Version Naming Clarification

Howdy all,

I just bumped into something I feel is a Portage and PMS
bug. Since I
believe in concrete use cases, I'll just go with that.

Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the
proper upstream
name and name referenced in every single doc in the world is
"ntfs-3g".
I tried to rename the package however, Portage does not let
me since it
is invalid naming. marienz and genone informed me it's
invalid with PMS
as well.

The version I was trying to add is ntfs-3g-1.516. Logically
Portage and
PMS should only consider any data after the LAST - as the
version
information. Now in the cpv scheme of things, it's not
undeterministic
because the following two entries would be the only valid
entries:

sys-fs/ntfs-3g
=sys-fs/ntfs-3g-1.516

Either way, that's my beef.
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Howdy all,
>
> I just bumped into something I feel is a Portage and
PMS bug. Since I
> believe in concrete use cases, I'll just go with that.
>
> Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However
the proper upstream
> name and name referenced in every single doc in the
world is "ntfs-3g".
> I tried to rename the package however, Portage does not
let me since it
> is invalid naming. marienz and genone informed me it's
invalid with PMS
> as well.
>
> The version I was trying to add is ntfs-3g-1.516.
Logically Portage and
> PMS should only consider any data after the LAST - as
the version
> information. Now in the cpv scheme of things, it's not
undeterministic
> because the following two entries would be the only
valid entries:
>
> sys-fs/ntfs-3g
> =sys-fs/ntfs-3g-1.516
>
> Either way, that's my beef.
>   
It seems my issue has been brought up in bug #174536 [1].
Sorry for the
noise.

https:
//bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174536
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However
the proper upstream
> name and name referenced in every single doc in the
world is "ntfs-3g".
> I tried to rename the package however, Portage does not
let me since it
> is invalid naming. marienz and genone informed me it's
invalid with PMS
> as well.
> 
> The version I was trying to add is ntfs-3g-1.516.
Logically Portage and
> PMS should only consider any data after the LAST - as
the version
> information.

Would this cause problems anywhere if we had the following?

sys-fs/ntfs/ntfs-3g.ebuild
and
sys-fs/ntfs-3g/ntfs-3g-1.516.ebuild

Daniel

-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:32:40 -0400
Daniel Drake <dsdgentoo.org> wrote:

> Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g.
However the proper
> > upstream name and name referenced in every single
doc in the world
> > is "ntfs-3g". I tried to rename the
package however, Portage does
> > not let me since it is invalid naming. marienz and
genone informed
> > me it's invalid with PMS as well.
> > 
> > The version I was trying to add is ntfs-3g-1.516.
Logically Portage
> > and PMS should only consider any data after the
LAST - as the
> > version information.
> 
> Would this cause problems anywhere if we had the
following?
> 
> sys-fs/ntfs/ntfs-3g.ebuild
> and
> sys-fs/ntfs-3g/ntfs-3g-1.516.ebuild

Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a
CPV? You
don't know unless you actually check the tree.

Marius

-- 
Marius Mauch <genonegentoo.org>
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

maillog: 07/06/2007-19:42:45(+0200): Marius Mauch types
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:32:40 -0400
> Daniel Drake <dsdgentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > > Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g.
However the proper
> > > upstream name and name referenced in every
single doc in the world
> > > is "ntfs-3g". I tried to rename the
package however, Portage does
> > > not let me since it is invalid naming.
marienz and genone informed
> > > me it's invalid with PMS as well.
> > > 
> > > The version I was trying to add is
ntfs-3g-1.516. Logically Portage
> > > and PMS should only consider any data after
the LAST - as the
> > > version information.
> > 
> > Would this cause problems anywhere if we had the
following?
> > 
> > sys-fs/ntfs/ntfs-3g.ebuild
> > and
> > sys-fs/ntfs-3g/ntfs-3g-1.516.ebuild
> 
> Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or
a CPV? You
> don't know unless you actually check the tree.

Isn't "sys-fs/ntfs-3g" the atom and
"=sys-fs/ntfs-3g-1.516" the CPV?

-- 
 /   Georgi Georgiev    / Meader's Law: Whatever happens to
you, it   /
     chutzgg3.net      will previously have happened to
everyone  
 / http://www.gg3.net/  /
you know, only more so.                     /
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 02:04:08PM -0400, Doug Goldstein
wrote:
> > Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an
atom or a CPV? You
> > don't know unless you actually check the tree.
> I thought that was the whole point of =. That
identifies CPV instead of
> an atom.
If you look the DEPEND/RDEPEND portion of ebuilds,
there are a lot of deps just declared as CAT/PN, with no
version
numbering.

I think this might be a clearer version of what you are
trying to say.
1. Given a string S that is 'XXXXXXXXXXXXX' 
2. If S starts with an operator (=,>,>=,<=,<),
then S MUST have a
   version number on the end. S is of the form:
CAT/PN-PV(-PR), where
   both CAT and PN may contain a -. PR is optional, and must
be of the
   form /^-r[[:digit:]]+$/
3. If S does not start with an operator, then S is of the
form:
   CAT/PN, where CAT and PN may contain a -.
4. If the first character was a !, then remember that, strip
the ! from
   S, and repeat from 2.
5. If you reach this point, you have something that is not
valid.

