Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation
Santiago M. Mola wrote: But stuff like aac needs encode and cdio conflicts with cdparanoia should be something separate from USE flag documentation. Well, at least until it's handled at ebuild level, local USE flag documentation can be used to explain the implications to the user beforehand (ewarns work too, but only after user tries to actually install the package). VB -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation
Piotr Jaroszyński [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Tbh, I don't have any issues with the current solution, but I may be missing something. Rationale doesn't seem to help though, afaics it is just saying that the current behaviour needs to be documented and fwiw PMS draft covers this already: http://dev.gentoo.org/~spb/pms.pdf - section 3.4.3 Which is fine, but PMS is just a draft. I'm trying to see if everyone can accept one solution, instead of throwing things into metadata.xml and into use.local.desc without the process being documented in one place. This is more of a proposal to see if we should even change how we do things today. Maybe we shouldn't, and that's what I'm trying to figure out... http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/gleps/glep-0054.html Please, don't use an already assigned GLEP number, it's a bit confusing. Note that 55 is taken as well. It wasn't taken when I first sent it (as far as I know). I forgot to change before resending. Thanks for reminding me. Thanks, -- Mark Loeser email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://www.halcy0n.com pgpnYkNt4leuz.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation
Here is a newer revision of the GLEP. I still have multiple methods of solving this problem (mostly because I want and *need* input from people as to what they would prefer). Please tell me what you would want to use so I can come up with a more precise specification. What exactly do we need this system to do that we can't do now? Is overriding the USE flag with use.local.desc sufficient and we just need to document the current solution properly? Please...let me know how you feel about this. http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/gleps/glep-0054.html Thanks, -- Mark Loeser email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://www.halcy0n.com pgp1cWKoQgE6v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation
Hello, On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:24:53 -0500 Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What exactly do we need this system to do that we can't do now? The only interesting thing I can think of, is to expose some of the USE flags logic found in some ebuilds in a parseable fashion. I'm talking about things like (from mplayer-1.0_rc2_p24929-r2.ebuild): - Two flags are mutually exclusive: ( cdio implies !cdparanoia ) and (cdparanoia implies !cdio) - A flag makes sense only if another flag is on: !encode implies !aac This way portage will be able to inform/warn the user automatically that the set of USE flags the user has chosen really means some other thing. Something like: [ebuild R ] media-video/mplayer-1.0_rc2_p24929-r2 USE=X cdio -aac#1 -cdparanoia#2 -encode ... #1 aac needs encode #2 cdio conflicts with cdparanoia But this logic will have to be exposed on a .ebuild level. Is overriding the USE flag with use.local.desc sufficient and we just need to document the current solution properly? I would say yes. Also, what would we gain switching to xml? The format as it is now is trivially parseable and human friendly. While if the data is in xml format it will be less human friendly, as well as, it will be harder to extract the information from shell scripts. Kindest regards, Yuri. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation
On 1/14/08, Yuri Vasilevski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ebuild R ] media-video/mplayer-1.0_rc2_p24929-r2 USE=X cdio -aac#1 -cdparanoia#2 -encode ... #1 aac needs encode #2 cdio conflicts with cdparanoia This can be implemented with use.desc/use.local.desc. Paludis already does that by default. But this logic will have to be exposed on a .ebuild level. I don't think this is worth an EAPI change, or adding new variables to ebuilds. metada.xml USE flag documentation could be extended to cover such cases if it's really needed... but is it? -- Santiago M. Mola Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation
On 1/14/08, Santiago M. Mola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/14/08, Yuri Vasilevski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ebuild R ] media-video/mplayer-1.0_rc2_p24929-r2 USE=X cdio -aac#1 -cdparanoia#2 -encode ... #1 aac needs encode #2 cdio conflicts with cdparanoia This can be implemented with use.desc/use.local.desc. Paludis already does that by default. Sorry. Paludis shows USE flags, and overrides definitions with use.local.desc. But stuff like aac needs encode and cdio conflicts with cdparanoia should be something separate from USE flag documentation. As you said, it should be handled at ebuild level. -- Santiago M. Mola Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation
Mark Loeser wrote: Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: One of the GLEP's primary goals is to provide a global use flag definition and over-ride it with a local definition. How does putting all flags in use.desc and over-riding local flags in use.local.desc not accomplish this? It does, and maybe that's what we should use instead? The reason for the email is to figure out if what we have now is good enough, or if we should switch to something else. You're the one forcing people to remove overriding USE flags from use.local.desc when that's something that people have been doing for ages. The current Portage tools support that method. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation
On Wednesday 02 of January 2008 16:58:33 Mark Loeser wrote: Doug Klima [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: You're the one forcing people to remove overriding USE flags from use.local.desc when that's something that people have been doing for ages. The current Portage tools support that method. Because this behaviour is not documented anywhere It is documented in the PMS draft and imho it makes perfect sense (at least with current solution): Flags must be listed once for each package to which they apply, or if a flag is listed in both use.desc and use.local.desc, it must be listed once for each package for which its meaning differs from that described in use.desc. -- Best Regards, Piotr Jaroszyński -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation
