Add bc back to the stage3

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
50 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Add bc back to the stage3

Luca Barbato
The bc utility is part of the posix tools and it might be used to build
linux among the other stuff.

lu

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Rich Freeman
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Luca Barbato <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The bc utility is part of the posix tools and it might be used to build
> linux among the other stuff.
>

I'm fine with including useful utilities in the stage3s, as long as
they don't go into the system set.  We really need to get beyond
equating the two.  Otherwise our systems will become a jumble of stuff
that somebody finds useful for something, and then when we remove some
of it we'll get occasional breakage because nobody will declare them
as dependencies.  That just isn't in the spirit of Gentoo.

The system set should only contain stuff that a large percentage of
the tree needs to depend on (let's say more than 20%), or which is
required to be available to bootstrap the rest of the tree.

Once mix-in-like support is available, then profiles can be a dumping
ground for anything anybody finds useful, and the more the merrier...

--
Rich

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto-2
In reply to this post by Luca Barbato
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, Luca Barbato wrote:

> The bc utility is part of the posix tools and it might be used to build
> linux among the other stuff.

Luca,

bc is not in the system set and is a dependency of the kernel or any other
package that needs it, so why do we need to include a package that takes
~20 seconds to build?

> lu

Regards,

Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
Gentoo Developer

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Francesco Riosa-3
Il 17/09/2014 14:09, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto ha scritto:

> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, Luca Barbato wrote:
>
>> The bc utility is part of the posix tools and it might be used to build
>> linux among the other stuff.
>
> Luca,
>
> bc is not in the system set and is a dependency of the kernel or any
> other package that needs it, so why do we need to include a package
> that takes ~20 seconds to build?

Most people don't use the ebuild for the kernel


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Aaron W. Swenson-2
On 2014-09-17 14:20, [hidden email] wrote:

> Il 17/09/2014 14:09, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto ha scritto:
> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, Luca Barbato wrote:
> >
> >> The bc utility is part of the posix tools and it might be used to build
> >> linux among the other stuff.
> >
> > Luca,
> >
> > bc is not in the system set and is a dependency of the kernel or any
> > other package that needs it, so why do we need to include a package
> > that takes ~20 seconds to build?
>
> Most people don't use the ebuild for the kernel
That's a rather outrageous and difficult to substantiate claim. Given
what I've seen in the forums and on IRC, it would appear the reverse
is true; most people use the ebuild for the kernel.

I wouldn't consider people who deviate from the supported methods as
our concern. If you're smart enough to do that and want to make your
own path, you're smart enough to emerge bc.

--
Mr. Aaron W. Swenson
Gentoo Linux Developer
PostgreSQL Herd Bull
Email : [hidden email]
GnuPG FP : 2C00 7719 4F85 FB07 A49C 0E31 5713 AA03 D1BB FDA0
GnuPG ID : D1BBFDA0

signature.asc (220 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Alan McKinnon-2
On 17/09/2014 14:49, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:

> On 2014-09-17 14:20, [hidden email] wrote:
>> Il 17/09/2014 14:09, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto ha scritto:
>>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, Luca Barbato wrote:
>>>
>>>> The bc utility is part of the posix tools and it might be used to build
>>>> linux among the other stuff.
>>>
>>> Luca,
>>>
>>> bc is not in the system set and is a dependency of the kernel or any
>>> other package that needs it, so why do we need to include a package
>>> that takes ~20 seconds to build?
>>
>> Most people don't use the ebuild for the kernel
>
> That's a rather outrageous and difficult to substantiate claim. Given
> what I've seen in the forums and on IRC, it would appear the reverse
> is true; most people use the ebuild for the kernel.
>
> I wouldn't consider people who deviate from the supported methods as
> our concern. If you're smart enough to do that and want to make your
> own path, you're smart enough to emerge bc.
>


Agreed. I've been on -user for 10+ years and only a very few fetch their
kernels directly from upstream. The vast majority of users who have
described how they do it simply emerge one of the source packages just
like the handbook says to do.

