Hi, Quoting David Kalnischkies (2013-04-28 14:27:12) > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Johannes Schauer <j.scha...@email.de> wrote: > > Indeed it is, but the dot would be forbidden to be part of scope names and > > their values and the package name would be separated from a potential > > "<scope>.<value>" by a colon like: "<packagename>:<scope>.<colon>", no? > > Ahhhh. Misunderstanding then. I thought of it more as a problem of: > Find values for X and Y so that it makes sense (and is esthetically pleasant): > <packagename>X<scope>Y<value>:<arch>
Since more than one profile at a time can be specified when building a source package, this should probably rather be: <packagename>(X<scope>Y<value>)*(:<arch>)? So that it is also possible to depend upon binary packages that were built with multiple profiles enabled. > My answer: X=~ and Y=. (or anything else expect : really) > As this is something you will have potentially as output in APT/dpkg and > as dependencies. > > But given that <arch> is "only" a special type of <scope>Y<value> > we are better of with X=: and therefore potential multiple ":" even though > its a bit unusual at first. I agree to allow having multiple ":". I dont think the following looks too bad and it is certainly better memorable than having to learn just another character with a special meaning when already the Y is new: foobar:profile.stage1:profile.cross:amd64 > Remains the problem of setting Y: > Y=% looks really noisy, but beside that it is used for encoding its free. > Y=# I would really hate that - shells will think this is a comment … > Y=: feels just wrong to have Y == X > Y=~ really looks strange there, beside that okay I guess > Y=. > … What about Y = "=" This value was suggested by Raphael Hertzog in the other branch of this thread. Example: Build-Depends: foobar:profile=stage1:amd64 [amd64] [profile=stage2] I also thought about the possibility of allowing "=" and "!=" for Y so that one is able to specify a profile a binary package had to be built with as well as a profile it should not have been built with (they can do this in Gentoo wrt its USE flags which are similar to build profiles). But then I realized that it is probably more natural to just prepend a "!" to the <scope>=<value> tuple just as it is done in the qualifier like this: Build-Depends: foobar:!profile=stage1:amd64 [amd64] [!profile=stage2] In any case - for the sake of the "Bootstrappable Debian GSoC" we only have to decide about the qualifier syntax right now and talking about a potential dependency upon binary packages that were built (or not built) with a certain profile is (so far) only good for deciding on a good value for "Y". > But the character used in the "power plant" should be chosen carefully, as it > has effects on the "bikeshed"(s) and it would be bad to have different > characters in the "power plant" and "bikeshed"(s) for the same thing. (In > that case "carefully" is probably just "not :" and the rest bikeshed) And here you were talking about the ":" in the qualifier or in the name of the build dependency? It probably makes most sense to separate <scope> and <value> by the same character in the qualifier AND in the dependency name, right? For example in OCaml it is horribly confusing to call a function with a named argument with name:value but in the function definition it is name=value - this leads to confusion all the time. So probably the separator should really be the same in both places and therefor I agree that everything except ":" works. If nobody objects, I would then embark in implementing a patch for dpkg which implements the following syntax: Build-Depends: huge (>= 1.0) [amd64 i386] [profile=stage1 profile=cross], tiny If we find a better value for Y, it can easily be changed later. Having a patch ready will allow us to talk about more specific issues. cheers, josch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130428144043.31391.99060@hoothoot
