Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Tobias Klausmann
Hi! 

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, George Prowse wrote:
  I'd like to propose some form of ability to post user comments
  to GWN stories.  I suppose a full blown CMS system would work,
  but for the ease of time I'm suggesting that perhaps we open up
  a GWN section on the forums and post the text of the GWN (or
  perhaps each section) in a new thread each week and allow users
  to write comments.  I think opening up this venue of feedback
  would let users more readily tell us what they're interested
  in, and it would allow GWN contributors/editors/etc to see some
  of the fruits of their labors.
 
  Any comments?
 
 Principally, I agree (though I'd also rather go with the blog
 approach as Patrick suggested). One point though: commenting only
 being possible after registration may cut down on the spam (both
 commercial and vandalism),
 
 You have to register for a forums as well (usually) and if it were
 made part of Gentoo's forums then there would be no need for extra
 moderators.

Okay, I put it a bit strangely. What I meant was that a blog does
not need registration (if it has sufficient anti-spam measures).
A forum usually does.

 but it also raises the bar for legitimate comments.
 
 Again, the thread system of forums allows for easier viewing of comments.

Easier than a blog? I beg to differ. Does a forum have an RSS
feed I can subscribe to? A blog puts more emphasis on the order
of articles (in time) than a forum does. So I'm leaning towards a
blog.

 I'm not saying there should be no hurdle, it's just that it
 should be thought of/decided beforehand.
 
 Personally I think discussions in a wiki get more difficult the longer
 the discussion carries on, also i think the ability to get an email
 after comments have been made on a thread is a *big* advantage over
 the wiki style.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting using a wiki. One probably could make a
wiki work the way needed here, but I think using a blog (or
forums) is far easier.

 It would be easier to clean up and cut down on vandalism because GWN
 contributors and authors could have an ability to moderate said forum
 and delete threads once they have been used or discarded.

Well, moderators on a blog could do that too: most blogs allow
comments to be closed for articles older than a set number of
months/weeks.

Regards,
Tobias
-- 
You don't need eyes to see, you need vision.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Wernfried Haas
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
 Okay, I put it a bit strangely. What I meant was that a blog does
 not need registration (if it has sufficient anti-spam measures).
 A forum usually does.

 Well, moderators on a blog could do that too: most blogs allow
 comments to be closed for articles older than a set number of
 months/weeks.

Not commenting if/what we should do [1], but we have a sufficient
userbase and moderators on the forums to deal with spam and other
annoyances quite quickly. For a reference, take a look in our
Dustbin [2] ;-)

[1] I can't comment on this for the GWN team in any way, nor have i
talked to the other forum people yet, but if requested i think this
would be possible.
[2] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewforum-f-48.html

cheers,
Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org


pgpwpioq3qpPy.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Wernfried Haas
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:32:39PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
 CAPTCHA

Unluckily Captchas don't solve all problems. Don't remember who it
was, but someone recently showed me a link to a page describing which
captchas can easily be broken by automated tools. Iirc the summary
was, that the only good captchas are those that are pretty hard to
solve for humans, too.
That doesn't mean they don't do a good job or something, but they
won't be able to solve all problems.

cheers,
Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org


pgpqejUinKtxE.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Anders Hellgren

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Wernfried Haas wrote:


On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:32:39PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:

CAPTCHA


Unluckily Captchas don't solve all problems. Don't remember who it
was, but someone recently showed me a link to a page describing which
captchas can easily be broken by automated tools. Iirc the summary
was, that the only good captchas are those that are pretty hard to
solve for humans, too.
That doesn't mean they don't do a good job or something, but they
won't be able to solve all problems.


You're thinking of PWNtcha. The site [1] does not respond for me currently 
so you may want to check out the google cache.