There's an even split between genkernel users and those who make
menuconfig (100% unscientific survey taken from my brain and nowhere else)



--
Alan McKinnon
[hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Rich Freeman
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Alan McKinnon <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 17/09/2014 14:49, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
>
> Agreed. I've been on -user for 10+ years and only a very few fetch their
> kernels directly from upstream. The vast majority of users who have
> described how they do it simply emerge one of the source packages just
> like the handbook says to do.
>

Agree.  Lots of people install web applications by hand, but that
doesn't mean that we should make every web development framework out
there a dependency of apache.

--
Rich

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Samuli Suominen-4
In reply to this post by Alan McKinnon-2

On 17/09/14 16:29, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> On 17/09/2014 14:49, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
>> On 2014-09-17 14:20, [hidden email] wrote:
>>> Il 17/09/2014 14:09, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto ha scritto:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, Luca Barbato wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The bc utility is part of the posix tools and it might be used to build
>>>>> linux among the other stuff.
>>>> Luca,
>>>>
>>>> bc is not in the system set and is a dependency of the kernel or any
>>>> other package that needs it, so why do we need to include a package
>>>> that takes ~20 seconds to build?
>>> Most people don't use the ebuild for the kernel
>> That's a rather outrageous and difficult to substantiate claim. Given
>> what I've seen in the forums and on IRC, it would appear the reverse
>> is true; most people use the ebuild for the kernel.
>>
>> I wouldn't consider people who deviate from the supported methods as
>> our concern. If you're smart enough to do that and want to make your
>> own path, you're smart enough to emerge bc.
>>
>
> Agreed. I've been on -user for 10+ years and only a very few fetch their
> kernels directly from upstream. The vast majority of users who have
> described how they do it simply emerge one of the source packages just
> like the handbook says to do.
>
> There's an even split between genkernel users and those who make
> menuconfig (100% unscientific survey taken from my brain and nowhere else)
>
>
>

I've never used gentoo-sources in my life, and always fetched sources by
hand from kernel.org,
but, at the same time, I find it's 100% my own responsibility to cover
any fallout from that,
including manually emerging required dependencies.

- Samuli

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Anthony G. Basile
On 09/17/14 10:13, Samuli Suominen wrote:

> On 17/09/14 16:29, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On 17/09/2014 14:49, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
>>> On 2014-09-17 14:20, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>> Il 17/09/2014 14:09, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto ha scritto:
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, Luca Barbato wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The bc utility is part of the posix tools and it might be used to build
>>>>>> linux among the other stuff.
>>>>> Luca,
>>>>>
>>>>> bc is not in the system set and is a dependency of the kernel or any
>>>>> other package that needs it, so why do we need to include a package
>>>>> that takes ~20 seconds to build?
>>>> Most people don't use the ebuild for the kernel
>>> That's a rather outrageous and difficult to substantiate claim. Given
>>> what I've seen in the forums and on IRC, it would appear the reverse
>>> is true; most people use the ebuild for the kernel.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't consider people who deviate from the supported methods as
>>> our concern. If you're smart enough to do that and want to make your
>>> own path, you're smart enough to emerge bc.
>>>
>> Agreed. I've been on -user for 10+ years and only a very few fetch their
>> kernels directly from upstream. The vast majority of users who have
>> described how they do it simply emerge one of the source packages just
>> like the handbook says to do.
>>
>> There's an even split between genkernel users and those who make
>> menuconfig (100% unscientific survey taken from my brain and nowhere else)
>>
>>
>>
> I've never used gentoo-sources in my life, and always fetched sources by
> hand from kernel.org,
> but, at the same time, I find it's 100% my own responsibility to cover
> any fallout from that,
> including manually emerging required dependencies.
>
> - Samuli
>
I agree.  Anyone is free to build and install anything without the
ebuild, but then they're on their own.

Also, who says we're building a linux kernel with our stage3s?  I may
want on just as a chroot or container, or run it on a non-linux kernel.

