[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Multiple ABI support through package appending/partial removal
From:       Brian Harring <ferringb () gmail ! com>
Date:       2012-09-26 10:57:28
Message-ID: 20120926105728.GI26094 () localhost
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:35:37AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:12:56 -0700
> Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:09:49AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > Since my previous idea of DYNAMIC_SLOTS proved too complex to design
> > > and implement, I would like to offer an another idea, based partially
> > > on what Ciaran mentioned. Before I start getting into details, I'd like
> > > to know your opinions, and what possible problems am I missing. To keep
> > > it clean, I will focus on Python ABIs but other languages and multilib
> > > could be handled in a similar manner.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The problem
> > > ===========
> > > 
> > > Right now, building packages for multiple Python ABIs is done using
> > > USE_EXPAND-based useflags. This is a working solution but it requires
> > > rebuilding the package for all ABIs whenever the chosen ABI list
> > > changes.
> > > 
> > > While it may be not that important for most of the Python packages, it
> > > becomes such when it comes to things like boost or -- if we'd extend
> > > that to multilib -- say, llvm. In that case, whenever a newly-installed
> > > package requests a specific ABI, user has to spend twice as much time
> > > to rebuild the same version.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The general idea
> > > ================
> > > 
> > > While not getting too deep into ebuild syntax, the core part
> > > of the idea is to mark some of the USE_EXPAND variables 'special'.
> > > In this particular example, such a special flag group would be
> > > 'PYTHON_TARGETS'.
> > > 
> > > Now, let's consider user installs a new package with one
> > > python_targets_python2_7 enabled. The package is built and installed
> > > like usual but aside to regular vdb files an additional file
> > > is introduced, listing all the installed files as 'belonging'
> > > to python_targets_python2_7.
> > > 
> > > If user enables python_targets_python3_2 on the same package, the PM
> > > doesn't trigger a full rebuild. Instead, it builds the package with
> > > the new flag being the only flag in PYTHON_TARGETS. The new files are
> > > installed over the installed package (and added to CONTENTS in vdb),
> > > and the files in install image are listed in vdb as 'belonging'
> > > to python_targets_python3_2.
> > 
> > What you're proposing would liter the ebuild/eclass with has_version 
> > checks; in brain dead simple cases, you can replace parts of the pkg 
> > as you're proposing there.
> > 
> > However if it installs scripts, things start getting more complex; 
> > needs to vary how it installs if it's overlaying part of itself.
> 
> That's the idea. You're given a tool, now thinking twice before using
> it.

This statement doesn't make sense.  Clarify it.


> > This proposal also doesn't work in the phase of := slot deps either, 
> > not unless you've got a way to ensure, potentially weeks/months after 
> > the first build, that the node locks to the same slotting.
> 
> A rebuild then?

More logic to dump on the PM.  Yes, you can hack around it- I pointed 
it out because the existence of that corner case says something about 
the proposal.


> > > Whenever files from two ABIs collide, package manager either replaces
> > > the installed files if the 'new' ABI is considered 'better' than
> > > the old one or preserves it. This follows the current behavior when
> > > multiple ABIs are built, and later builds overwrite files from earlier
> > > ones.
> > 
> > This is handwavey and kind of crackadled; the PM has no way of knowing 
> > which USE_EXPAND target is considered 'best', so in the case of 
> > multilib (say 64b and 32b subversion) there isn't any way to which svn 
> > binary should be there- 64b or 32b.  Best I can tell, your proposal 
> > winds up just being "last one to merge wins" which isn't acceptable. 
> 
> This is just an early idea. Details like precedence weren't converted
> into any syntax yet.

Precedence is a core requirement of anything that's more than just a 
non lib; python would've already been required to be addressed if we 
didn't have that damn wrapper in place (when a multislotting proposal 
goes through, that wrapper should die in the process).


> > > At the point, the additional file contains something like
> > > (ugly pseudo-syntax):
> > > 
> > >   /usr/lib64/python2.7/foo.py python_targets_python2_7
> > >   /usr/lib64/python3.2/foo.py python_targets_python3_2
> > >   /usr/share/doc/foo-1.2.3/README.bz2 python_targets_python2_7 \
> > >                                       python_targets_python3_2
> > > 
> > > Now, if user requests disabling python_targets_python2_7
> > > on the package, the package manager may not rebuild it as well.
> > > Instead, it removes python_targets_python2_7 from the above list,
> > > and unmerges the files which don't belong into any other ABI.
> > 
> > If we're going to do sub-packaging... which is what you're attempting 
> > here... the VDB backend for it minimally cannot be a one off 
> > USE_EXPAND hack.  That'll just back us into a corner- which the vdb 
> > already does quite heavily.
> > 
> > Any subpackaging content tracking needs to be generic and usable.  
> > Really is that simple.
> 
> Give a better explanation if you want me to follow your thoughts.

It's sub-packaging.  Having packages within packages, ability to 
add/remove chunks of a package without forcing full rebuilds of the 
gestalt.

It is as it sounds.

A subpkging example beyond this would be storing splitdebug symbols in 
a separate tbz2, and pulling that down- merging/unmerging on the fly.

Any such proposal as yours needs to recognize subpkging, and minimally 
not make that situation worse.


> > > Sadly, this will not 'downgrade' common files to another ABI
> > > but I believe that it is not really a killer-feature.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Installing new packages and upgrading existing
> > > ==============================================
> > > 
> > > Whenever a new package is to be built and multiple ABIs are requested,
> > > the package manager should split the build process between particular
> > > ABIs. Preferably, it should build all of them one-by-one, recording
> > > the 'belongs' entries from the image and then install them as a single
> > > package.
> > 
> > And how does the package know that it's being targetted at multiple 
> > ABIs?
> 
> It assumes it always is. Much like the python-distutils-ng does now.

Installation of binaries/scripts is where that most strongly applies- 
python libraries are mostly by nature, slotted in how they install- 
with the exception of docs, snakeoil doesn't conflict across multiple 
python versions targetted for example.

If however we were talking about pkgcore, which *does* install things 
into the ${PATH}, that question stands; it's an offshoot of the 
precedence bit I poked at earlier.


> > Your proposal is built on the assumption ebuilds will happy overlay 
> > themselves in differing configurations w/out ever fucking up.
> > 
> > That's not the case frankly, and worse... for the cases where it 
> > doesn't fly, your proposal basically requires the PM to hide the 
> > "we're building/installing your ass multiple times" information from 
> > the ebuild, further compounding the issue.
> 
> How it does require anything to be hidden? This is an early proposal,
> just because it doesn't say anything about variables it doesn't mean
> there can't be any.

Your counterargument is that "nyuh uh; we can add variables to deal 
with it".  I had to write the critique there based on what you 
wrote... not on what's in your head.

Reiterating; any code that is has_version aware, is going to have to 
be adjusted for this.

Any code that is REPLACING_VERSIONS or REPLACED_BY_VERSIONS aware, 
same thing; the those signals (and ones like it) are now wanged up due 
to the fact that chunk of code is going to be invoked multiple times, 
not knowing that it's sibling ABI target already ran- potentially 
doing something about it.

Basically, if you try to run the phases all on their own with out them 
truly knowing what's going on, it's going to make corner cases/issues 
for devs pop up.

Now, if you have some vars you'd like to propose to deal with it, do 
so; but that core issue is there and must be addressed.


~harring

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]