Add a new entry for our custom version bump #8196

supechicken · 2023-04-18T18:32:18Z

Not tested yet

Currently, we use @_ver to store the upstream version and put our custom subversion inside of version "#{@_ver}-...", but having two different variables for version might confuse new contributors.

This PR adds a new entry called revision for our custom subversion and is optional for backward compatibility, here are some examples:

# before
@_ver = '1.1'
version "#{@_ver}-1"

# after
version '1.1'
revision 1

# before
@_ver = '1.0'
version @_ver

# after
version '1.0'
revision null # can be omitted

####
# Use `@version` to get the upstream version
# Use `@revision` to get the subversion

I only applied it to some packages as there are so many packages that use @_ver for versioning 😅

Run the following to get this pull request's changes locally for testing.

CREW_TESTING_REPO=https://github.com/supechicken/chromebrew.git CREW_TESTING_BRANCH=add_release CREW_TESTING=1 crew update

lib/package.rb

uberhacker

I like this idea! Bump crew version? Obviously, we'll need to update all the affected packages before this can be merged. Another thing to consider is all the packages that use @_ver throughout the package need to use that version.

satmandu · 2023-04-20T14:33:00Z

So we're also doing some tagging of python3 packages with the python3 version, and i think we're headed towards doing the same for perl.

But there are other version sub-tags which might make sense too. For instance, when building with LTO, packages complain when a library is built with a different version of GCC.

Might it make sense to also be able to tag packages with the GCC version used to build it? Obviously a revision tag would make sense for the rebuild, but it would also be nice to independently be able to scan packages to see what version of GCC was used to build it.

satmandu · 2023-04-20T14:33:33Z

There's an ur-question here of how much package metadata should go in the package file, as opposed to being put elsewhere.

packages/apng2gif.rb

packages/abseil_cpp.rb

supechicken · 2023-06-12T15:19:48Z

Current progress on replacing @_ver in all packages: 119/549

It might take me a week to complete it... 💀

supechicken · 2023-06-12T15:22:36Z

So we're also doing some tagging of python3 packages with the python3 version, and i think we're headed towards doing the same for perl.

But there are other version sub-tags which might make sense too. For instance, when building with LTO, packages complain when a library is built with a different version of GCC.

Might it make sense to also be able to tag packages with the GCC version used to build it? Obviously a revision tag would make sense for the rebuild, but it would also be nice to independently be able to scan packages to see what version of GCC was used to build it.

How about creating a new suffix tag for them?

supechicken · 2023-06-12T15:36:07Z

Thanks to @Zopolis4, now we have 362/549 (187 completed) left :)

Zopolis4 · 2023-06-12T23:46:05Z

Speaking of-- it looks like you're manually removing @_ver from packages. What I've been doing is writing and using a series of sed scripts, which requires much less busywork. In the interests of saving time and making sure we don't double up on work, would it make more sense for me to just continue on as I am using my scripts? I plan to submit PRs for every @_ver usage that doesn't need this PR.

After that, I'll submit PRs that remove the usages of @_ver that do need this PR, and we can merge those after this is merged.

Is that ok? I don't want to step on your toes, but I also don't want you to have to go through ~400 packages manually when I can automate the process.

supechicken · 2023-06-13T16:28:02Z

The reason that I don't use sed is to prevent any possible breakage. (e.g. there are some packages that involve @_ver in another variable like @_ver_prelastdot. It won't work by just simply replacing @_ver with version as those variables were defined before version is defined and thus throwing errors)

Zopolis4 · 2023-06-13T22:55:44Z

I've got some fallbacks for that, and I do test the packages.

packages/linuxheaders.rb

uberhacker · 2023-07-23T14:47:54Z

packages/linux_sources.rb

-  @version = CREW_KERNEL_VERSION == '4.14' ? "#{CREW_KERNEL_VERSION}-1" : CREW_KERNEL_VERSION
-  version @version
+  version = CREW_KERNEL_VERSION == '4.14' ? "#{CREW_KERNEL_VERSION}-1" : CREW_KERNEL_VERSION
+  version version


revision 1 version CREW_KERNEL_VERSION == '4.14' ? "#{CREW_KERNEL_VERSION}-#{revision}" : CREW_KERNEL_VERSION

?

Zopolis4 · 2023-07-24T07:00:02Z

packages/binutils.rb

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ class Binutils < Package
  version "#{@_ver}-1"
  license 'GPL-3+'
  compatibility 'all'
-  source_url "https://ftpmirror.gnu.org/binutils/binutils-#{@_ver}.tar.bz2"
+  source_url "https://ftpmirror.gnu.org/binutils/binutils-#{version}.tar.bz2"


Seems like you forgot to edit the rest of the package here?