--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : [hidden email]
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Luca Barbato
In reply to this post by Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto-2
On 17/09/14 14:09, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, Luca Barbato wrote:
>
>> The bc utility is part of the posix tools and it might be used to build
>> linux among the other stuff.
>
> Luca,
>
> bc is not in the system set and is a dependency of the kernel or any
> other package that needs it, so why do we need to include a package that
> takes ~20 seconds to build?

Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant and it is a pain to
remember that Gentoo doesn't have it by default (since the errors can be
quite vague).

lu


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Ciaran McCreesh-4
On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:47:14 +0200
Luca Barbato <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant

I agree. It's time to replace nano with Vim.

--
Ciaran McCreesh

signature.asc (188 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Vladimir Romanov
Em. I don't agree. I prefer Emacs and don't like Vim. But if i must choose between Vim and Nano, i prefer Nano

2014-09-27 18:22 GMT+06:00 Ciaran McCreesh <[hidden email]>:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:47:14 +0200
Luca Barbato <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant

I agree. It's time to replace nano with Vim.

--
Ciaran McCreesh

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Ciaran McCreesh-4
On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 18:31:03 +0600
Vladimir Romanov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Em. I don't agree. I prefer Emacs and don't like Vim. But if i must
> choose between Vim and Nano, i prefer Nano

But vi is POSIX.

--
Ciaran McCreesh

signature.asc (188 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Vladimir Romanov
Well, if vi is posix, and it is so important, then you may use it. But please, don't delete nano.

2014-09-27 18:40 GMT+06:00 Ciaran McCreesh <[hidden email]>:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 18:31:03 +0600
Vladimir Romanov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Em. I don't agree. I prefer Emacs and don't like Vim. But if i must
> choose between Vim and Nano, i prefer Nano

But vi is POSIX.

--
Ciaran McCreesh

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Luca Barbato
In reply to this post by Ciaran McCreesh-4
On 27/09/14 14:22, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:47:14 +0200
> Luca Barbato <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant
>
> I agree. It's time to replace nano with Vim.
>

Surely certain stuff might enjoy having ex available as well.

Probably busybox could be enough for both use-cases.

lu

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Ben de Groot-2
In reply to this post by Ciaran McCreesh-4
On 27 September 2014 20:40, Ciaran McCreesh
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 18:31:03 +0600
> Vladimir Romanov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Em. I don't agree. I prefer Emacs and don't like Vim. But if i must
>> choose between Vim and Nano, i prefer Nano
>
> But vi is POSIX.

vi is available through busybox already

--
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Kent Fredric
In reply to this post by Ciaran McCreesh-4

On 28 September 2014 00:22, Ciaran McCreesh <[hidden email]> wrote:

I agree. It's time to replace nano with Vim.


http://i.imgur.com/qRNTQGi.png

--
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Mike Gilbert-2
In reply to this post by Ciaran McCreesh-4
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:47:14 +0200
> Luca Barbato <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant
>
> I agree. It's time to replace nano with Vim.
>

To restate this: There are numerous other utilities specified in POSIX
which we do not have in @system (or the stage3 tarball).

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

Anthony G. Basile
On 09/27/14 11:19, Mike Gilbert wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:47:14 +0200
>> Luca Barbato <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant
>> I agree. It's time to replace nano with Vim.
>>
> To restate this: There are numerous other utilities specified in POSIX
> which we do not have in @system (or the stage3 tarball).
>
Agreed.  The argument "its posix and should be in there" doesn't fit the
criterion for a stage3 tarball.  A stage3 should be "a minimal set from
which any gentoo system can be built" (modulo arch, abi, libc, ..., of
course.)  Emerging any linux kernel package will pull in bc (see
REDEPEND in kernel-2.eclass) and therefore bc is not needed to complete
that minimal set.

--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : [hidden email]
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Add bc back to the stage3

hasufell
In reply to this post by Kent Fredric
Kent Fredric:

> On 28 September 2014 00:22, Ciaran McCreesh <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree. It's time to replace nano with Vim.
>
>
>
> http://i.imgur.com/qRNTQGi.png
>

We need a moderated development mailing list.

123