This means if somebody specified:
sys-fs/ntfs-3g-1.516
The CAT is 'sys-fs'
and the PN is 'ntfs-3g-1.516'
which does not exist.

I can't see any logical problems with the above. It probably
makes
things a lot easier in many places.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member
E-Mail     : robbat2gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488
4E85

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 02:57:28 +0900
Georgi Georgiev <chutzgg3.net> wrote:

> maillog: 07/06/2007-19:42:45(+0200): Marius Mauch
types
> > Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an
atom or a CPV? You
> > don't know unless you actually check the tree.
> 
> Isn't "sys-fs/ntfs-3g" the atom and
"=sys-fs/ntfs-3g-1.516" the CPV?

No, that's the point. It could be the (simple) atom for the
sys-fs/ntfs-3g package or it could be the CPV describing
sys-fs/ntfs/ntfs-3g.ebuild.

Marius

-- 
Marius Mauch <genonegentoo.org>
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 02:04:08PM -0400, Doug
Goldstein wrote:
>   
>>> Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an
atom or a CPV? You
>>> don't know unless you actually check the tree.
>>>       
>> I thought that was the whole point of =. That
identifies CPV instead of
>> an atom.
>>     
> If you look the DEPEND/RDEPEND portion of ebuilds,
> there are a lot of deps just declared as CAT/PN, with
no version
> numbering.
>
> I think this might be a clearer version of what you are
trying to say.
> 1. Given a string S that is 'XXXXXXXXXXXXX' 
> 2. If S starts with an operator
(=,>,>=,<=,<), then S MUST have a
>    version number on the end. S is of the form:
CAT/PN-PV(-PR), where
>    both CAT and PN may contain a -. PR is optional, and
must be of the
>    form /^-r[[:digit:]]+$/
> 3. If S does not start with an operator, then S is of
the form:
>    CAT/PN, where CAT and PN may contain a -.
> 4. If the first character was a !, then remember that,
strip the ! from
>    S, and repeat from 2.
> 5. If you reach this point, you have something that is
not valid.
>
> This means if somebody specified:
> sys-fs/ntfs-3g-1.516
> The CAT is 'sys-fs'
> and the PN is 'ntfs-3g-1.516'
> which does not exist.
>
> I can't see any logical problems with the above. It
probably makes
> things a lot easier in many places.
>
>   
That's exactly what I'm saying. CPV
(Category/Package/Version) requires
=, >=, <, <= to begin it.
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

On Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2007, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> That's exactly what I'm saying. CPV
(Category/Package/Version) requires
> =, >=, <, <= to begin it.

So you'd like to change every foo/bar occurrence (and that's
the common case) 
to >=foo/bar-0 !? Completely out of line, imho. I don't
understand what the 
fuzz is about. sys-fs/ntfs3g is absolutely fine. Fighting
for the little "-" 
is nonsense.


Carsten

Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2007, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>   
>> That's exactly what I'm saying. CPV
(Category/Package/Version) requires
>> =, >=, <, <= to begin it.
>>     
>
> So you'd like to change every foo/bar occurrence (and
that's the common case) 
> to >=foo/bar-0 !? Completely out of line, imho. I
don't understand what the 
> fuzz is about. sys-fs/ntfs3g is absolutely fine.
Fighting for the little "-" 
> is nonsense.
>
>
> Carsten
>
>
>   
No. We are talking about differentiating between
"ntfs" version 3g and
"ntfs-3g".

foo/bar is completely valid to reference a package.

foo/bar-3 should be treated as category "foo",
package "bar-3".
Currently that is not the case and is not allowed.

=foo/bar-3 would be "foo", package
"bar", version "3" as it still is.

Carsten, no offense but I think you totally misunderstood
the scope of
what I was trying to convey and Robin explained in better
detail.
Essentially, we mentioned something that would not change
the tree AT
ALL. It would just clarify the ambiguity of versioning
slightly.
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 19:42:45 +0200
Marius Mauch <genonegentoo.org> wrote:

> Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or
a CPV? You
> don't know unless you actually check the tree.

Is there any place in the tree where a dep atom and a CPV
are both
accepted? Should there be?
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

CARSTEN LOHRKE <CARLOGENTOO.ORG> WROTE:
> ON DONNERSTAG, 7. JUNI 2007, DOUG GOLDSTEIN WROTE:
> > THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING. CPV
(CATEGORY/PACKAGE/VERSION) REQUIRES
> > =, >=, <, <= TO BEGIN IT.
> 
> SO YOU'D LIKE TO CHANGE EVERY FOO/BAR OCCURRENCE (AND
THAT'S THE COMMON CASE) 
> TO >=FOO/BAR-0 !? COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE, IMHO. I
DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE 
> FUZZ IS ABOUT. SYS-FS/NTFS3G IS ABSOLUTELY FINE.
FIGHTING FOR THE LITTLE "-" 
> IS NONSENSE.

