From e97879074bd8127a8dd525d6d53c856f300a4799 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: John McQuah Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2023 17:24:39 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] i3-softdeps.md: minor revisions --- doc/i3-softdeps.md | 122 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/i3-softdeps.md b/doc/i3-softdeps.md index 533d608..122f7bb 100644 --- a/doc/i3-softdeps.md +++ b/doc/i3-softdeps.md @@ -1,27 +1,44 @@ # Followup on installing i3 with the softdeps-aware fork of prt-get -## (was Re: prt-get nicetohave) +## (Was: Re: [prt-get nicetohave](https://lists.crux.nu/pipermail/crux/2023-August/007375.html)) ## 2023-08-25 -The "Optional" metadata field took a while to achieve widespread use. -In its early years, there was a strong preference for inflexible -Pkgfiles, whose build() functions contain no branching logic to -customize the build for the host machine. While there often was -some branching logic hidden inside the autotools ./configure script, -the CRUX forerunners of today's proponents of Nix-style "reproducible -builds" might have opted to bypass those tests, using command-line -switches to hard-code the desired defaults [1]. +The "Optional" metadata field stirred up some controversy when first +proposed. At the time, it was preferred to write Pkgfiles whose build() +functions contain no branching logic to customize the build for the host +machine. Maintainers would even try to suppress the branching logic hidden +inside the autotools ./configure script using command-line switches to +hard-code the desired defaults [1]. Peer pressure eventually wore away at +the resistance to this new metadata field, so it is now in widespread use +despite there being no official mandate for contributors to test their ports +under all possible configurations. Whenever a port can adapt to a variety of +use-cases, maintainers try to document that versatility in the "Optional" +field. But our package management tools remain unable to use that data! At +present, it requires a human reading the Pkgfile, for the data in the "Optional" +field to affect the order in which ports are built. Thankfully, sorting with +optional dependencies taken into account is now possible in prt-get itself, +either with the +[softdeps](https://git.crux.nu:82/farkuhar/prt-get/src/branch/softdeps) or the +[mixed-upinst](https://git.crux.nu:82/farkuhar/prt-get/src/branch/mixed-upinst) +branch of the fork by farkuhar. -One side effect of hard-coding the configure options in each port is that -it encourages a proliferation of duplicate ports, each with its own -particular combination of configure options. The portdb becomes unwieldy -to manage, navigate, and keep up-to-date, even though each individual port -in the collection is as KISS as possible. +Respecting the limitations of a prt-get that only knows about hard dependencies +would entail following the old practice and hard-coding the configure options +in each port. This example of letting our tools dictate how we work (rather +than updating the tools to fit a new workflow) would encourage a portdb more +like the AUR, with a seemingly endless variety of dups that all have +their own particular combination of configure options. Thankfully the +unwieldiness of this prospect was enough to deter maintainers from clinging to +an outmoded interpretation of KISS [3], and they adopted the new norm of +"fluid Pkgfiles" (FS#1576) even as prt-get remained unable to incorporate this +fluidity in its operations. -The example perhaps most familiar to recent users of CRUX is the pair of -ports harfbuzz and harfbuzz-icu, which differed from each other only in -the configuration option that enables linking to icu. A port that depends -on the icu-linked harfbuzz would list harfbuzz-icu among its dependencies, -while a port that did not require such linking would only list harfbuzz. +As recently as November 2021, users of CRUX could still have noticed a remnant +of the historical preference for non-fluid Pkgfiles, illustrated by the +coexisting pair harfbuzz and harfbuzz-icu. These ports differed from each other +only in the configuration option that enables linking to icu. A port that +depends on the icu-linked harfbuzz would list harfbuzz-icu among its +dependencies, while a port that did not require such linking would only +list harfbuzz. Such dups in the portdb, all using the same upstream tarball, inevitably have overlapping footprints, and it becomes impossible to avoid filesystem @@ -31,8 +48,8 @@ ports is sufficiently diverse, maintaining prt-get.aliases so as to avoid such collisions becomes an impossible task. Nix (and GoboLinux even earlier) solves the overlapping footprint problem -by giving each package its own distinct place in the filesystem. This -solution is arguably very faithful to the historical CRUX preference for +by giving each package its own separate directory in the filesystem. This +solution arguably fits quite well with the historical CRUX preference for rigid Pkgfiles, offering a one-to-one correspondence between a repository of non-fluid ports, and the filesystem where built packages are unpacked. But CRUX was reluctant to impose an additional layer of complexity on top @@ -41,39 +58,39 @@ never gained serious consideration in the CRUX community. As the last vestige of a historical preference for non-fluid ports, harfbuzz and