On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 2:03 PM, John Robert Beshir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hisham wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> I committed a modification to UseFlags yesterday/this morning to >>> enable same-named flags for every installed program by default. The >>> program names are normalised to valid flag form (lowercase >>> alphanumeric plus underscore; - transforms to _, every other character >>> is stripped[1]). These flags are enabled after the system flags (in >>> Scripts/Data), but before the site flags in /S/S/UseFlags.conf, so you >>> can disable them in the usual fashion. >>> >>> This means that installing a program will generally enable support for >>> it everywhere, including places that don't autodetect correctly. It >>> also means that many users won't ever need to know that the flags >>> exist, and things will "just work". There will still be >>> manually-enabled flags for hardware, generics, and other behaviour >>> that isn't tied to a specific single dependency, and you can still >>> control all the flags manually either by disabling the ones you don't >>> want or with "-*" at the top of UseFlags.conf. For recipe authors, >>> everything is much the same as it's always been, but you can rely on >>> having +progname on when compiling against a particular dependency, >>> for the cases where autodetection goes awry. >>> >>> Comments, anybody? I discussed this with Jonas, and we think it's a >>> reasonable default behaviour, but does anybody else have any thoughts? >>> This is with a Scripts release in mind sometime in the not-too-distant >>> future. >> >> Sounds reasonable. >> > > How would I install a program without it automatically being used by > everything else? I thought one of the advantages of useflags was that I could > specifically choose to *not* compile something with support for something > else. These are automatically enabled right before UseFlags.conf is parsed. So you can disable them in there if you don't want them enabled. We figured that the common case was that when you install something, you want it to be used. It would be annoying for it not to be if that was what you were expecting, so the rarer case of installed-but-don't-use requires an explicit step.
There may be potential problems when more than one mutually-exclusive flag is enabled, if there are any situations like that. I'll have to think about that. > And how would this work with things which react badly to, say, a graphical > toolkit being enabled explicitly? Firefox's case with Qt is the main thing > I'm thinking of there. I might want GTK+ to be used wherever possible, but > still have Qt installed on the system. You would probably want to disable Qt for Firefox explicitly: -qt Firefox (assuming we had Firefox-qt support). We may want to move these flags up above the dist flags as well, so we can ship that sort of configuration by default. At the moment, they're sandwiched in between, so the dist flags can't disable anything themselves. -Michael _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