I like the overall idea. I will comment the first proposed alternative as this is the one that makes the most sense in my opinion. Having one global use.xml where the default definitions are, and then using metadata.xml for each package to override the USE flag definition. With 's/default definitions/global USE flag definitions/' and 's/override the USE flag definition/define the local USE flags/' I would be even happier. Global USE flags should be defined in a central place and never be overridden. Local flags should be defined locally i.e. in the package subdirectory. I'd even go as far as adding that metadata.xml could include some clarifications/specifics/notes/warnings/whatever about a global USE flag for a given package, but that should not be a redefinition of the global USE flag. This would be appended by third party tools to complement the definition of the global USE flag in the context of that particular package. Problems with this approach include... * Easy to duplicate USE flags since we don't have a central repository for them. I'm not following you here. We'd have a central use.xml, so what do you mean ? And it's OK for local flags to be conflicting or duplicated since they're local. Lots of small files to go and parse to get the full picture of the tree. This can be cached. Denis. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation
Marius Mauch wrote: On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:54:04 -0500 Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me know if you like any of those ideas, or if they all suck (and if they do, you better tell me why). I'm not sure which is the best way forward, which is why I want everyone to contribute towards the best solution moving forward. I really don't want to be stuck with something that is going to end up being a pain a year down the road. What benefit does use.xml have over use.desc? My opinion is that we should use use.desc for a complete list of use flags, including a generic description, allow a more verbose description in metadata.xml and get rid of the stupid separation of local and global flags. No need to change the format of use.desc though. I completely agree with this. This allows each individual package to provide more insight to what a USE flag does. The only benefit use.local.desc gives us is a fast way to list packages using some flags, but that's unreliable at best. If needed such a list could be autogenerated. Marius -- Doug Klima [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation
On Dec 31, 2007 3:30 PM, Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What benefit does use.xml have over use.desc? [...] No need to change the format of use.desc Anything that would enable us to document with more than a few words, which is what we're practically limited to with the current format of use.desc, would help. The currently available documentation on USE flags is clearly insufficient, maybe not for you and me and other devs, but for the majority of our users. Note that this is not the same as optionally adding more specific documentation on a global flag in the metadata.xml of a package. and get rid of the stupid separation of local and global flags Good idea. How do you plan to cope with the (currently) local USE flag conflicts though ? Denis. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: One of the GLEP's primary goals is to provide a global use flag definition and over-ride it with a local definition. How does putting all flags in use.desc and over-riding local flags in use.local.desc not accomplish this? It does, and maybe that's what we should use instead? The reason for the email is to figure out if what we have now is good enough, or if we should switch to something else. How does the glep intend to handle USE_EXPAND? It doesn't say anything about them right now, but since you brought it up...any ideas? :) -- Mark Loeser email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://www.halcy0n.com pgpUIrolgzHPs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation
Doug Klima [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Marius Mauch wrote: What benefit does use.xml have over use.desc? My opinion is that we should use use.desc for a complete list of use flags, including a generic description, allow a more verbose description in metadata.xml and get rid of the stupid separation of local and global flags. No need to change the format of use.desc though. I completely agree with this. This allows each individual package to provide more insight to what a USE flag does. This sounds sane to me as well. As I said, I'm just throwing ideas out there to see what sticks :) The only benefit use.local.desc gives us is a fast way to list packages using some flags, but that's unreliable at best. If needed such a list could be autogenerated. Completely agree. -- Mark Loeser email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://www.halcy0n.com pgpY4lku9pvmP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:55:10 +0100 Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 31, 2007 3:30 PM, Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What benefit does use.xml have over use.desc? [...] No need to change the format of use.desc Anything that would enable us to document with more than a few words, which is what we're practically limited to with the current format of use.desc, would help. The currently available documentation on USE flags is clearly insufficient, maybe not for you and me and other devs, but for the majority of our users. Note that this is not the same as optionally adding more specific documentation on a global flag in the metadata.xml of a package. Most of the time when I see complaints about the description of USE flags (I'm fully aware of those) the issue isn't the format, just that noone else has come up with a better description. And technically use.desc isn't limited to a few words, unless you want to add multiple paragraphs with formatting, just the (current) presentation would get a bit ugly with longer descriptions. Of course the format could be changed if needed, but that needs a more specific description about the requirements. and get rid of the stupid separation of local and global flags Good idea. How do you plan to cope with the (currently) local USE flag conflicts though ? You mean different descriptions? Just use a placeholder in use.desc (like some global flags already have) and move the actual description in metadata.xml if there isn't any common base. Marius -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation
This is a very very rough draft/question about how we should move forward with USE flag documentation and specification. The entire idea of a single USE flag having different meanings will need to be revisted later. I just want to get an idea of how we can document these different meanings. Please read my ideas here: http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/gleps/glep-0054.html Let me know if you like any of those ideas, or if they all suck (and if they do, you better tell me why). I'm not sure which is the best way forward, which is why I want everyone to contribute towards the best solution moving forward. I really don't want to be stuck with something that is going to end up being a pain a year down the road. Thanks, -- Mark Loeser email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://www.halcy0n.com pgp5KMFB9dR0l.pgp Description: PGP signature