harfbuzz-icu persisted alongside each other until surprisingly -recently, only getting merged into one fluid port in November 2021 (commit -b2e30dbf8c96e03f4fe4b39b1e5ffbecd8372787). This merge allowed users to +recently, only getting merged into one fluid port with commit +b2e30dbf8c96e03f4fe4b39b1e5ffbecd8372787. This merge allowed users to simplify prt-get.aliases, removing `harfbuzz-icu: harfbuzz` (if they had ever added such an entry to avoid filesystem collisions). Equipping prt-get with softdeps awareness is just letting our tools evolve -to match the trend toward fluid Pkgfiles (FS#1576). If the new prt-get -capabilities are deemed to violate the CRUX Mantra [2], then the same -criticism can be leveled against fluid Pkgfiles. Such criticisms were in -fact expressed (by Anton most stridently, and by Tilman and Juergen in a -gentler tone) during the discussions of USE flags and "prt-get nicetohave" -[3,4]. But the resistance to fluid Pkgfiles has diminished over the years, -to such an extent that nobody has seriously proposed solving the `prt-get -depinst i3` failure [5] by making i3 depend on the duplicate port -libxkbcommon-x11 (which would differ from libxkbcommon only by hard-coding -the meson option '-D enable-x11' and by listing xkeyboard-config as a hard -dependency). +to match the trend toward fluid Pkgfiles. If the new prt-get capabilities +are deemed to violate the CRUX Mantra [2], then the same criticism can be +leveled against fluid Pkgfiles. Such criticisms were in fact expressed +(by Anton most stridently, and by Tilman and Juergen in a gentler tone) +during the discussions of USE flags and "prt-get nicetohave" [3,4]. But the +resistance to fluid Pkgfiles has diminished over the years, to such an extent +that nobody has seriously proposed crafting the dependency graph so that +`prt-get depinst i3` is impossible to fail [5], say by making i3 depend on a +duplicate port libxkbcommon-x11 (which would differ from libxkbcommon only by +hard-coding the meson option "-D enable-x11" and by listing xkeyboard-config +as a hard dependency --- similar to how harfbuzz-icu differed from harfbuzz). -A duplicate port of libxkbcommon is indeed a KISS solution, yet its absence -in the discussion is a clear indication that we aren't going back to -non-fluid Pkgfiles anytime soon. So either our Pkgfiles have irrevocably -become "just a bit" more complex (and therefore no longer "simple"), or -they are in fact the simplest way to accommodate the modern software -landscape. In the latter case, a KISS objection to any new logic in prt-get -is not very plausible. In the former case, it could be argued that two -wrongs don't make a right, and the trend away from KISS Pkgfiles does not -justify making prt-get "just a bit" more complex. But then we would have an -awkward mismatch between the capabilities of prt-get, and the ports that it -has to handle. This mismatch is only a slight annoyance at present (the -experienced users that make up CRUX's target audience can troubleshoot the -build failure [5] relatively quickly), but if it threatens to become more -annoying in the near future, then adding new logic to prt-get is something -worth considering. +A duplicate port of libxkbcommon is indeed a KISS solution, with prt-get in its +present state. That nobody bothered to propose such a dup is a clear indication +that we are not going back to non-fluid Pkgfiles anytime soon. So either our +Pkgfiles have irrevocably become "just a bit" more complex (and therefore no +longer "simple"), or they are in fact the simplest way to accommodate the modern +software landscape. In the latter case, a KISS objection to any new logic in +prt-get is hypocritical. In the former case, it could be argued that two +wrongs do not make a right, and the trend away from KISS Pkgfiles does not +justify making prt-get "just a bit" more complex. But then we would have an +awkward mismatch between the capabilities of prt-get, and the ports that it +has to handle. This mismatch is only a slight annoyance at present (the +experienced users that make up the CRUX target audience can usually diagnose +the problem themselves if they encounter a build failure like [5]), but before the +software landscape becomes even more convoluted and such build failures harder +to avoid, we should have the discussion on adding new logic to prt-get. [1] It should be noted that the autotools ./configure script (or its meson or cmake counterpart) might not actually expose all compile-time @@ -81,12 +98,13 @@ options via command-line switches. Hence some testing of the host environment is unavoidable, unless the port maintainer performs substantial downstream patching of the source tree. -[2] We don't want to prepare for all necessities and build a complex system +[2] We do not want to prepare for all necessities and build a complex system which in 90% of all cases is overkill ... making something "just a bit" -more complex isn't "simple" anymore. (https://crux.nu/Main/Mantra) +more complex is not "simple" anymore. (https://crux.nu/Main/Mantra) [3] https://lists.crux.nu/pipermail/crux-devel/2006-August/001912.html [4] https://lists.crux.nu/pipermail/crux-devel/2008-May/003366.html -[5] https://libera.irclog.whitequark.org/crux/2023-08-21 (16:36) +[5] The possibility of this command failing was first noted by jaeger in +https://libera.irclog.whitequark.org/crux/2023-08-21 (16:36)