[1] http://sam.zoy.org/pwntcha/

/Anders
- -- 
Anders Hellgren (kallamej)

Gentoo Forums Administrator
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEl8L9FX025WX+RG4RAh7GAJ0SeTgxLE53nQTUAGAtuksWB1tzCACdH7nA
w25fVi1okUZjT+EesrrFAcE=
=LnVg
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



[gentoo-dev] Re: GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Wiktor Wandachowicz
Patrick Lauer patrick at gentoo.org writes:

  I'd like to propose some form of ability to post user comments to GWN
  stories.  I suppose a full blown CMS system would work,
 (Ab)using a blog for that might work

Well, the Gentoo Forums users are already used to its commenting system.
Especially with the BBCode in place, which allows a nice formatting of
the messages. Blog is a different thing with different rules.
Who would like to administer that?

   but for the ease
  of time I'm suggesting that perhaps we open up a GWN section on the forums
  and post the text of the GWN (or perhaps each section) in a new thread
  each week and allow users to write comments.
 Sounds like a good idea. 

This is a COOL idea! A global forum with a text-only copy of current GWN
would enable more users to actually read it. And adding comments would be
even more beneficial. I think that it would be best to place it near the top
of forums listing, like this:

-
Assistance
-
News  Announcements
Read this before submitting your first post to any forum
-
Gentoo Weekly News
The GWN summarizes the key events in the Gentoo project each week.
This forum contains a copy of
-
...

Adding a sticky thread that explains what GWN is, where it is located [1] and
where to get an RSS feed for GWN [2] would be quite fine too. The only problem
could be to prevent creating topics in this forum by regular users, and giving
the ability to post comments only.

Additionally, a script for automatically converting GWN to the forums BBCode
format, with a link to the original version (with pictures, mostly) would
probably be needed as well. This would be similar to the existing GLSA
announcements [3] (GLSA's are both sent via e-mail and posted to the forums
right now).


I'm positively sure that it wouldn't be that much work, with the obvious
benefit for the users. More forum posters would definitely read GWN this way,
because, frankly, not every Gentoo user is subscribed to the GWN newsletter.
But OTOH they do visit forums more frequently.

Best regards,
Wiktor Wandachowicz

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/gwn.xml
[2] http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/rss.xml
[3] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewforum-f-16.html

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Pending Removal of $KV

2006-06-20 Thread Georgi Georgiev
maillog: 19/06/2006-16:34:55(-0700): Ryan Tandy types
 Arek (James Potts) wrote:
 If they don't actually build against the kernel, 
 couldn't/shouldn't they look at either kernel-headers or the output of 
 `uname -r`?
 
 Kernel headers being the virtual/linux-headers dependency that Georgi 
 mentioned.  `uname -r` works, but is annoying because you can't build 
 for a kernel other than the one you're running.

Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, I did not mention
any headers (refer to my original post below).

maillog: 20/06/2006-00:34:42(+0900): Георги Георгиев types
 maillog: 19/06/2006-11:13:33(+): Alec Warner types
  Portage currently exports $KV as the current kernel version.  We detect 
  this by attempting to mess around with the things in /usr/src/linux 
  (.config, make files, etc...)
  
  This is duplicating the superb efforts of the kernel team and of 
  linux-info eclass.  As such I would like to deprecate $KV in favor of 
  using linux-info eclass.  I don't see the need for portage to export $KV 
  into the environment for all packages.
  
  There are a few packages left that use this.  There will be a tracker 
  bug shortly.  Mostly this mail is just a heads up ;)
 
 But any kind of checks against something in $KERNEL_DIR are just wrong,
 wrong, wrong. The only exception being when the ebuild is building
 something *against* those sources (kernel modules, and that's it).
 
 It's annoying to have virtual/linux-sources pulled as a dep of gnupg,
 iptables or any other package that can do fine without them.

-- 
(Georgi Georgiev   (  Like all young men, you greatly exaggerate (
 )[EMAIL PROTECTED] ) the difference between one young woman and  )
(  http://www.gg3.net/ (  another. -- George Bernard Shaw, Major(
 ) ---  ) Barbara)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Caleb Tennis
 This is a COOL idea! A global forum with a text-only copy of current GWN
 would enable more users to actually read it. And adding comments would be
 even more beneficial. I think that it would be best to place it near the
 top
 of forums listing, like this:

Agreed.  I think this would be a good place to start until something else
is in place.