UM NO. IF ONE SPECIFIES SYS-FOO/BAR-3G YOU EXPECT IT TO BE A
ATOM, ELSE YOU
HAVE TO PREFIX IT WITH ">=" TO BE A CPV. IF I
CHOOSE TO SPECIFY SYS-UTILS/BAR
THEN I GET ANY VERSION OF BAR, WHICH IS FINE. IF I CHOOSE TO
SPECIFY
SYS-UTILS/BAR-3 AND BAR-3 IS NOT A VALID ATOM, REPOMAN CRIES
AT ME.

THUS, YOU CAN CONTINUE USING THE TREE JUST FINE 

HTH,
-- 
REGARDS, MATTI BICKEL
ENCRYPTED/SIGNED EMAIL PREFERRED

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:04:17 -0400
Doug Goldstein <cardoegentoo.org> wrote:

> That's exactly what I'm saying. CPV
(Category/Package/Version)
> requires =, >=, <, <= to begin it.

Nope. Something that starts with an operator is a versioned
atom. A CPV
is used in other places when a specific version is required,
for
example in package.provided. I guess people aren't that
familiar with
the term as it's mostly an API thing, on the user-interface
side (or
ebuild-interface side) one generally doesn't deal with
CPVs.

Basically an atom is a selector that returns a list of CPVs,
and by
prefixing a CPV with an operator you get an atom, but they
are still
completely separate things.

Maybe that helps to clear some of the confusion.

-- 
Marius Mauch <genonegentoo.org>
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:28:26 -0700
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2gentoo.org> wrote:

> 4. If the first character was a !, then remember that,
strip the !
> from S, and repeat from 2.
> 5. If you reach this point, you have something that is
not valid.

Sorry, but I completely fail to understand what that's
supposed to
mean. Where does the ! come from?

> This means if somebody specified:
> sys-fs/ntfs-3g-1.516
> The CAT is 'sys-fs'
> and the PN is 'ntfs-3g-1.516'
> which does not exist.

Exist and valid are two different things, which is the whole
issue
here. With the restriction we can validate without checking
for
existance, without it we'd have to rely on existance to
check if
something is a valid atom or a valid CPV.

> I can't see any logical problems with the above. It
probably makes
> things a lot easier in many places.

Can't say anything about that before I understand what you
tried to
say ;)

Marius

-- 
Marius Mauch <genonegentoo.org>
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:31:44PM +0100, Stephen Bennett
wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 19:42:45 +0200
> Marius Mauch <genonegentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an
atom or a CPV? You
> > don't know unless you actually check the tree.
> 
> Is there any place in the tree where a dep atom and a
CPV are both
> accepted?

An ebuild's PROVIDE list.

> Should there be?

Probably not.
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

ON THU, 7 JUN 2007 22:33:21 +0200
HARALD VAN D?K <TRUEDFXGENTOO.ORG> WROTE:
> AN EBUILD'S PROVIDE LIST.

NNNNOPE. NOT LEGAL.

-- 
CIARAN MCCREESH

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:33:21 +0200
Harald van Dijk <truedfxgentoo.org> wrote:

> An ebuild's PROVIDE list.

According to PMS at least, PROVIDE only allows
category/package, with
no versioning.
--
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

On Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2007, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Carsten, no offense but I think you totally
misunderstood the scope of
> what I was trying to convey

Yeah, sorry, should have had read your initial email
carefully. Taking 
anything before the last - as version information is indeed
a Portage bug.


Carsten

On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:40:20PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:33:21 +0200
> Harald van Dijk <truedfxgentoo.org> wrote:
> > An ebuild's PROVIDE list.
> 
> Nnnnope. Not legal.

The question was "Is there any place in the tree where
a dep atom and a
CPV are both accepted?" Look at the last word.
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

ON THU, 7 JUN 2007 22:52:39 +0200
HARALD VAN D?K <TRUEDFXGENTOO.ORG> WROTE:
> ON THU, JUN 07, 2007 AT 09:40:20PM +0100, CIARAN
MCCREESH WROTE:
> > ON THU, 7 JUN 2007 22:33:21 +0200
> > HARALD VAN D?K <TRUEDFXGENTOO.ORG> WROTE:
> > > AN EBUILD'S PROVIDE LIST.
> > 
> > NNNNOPE. NOT LEGAL.
> 
> THE QUESTION WAS "IS THERE ANY PLACE IN THE TREE
WHERE A DEP ATOM AND
> A CPV ARE BOTH ACCEPTED?" LOOK AT THE LAST WORD.

IF IT'S NOT LEGAL, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER OR NOT IT'S
ACCEPTED BY
FLUKE.

-- 
CIARAN MCCREESH