Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
On Tuesday 22 of June 2010 19:14:38 Arun Raghavan wrote:
> On 20 June 2010 20:12, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Any objections? I'll wait till Wed (June 23rd) before adding this if
> > there aren't any.
>
> Is anyone here vehemently against "introspection".
Not vehemently, but how would you differentiate between gobject introspection
or (let's say) DBus introspection or Kross (if anyone writes one).
'introspection' global USE flag simply cannot be described as:
"Use dev-libs/gobject-introspection for introspection"
because the term introspection is not specific to GObject. Period.
Now, I don't want to sound harsh, but I understand in Gnome camp (upstream)
there's a tendency to use commonly used names for Gnome specific
"technologies". For instance - there's WebKitGtk but tarballs is called (yes,
you guessed it) - webkit-${PV}.tar.gz. It's like for many Desktop Environment
means Gnome, Linux means Ubuntu and such.
The same applies to GObject introspection - in autotools there's --enable-
introspection switch for it like the term introspection was exclusive for
GObject. Also many upstream developers working with Gnome/Gtk/Glib libs and
using said GObject introspection will defend their right to hijack this term
(like certain developer of a library I maintain in Gentoo).
I'd prefer not to see such practice here.
I'd suggest gobject-introspection USE flag instead - it's self describing.
If 'introspection' USE flag is to be used globally, it needs to have
description implementation-agnostic, let's say:
"Enable runtime API introspection"
or something like this.
--
regards
MM
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
On K, 2010-06-23 at 09:33 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: > On 23 June 2010 01:47, Mike Auty wrote: > [...] > >> Which should not be an issue since any library that has some sort of > >> introspection can use this flag (and the use.desc can be changed > >> appropriately at that time if it does not use gobject-introspection). > > > > Why have to change it in the future (and probably split it into two > > flags then), when the choice hasn't been made yet? Or, to put your own > > question to you, why are you vehemently for "introspection" when others > > have shown concern with the choice? As far as I can see, the only > > difference is requiring a slightly longer use_enable line. > > Mostly because I don't want to coin a new term if it's not absolutely > necessary. > > That said, you're right - more people seem to be comfortable with > "gintrospection" than plain "introspection". If no further objections > arise, we'll go with "gintrospection". I object. gintrospection doesn't describe anything. It's very hard to understand from the USE flag name that it deals with introspection, as opposed, to, uh, gint's or who knows what. USE flags starting with "g" usually denote support for some GNU package, not gnome, per some actual looking at use.desc. Nothing stops QtCore packages to use the same USE flag name for the same purpose - introspection. USE flags are primarily supposed to enable certain functionality, not "allow to depend on this package". That functionality is introspection. It just happens that the only framework this is currently supported in is on top of GObject and the appropriate gobject-introspection package. Introspection has nothing to do with GNOME. Most GNOME modules are written in C and don't need introspection information (primary exception being gnome-shell and its javascript stuff). All packages that currently depend on PyGTK will and should eventually use PyGi and in turn the introspection information provided by the necessary used libraries. This includes many GUI software that has no relation to GNOME, other than using the same toolkit. I can't imagine what else introspection means than what this USE flag is proposed to provide to many libraries (would api-introspection be more clear?), all of which just happen to be GObject based right now (and as such detailed in the currently proposed global USE flag description), as other base frameworks currently don't have any introspection support to our knowledge. Note that you will soon not be able to really avoid gobject-introspection package on desktop systems (unless you are a Qt junky that refuses to install anything not based on Qt), so this USE flag really isn't about dependency control at all. It's about defining if embedded images need a .typelib introspection file at runtime or not. So that embedded GUI image builders would be able to globally disable the USE flag and enable it per-package as necessary by applications (represented with USE depends). If it weren't for that, we'd simply always install them, they are just not that big compared to the include files that get always installed too. But embedded guys can easily delete all of /usr/include, but typelibs (containing the introspection data) may be necessary at runtime. -- Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: l...@gentoo.org Weblog: http://blogs.gentoo.org/leio
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