Zopolis4 · 2023-07-24T07:01:33Z

lib/package.rb

-    "#{name}.#{Time.now.utc.strftime('%Y%m%d%H%M%S')}.dir"
+    return "#{name}.#{Time.now.utc.strftime('%Y%m%d%H%M%S')}.dir"
  end

  def self.is_binary?(architecture)
-    if !@build_from_source && @binary_url && @binary_url.key?(architecture)
-      return true
-    else
-      return false
-    end
+    return (!@build_from_source && @binary_url && @binary_url.key?(architecture))
  end

  def self.is_source?(architecture)
-    if is_binary?(architecture) || is_fake?
-      return false
-    else
-      return true
-    end
+    return !(is_binary?(architecture) || is_fake?)


If these are just general improvements to the code,
does it make more sense to seperate these into another PR?

Zopolis4 · 2023-07-24T07:02:48Z

packages/gittools.rb

-  version '24eaef0d11e590643e65d188b017b49414d81cc2'
+  @commit = '24eaef0d11e590643e65d188b017b49414d81cc2'
+  version @commit[0...7]
  license 'MIT'
  compatibility 'all'
  source_url 'https://github.com/internetwache/GitTools.git'
-  git_hashtag version
+  git_hashtag @commit


I'm conscious of the fact that this is still quite similar to using @_ver-- is there any other way to do this which doesn't introduce an additional variable?

supechicken added 2 commits April 19, 2023 02:05

package.rb: Add "revision" flag

0096343

Switch to "revision" for some packages

11a71a9

supechicken requested review from uberhacker and satmandu April 18, 2023 18:32

supechicken marked this pull request as draft April 18, 2023 18:38

uberhacker reviewed Apr 18, 2023

View reviewed changes

lib/package.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

uberhacker requested changes Apr 18, 2023

View reviewed changes

uberhacker reviewed Apr 21, 2023

View reviewed changes

packages/apng2gif.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Zopolis4 mentioned this pull request Jun 6, 2023

Add @_ver comment to crew_mvdir #8336

Merged

Zopolis4 reviewed Jun 12, 2023

View reviewed changes

packages/abseil_cpp.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Zopolis4 mentioned this pull request Jun 12, 2023

Remove simple (and unnecessary) uses of @_ver #8370

Merged

supechicken added 4 commits June 12, 2023 22:15

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into HEAD

88f39b3

@version => version

c74c449

Suggested changes

be33bb3

Replace @_ver in a to i packages

47ac78f

Merge branch 'chromebrew:master' into add_release

333cb23

uberhacker reviewed Jul 19, 2023

View reviewed changes

packages/linuxheaders.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into add_release

7f62030

supechicken marked this pull request as ready for review July 23, 2023 14:32

Suggested changes

66abc53

uberhacker reviewed Jul 23, 2023

View reviewed changes

Zopolis4 reviewed Jul 24, 2023

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add a new entry for our custom version bump #8196

Add a new entry for our custom version bump #8196

supechicken commented Apr 18, 2023 •

edited

uberhacker left a comment •

edited

satmandu commented Apr 20, 2023

satmandu commented Apr 20, 2023

supechicken commented Jun 12, 2023

supechicken commented Jun 12, 2023

supechicken commented Jun 12, 2023 •

edited

Zopolis4 commented Jun 12, 2023

supechicken commented Jun 13, 2023

Zopolis4 commented Jun 13, 2023

uberhacker Jul 23, 2023

Zopolis4 Jul 24, 2023

Zopolis4 Jul 24, 2023

Zopolis4 Jul 24, 2023

Add a new entry for our custom version bump #8196

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Add a new entry for our custom version bump #8196

Conversation

supechicken commented Apr 18, 2023 • edited

Run the following to get this pull request's changes locally for testing.

uberhacker left a comment • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

satmandu commented Apr 20, 2023

satmandu commented Apr 20, 2023

supechicken commented Jun 12, 2023

supechicken commented Jun 12, 2023

supechicken commented Jun 12, 2023 • edited

Zopolis4 commented Jun 12, 2023

supechicken commented Jun 13, 2023

Zopolis4 commented Jun 13, 2023

uberhacker Jul 23, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Zopolis4 Jul 24, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Zopolis4 Jul 24, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Zopolis4 Jul 24, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

supechicken commented Apr 18, 2023 •

edited

uberhacker left a comment •

edited

supechicken commented Jun 12, 2023 •

edited