Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:12:47 + Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Following a discussion in #gentoo-portage earlier this evening, it was suggested that I send out an RFC email for this. So, does anyone object to requiring that any variable listed in USE_EXPAND be treated as incremental, at least as far as profile inheritance is concerned? The main problem I see is that if it's becoming a real incremental (across all config layers) it would change behavior for users as they'd need to prefix their use-expanded vars with -* to retain their current config. But I guess that's why you added that final clause about profile scope. Marius -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:14:19 +0100 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:12:47 + | Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Following a discussion in #gentoo-portage earlier this evening, it | was suggested that I send out an RFC email for this. So, does anyone | object to requiring that any variable listed in USE_EXPAND be | treated as incremental, at least as far as profile inheritance is | concerned? | | The main problem I see is that if it's becoming a real incremental | (across all config layers) it would change behavior for users as | they'd need to prefix their use-expanded vars with -* to retain their | current config. But I guess that's why you added that final clause | about profile scope. You know, making users do that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing... I know that Paludis users like having the option of inheriting defaults from the profile for expanded vars... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis is faster : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=61 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 20:21:45 + Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:14:19 +0100 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:12:47 + | Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Following a discussion in #gentoo-portage earlier this evening, it | was suggested that I send out an RFC email for this. So, does anyone | object to requiring that any variable listed in USE_EXPAND be | treated as incremental, at least as far as profile inheritance is | concerned? | | The main problem I see is that if it's becoming a real incremental | (across all config layers) it would change behavior for users as | they'd need to prefix their use-expanded vars with -* to retain their | current config. But I guess that's why you added that final clause | about profile scope. You know, making users do that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing... I know that Paludis users like having the option of inheriting defaults from the profile for expanded vars... Didn't say it's a bad idea, but it's one of those things that creates a lot of noise. Marius -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:14:19 +0100 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The main problem I see is that if it's becoming a real incremental (across all config layers) it would change behavior for users as they'd need to prefix their use-expanded vars with -* to retain their current config. But I guess that's why you added that final clause about profile scope. Indeed. Personally, I quite like the idea of doing it that way, but I can see how others might not want to change it. The motivation for bringing this up came from writing PMS, which is why I'm only really concerned about profiles -- that document isn't concerned about user configuration, which is why I added the final clause. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental
Marius Mauch wrote: The main problem I see is that if it's becoming a real incremental (across all config layers) it would change behavior for users as they'd need to prefix their use-expanded vars with -* to retain their current config. But I guess that's why you added that final clause about profile scope. I'd gotten the impression that users would have to do that anyway once flameeyes gets his ALSA_CARDS expanded, what with all the cards that were going to be on by default anyway. Weren't there some other variables in make.conf that were going to behave this way at some point? Though it'd be nice to have this done sanely; for example, configuring X turns off most everything for the user already; no need for -* nvidia vesa for example, it's a minor thing to add, long as users get sufficient warning. It's a pretty simple fix for the documentation, too, long as we know what docs would be affected by all the expansion and incrementing goin' on. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental
Following a discussion in #gentoo-portage earlier this evening, it was suggested that I send out an RFC email for this. So, does anyone object to requiring that any variable listed in USE_EXPAND be treated as incremental, at least as far as profile inheritance is concerned? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental
Stephen Bennett wrote: Following a discussion in #gentoo-portage earlier this evening, it was suggested that I send out an RFC email for this. So, does anyone object to requiring that any variable listed in USE_EXPAND be treated as incremental, at least as far as profile inheritance is concerned? That means that the base profiles must have a minimal setting that is added to in lower profiles, rather than a reasonable default that's entirely reset in lower profiles (perhaps to a smaller setting), correct? I'm not a huge fan of that, if that's what it requires, since there is no way of subtracting USE_EXPAND settings that I know about. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:24:49 -0800 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That means that the base profiles must have a minimal setting that is added to in lower profiles, rather than a reasonable default that's entirely reset in lower profiles (perhaps to a smaller setting), correct? It would mean that all USE_EXPANDed variables get stacked in the same way that USE does. The base profile defines a set of defaults, which gets flags added to or removed from it in other profiles. At present, from what zmedico told me, it's handled in a weird manner which essentially does half the job, letting you add flags but not remove them in subprofiles. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental
Stephen Bennett wrote: The proposal means that all variables listed in USE_EXPAND get handled exactly as USE does where profile inheritance is concerned. Subprofiles can add to and remove from the value in the parent profile just as they can for USE. Did I misread what you said earlier? Stephen Bennett wrote: At present, from what zmedico told me, it's handled in a weird manner which essentially does half the job, letting you add flags but not remove them in subprofiles. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:24:03 -0800 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stephen Bennett wrote: The proposal means that all variables listed in USE_EXPAND get handled exactly as USE does where profile inheritance is concerned. Subprofiles can add to and remove from the value in the parent profile just as they can for USE. Did I misread what you said earlier? Stephen Bennett wrote: At present, from what zmedico told me, it's handled in a weird manner which essentially does half the job, letting you add flags but not remove them in subprofiles. At present -- that's the behaviour that I want to change by making them incremental. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental
Stephen Bennett wrote: On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:24:03 -0800 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stephen Bennett wrote: The proposal means that all variables listed in USE_EXPAND get handled exactly as USE does where profile inheritance is concerned. Subprofiles can add to and remove from the value in the parent profile just as they can for USE. Did I misread what you said earlier? Stephen Bennett wrote: At present, from what zmedico told me, it's handled in a weird manner which essentially does half the job, letting you add flags but not remove them in subprofiles. At present -- that's the behaviour that I want to change by making them incremental. Oh, I see. I thought you were describing the present behavior of the change as it would affect USE_EXPAND. As long as I can do VIDEO_CARDS=-vesa, I'm happy with it. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