On 23 June 2010 01:47, Mike Auty wrote: [...] >> Which should not be an issue since any library that has some sort of >> introspection can use this flag (and the use.desc can be changed >> appropriately at that time if it does not use gobject-introspection). > > Why have to change it in the future (and probably split it into two > flags then), when the choice hasn't been made yet? Or, to put your own > question to you, why are you vehemently for "introspection" when others > have shown concern with the choice? As far as I can see, the only > difference is requiring a slightly longer use_enable line. Mostly because I don't want to coin a new term if it's not absolutely necessary. That said, you're right - more people seem to be comfortable with "gintrospection" than plain "introspection". If no further objections arise, we'll go with "gintrospection". Thanks, -- Arun Raghavan http://arunraghavan.net/ (Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 22/06/10 18:11, Arun Raghavan wrote: > It is not a GNOME-only flag. A general introspection flag may not be, but this isn't a general introspection flag, this is specific to gobject and the suggestions try to clarify that. People who want gobject-introspection (which concerns gobject, and is therefore appropriate for a "g" prefix) will not want to have to manually differentiate between arbitrary-library-introspection and gobject-introspection by fiddling around with a package.use file to individually turn it on and off. It should be an easy, global USE flag to enable once in make.conf and forget about. > Which should not be an issue since any library that has some sort of > introspection can use this flag (and the use.desc can be changed > appropriately at that time if it does not use gobject-introspection). Why have to change it in the future (and probably split it into two flags then), when the choice hasn't been made yet? Or, to put your own question to you, why are you vehemently for "introspection" when others have shown concern with the choice? As far as I can see, the only difference is requiring a slightly longer use_enable line. In the end, it's not a big issue and whichever is chosen it'll work out. I'm just trying to figure out why the compromise solutions aren't good enough to satisfy everyone? Mike 5:) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkwhGkAACgkQu7rWomwgFXp0dQCePjaHQn6JeBO6OrzwsIHBp8f1 +2gAoJDD4MS1spuo1DiqD96uOfX8ZBj9 =TJvC -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
On 22 June 2010 22:03, Mike Auty wrote: [...] >> I still think "introspection" is easier to grok. It's unlikely that >> it's going to be used in a completely different sense by other >> packages in the future, so let's stick with "introspection" please. > > Gintrospection gives more information (things starting with g are > generally gnome related, which this is), and grepping for introspection It is not a GNOME-only flag. It affects several non-GNOME-only packages as well (udev, upower, udisks, dbus, gstreamer, other freedesktop projects, pulseaudio). > will still turn it up. It also solves the concerns that all the people > on this thread have voiced about introspection being too generic. I Which should not be an issue since any library that has some sort of introspection can use this flag (and the use.desc can be changed appropriately at that time if it does not use gobject-introspection). -- Arun Raghavan http://arunraghavan.net/ (Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:33, Mike Auty wrote: > Gintrospection gives more information (things starting with g are > generally gnome related, which this is), and grepping for introspection > will still turn it up. It also solves the concerns that all the people > on this thread have voiced about introspection being too generic. I > can't see why introspection is that much easier for people to "grok"? > Gintrospection seems like a good compromise that everyone can agree on... If you need help gathering consensus, you have this user's vote. -- Jacob "For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now — and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened." Are you ready?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 22/06/10 15:33, Arun Raghavan wrote: >> Why not just gintrospection? > > I still think "introspection" is easier to grok. It's unlikely that > it's going to be used in a completely different sense by other > packages in the future, so let's stick with "introspection" please. Gintrospection gives more information (things starting with g are generally gnome related, which this is), and grepping for introspection will still turn it up. It also solves the concerns that all the people on this thread have voiced about introspection being too generic. I can't see why introspection is that much easier for people to "grok"? Gintrospection seems like a good compromise that everyone can agree on... Mike 5:) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkwg5d0ACgkQu7rWomwgFXqr+QCggMCbz0F9Jm/WxK080ZcVLLWV +bcAnj4A72j+T9iLmbyW+0uFDCyYg23o =vbNg -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
