitzsimons wrote:
> I agree it is complicated, I wasn't aware of those restrictions on ebuilds.
> I would suggest simplifying the version number by treating the letters as
> numbers, where A = 0, so R9B-1 becomes 9.1.1, R8A-0 becomes 8.0.0. A note
> in the description that says the untranslated Erlang version number might
> be handy too.
Yup, incidentally I thought about this and was thinking about switching to
similar scheme when R10 comes out :). I would probably have done so from the
beginning had I not observed R8B and then R9B and assumed that this is a
complete version name, e.g no stuff is going to be added after the last
letter. And yea, the original submission by Charlie Mac had -8b in the name  
:).

The real question however is what to do with the present stuff - the R9
versions. Its inconvenient version numbers vs having to move stuff that is
already in and is depended upon by some other packages. Basically it comes
down to the following questions:

1. How many more versions are planned in the R9 branch before R10 gets issued?
If R9c will be followed by R10 it might be better to just keep this mismatch
(9C will be 9d.ebuild) and switch to numeric versioning starting with R10
(note, the ordering of versions will be preserved in portage, so that newver
versions will be picked up properly - thus the necessity of this mangling).

2. On a related note: how many gentoo usres are on this list? If there are
any, would you prefer to have more correspondance in version numbers for 9B
series (namely by mapping A=0, B=1, etc.) but you would have to remerge
erlang in order to bring your system to a consistend state? (I think
remerging packages dependent upon it can be avoided, unless this is done
simultaneously with erlang update. Still unnecessary recompilation but seems
to be the easiest way through this). Or would you rather live with this
mismatch until R10 comes around? (you can always look up the "real" version
in ebuild of course)
Note, this change will be observable as "downgrade" as 9.x.xb is considered
newver than 9.x.x with x's being any numbers.

George




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Gentoo: dev-lang/erlang

Bruce Fitzsimons-2
Hi George,

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Shapovalov" <george>
To: "Bruce Fitzsimons" <bruce.fitzsimons>
Cc: <erlang-questions>
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: Gentoo: dev-lang/erlang


<snip>
> Yup, incidentally I thought about this and was thinking about switching to
> similar scheme when R10 comes out :). I would probably have done so from
the
> beginning had I not observed R8B and then R9B and assumed that this is a
> complete version name, e.g no stuff is going to be added after the last
> letter. And yea, the original submission by Charlie Mac had -8b in the
name
> :).
>
Sounds fine, its really not a big problem, I just thought it was good to
fix.

> The real question however is what to do with the present stuff - the R9
> versions. Its inconvenient version numbers vs having to move stuff that is
> already in and is depended upon by some other packages. Basically it comes
> down to the following questions:
>
> 1. How many more versions are planned in the R9 branch before R10 gets
issued?
> If R9c will be followed by R10 it might be better to just keep this
mismatch
> (9C will be 9d.ebuild) and switch to numeric versioning starting with R10
> (note, the ordering of versions will be preserved in portage, so that
newver
> versions will be picked up properly - thus the necessity of this
mangling).
>
I suspect R9C will be the last R9 version (based on history) but someone on
the list will have a better idea. Switching the scheme for R10 sounds fine
to me.

> 2. On a related note: how many gentoo usres are on this list?
<snip>

Klacke uses gentoo (the yaws webserver - http://yaws.hyber.org has an
ebuild). And theres me :-)

/Bruce




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Gentoo: dev-lang/erlang

tobbe

I'm also using Gentoo. An ebuild for Erlang would lead to an ebuild for
Yaws which would lead to an ebuild for the Bluetail Ticket Tracker....

<plug>
To all fellow Erlang'ers: try out Gentoo if you have the possiblity,
its very nice indeed. If you ever appreciated FreeBSD's ports system,
you will love Gentoo's 'emerge', and if you have started to dislike RedHat's
way of configuring your box you will like Gentoo's etc-config-files style
as well.
</plug>

Cheers , Tobbe

Bruce Fitzsimons wrote:

>>2. On a related note: how many gentoo usres are on this list?
>>    
>>
><snip>
>
>Klacke uses gentoo (the yaws webserver - http://yaws.hyber.org has an
>ebuild). And theres me :-)
>
>/Bruce
>
>  
>