On 22 June 2010 16:54, Peter Hjalmarsson wrote: > tis 2010-06-22 klockan 15:17 +0530 skrev Arun Raghavan: >> On 21 June 2010 21:23, Arun Raghavan wrote: >> [...] >> > I'm still trying to think of a good name. I understand the concerns >> > about "introspection" being too generic and non GNOME-y, but "gir" is >> > likely to cause confusion. >> >> "gir" is not good because it gives near-zero information. >> >> I can still not think of short enough USE flag. I propose we stick to >> "introspection". There isn't anything on the horizon that might >> overlap with this flag, and I don't see why we should drop using a >> simpler flag for the *possibility* that it might overlap with >> something else in the future. We can deal with this if it happens. >> >> Cheers, > > Why not just gintrospection? I still think "introspection" is easier to grok. It's unlikely that it's going to be used in a completely different sense by other packages in the future, so let's stick with "introspection" please. -- Arun Raghavan http://arunraghavan.net/ (Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
Am 21.06.2010 09:04, schrieb "Paweł Hajdan, Jr.": > I think that "introspection" is similarly too general. What about calling the useflag "GIR" (or "gir")? If the user does not know what it stands for, he will hopefully look up the description to see what it means. And in contrast to "introspection" the chance of getting a false sense of the meaning is low. Just as an idea (as I personally dislike awfully-long-useflag-names) - René signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 09:07 +, Duncan wrote: > Paweł Hajdan, Jr. posted on Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:04:03 +0200 as excerpted: > > > On 6/21/10 8:53 AM, Arun Raghavan wrote: > >> On 21 June 2010 11:43, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > introspection: Add gobject-introspection support, allowing for the > dynamic generation of bindings for various languages > > >>> gobject-introspection ? > > >> exceedingly verbose > > > "introspection" is similarly too general. > > gobj-bindings ? > > Bindings is a common enough term in use flag descriptions, etc, that users > should at least have an idea what it means. Introspection? Not so much. It's not the bindings... It's introspection data that describes the API. -- Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
On Monday 21 June 2010 09:53:02 Arun Raghavan wrote: > On 21 June 2010 11:43, Alexis Ballier wrote: > [...] > > >> introspection: Add gobject-introspection support, allowing for the > >> dynamic generation of bindings for various languages > > > > why not naming the useflag gobject-introspection then ? > > Mostly because it seems exceedingly verbose to me (yes, I know we have > longer USE flags, and I find them too long as well). well, it removes any possible ambiguity; it's meaning may be obvious for you but for me, when I see an "introspection" useflag, I wonder why that package would like to do its self psychanalysis... also, remember that having useflag descriptions is only an addition to accurate useflag names, not a justification for having vague names A. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
On 6/21/10 8:53 AM, Arun Raghavan wrote: > On 21 June 2010 11:43, Alexis Ballier wrote: > [...] >>> introspection: Add gobject-introspection support, allowing for >>> the dynamic generation of bindings for various languages >> >> why not naming the useflag gobject-introspection then ? > > Mostly because it seems exceedingly verbose to me (yes, I know we > have longer USE flags, and I find them too long as well). Please take a look at the devmanual, http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/use-flags/ > In particular, note that if client and server USE flags are ever > introduced, they can not be global USE flags for this reason. I think that "introspection" is similarly too general. So can we either rename it to "gobject-introspection", or find some other way to handle it? On the other hand, we already have "handbook" flag for KDE4. So the above is not really a strong opinion, just a point to consider. Paweł signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
On 21 June 2010 11:43, Alexis Ballier wrote: [...] >> introspection: Add gobject-introspection support, allowing for the >> dynamic generation of bindings for various languages > > why not naming the useflag gobject-introspection then ? Mostly because it seems exceedingly verbose to me (yes, I know we have longer USE flags, and I find them too long as well). -- Arun Raghavan http://arunraghavan.net/ (Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
On Monday 21 June 2010 07:44:50 Arun Raghavan wrote: > On 20 June 2010 20:12, Arun Raghavan wrote: > [...] > > > We already have 13 packages using this flag, with several more to > > come. The current description being used in packages' metadata.xml > > sucks - I'll put something more descriptive in the final flag. > > Here's the description I'm planning to add: > > introspection: Add gobject-introspection support, allowing for the > dynamic generation of bindings for various languages why not naming the useflag gobject-introspection then ? A. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