Caleb

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] 1/2 OT: Comprehensive Source Database

2006-06-20 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 04:02, Andrew Cowie wrote:
 I'm not sure if any other distros besides Ubuntu are using it yet, but
 certainly things will improve geometrically as they start to.
Considering it's not Free Software nor Open Source for the most part, I would 
be surprised.

-- 
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE


pgpcYoQdk4uee.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 04:32, Alec Warner wrote:
 CAPTCHA
Those are evil. You use one, I'm personally going to track you down and send 
you a thousand photos of Chris White and Jeffrey's goats circus stars 
together.. with a pole!

-- 
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE


pgpGz4kbKrQ9A.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Wernfried Haas
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 12:06:25PM +, Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
 The only problem
 could be to prevent creating topics in this forum by regular users, and giving
 the ability to post comments only.

(Again not a comment on the idea in general from me as i still haven't
talked to the others of the forums team about it).
You can set permissions for each forum, including who can create new
threads, and who can't. That could be used to allow users to reply
only to threads, but not create new ones.

cheers,
Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org


pgpf5Ys0Yj0kY.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Wernfried Haas
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 04:14:19PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
 Those are evil. You use one, I'm personally going to track you down and send 
 you a thousand photos of Chris White and Jeffrey's goats circus stars 
 together.. with a pole!

Let's see if you can solve this one...

 3   e 
 |-|   l 1  oD  G  0  
  i  

So, where are my pics? They may become handy some day, i hear
blackmail is a profitable business...

cheers,
Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org


pgpvwp981jZ86.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Josh Saddler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

With all the talk about forums and comments, that got me thinking: Heck, why not
just have it posted to the forums? That way it and the comments can be viewed by
the general public, but if you want to comment, you can just use your existing
forum account. No additional account creation needed.

It'd be easy enough to create a script to turn urls and html into bbcode at the
time of posting, too.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEmBkHrsJQqN81j74RAqzwAKCl2SD/zEI/Qx7ql8GeFrp3sd5kygCfd95y
y+KzcIXnmkGA4gR0BdU7mu4=
=/g/I
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] 1/2 OT: Comprehensive Source Database

2006-06-20 Thread Josh Saddler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
 On Tuesday 20 June 2006 04:02, Andrew Cowie wrote:
 I'm not sure if any other distros besides Ubuntu are using it yet, but
 certainly things will improve geometrically as they start to.
 Considering it's not Free Software nor Open Source for the most part, I would 
 be surprised.
 

This came up a few months ago. While in theory it might be a good idea, iirc the
devs pretty much unanimously agreed that it should not be pursued right now
until it's open-sourced.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEmBpprsJQqN81j74RAmzxAJ9MwK/2ScG9iSOmTwAUBpWwhz079gCcC2he
iJKdLxwF/jP8t48NS4NWmk0=
=hqCP
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Josh Saddler wrote:
 With all the talk about forums and comments, that got me thinking: Heck, why 
 not
 just have it posted to the forums? That way it and the comments can be viewed 
 by
 the general public, but if you want to comment, you can just use your existing
 forum account. No additional account creation needed.

Is this supposed to be sarcastic? You're bringing it up like it's a new
idea .. did you notice that was a suggestion in the original post?

Thanks,
Donnie



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[gentoo-dev] 2.6.17 kernel stabilisation plan

2006-06-20 Thread Daniel Drake

Hi,

I'm hoping to be able to mark 2.6.17 stable on or around July 11th. I'll 
give around a weeks notice here when that is to happen. Hopefully we'll 
use this for the 2006.1 release too.


If you find packages (e.g. out-of-tree drivers) in the stable tree which 
do not compile against 2.6.17 (but do compile against 2.6.16) then 
please file bugs making them block bug #137175.


Packages in the stable tree which do not compile against 2.6.16 or older 
are also important but priority is given to not creating any regressions 
at this point...


Testing of 2.6.17 is very much appreciated, please also file bugs 
against problems you have with the kernel itself :)


Daniel
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Josh Saddler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
 Josh Saddler wrote:
 With all the talk about forums and comments, that got me thinking: Heck, why 
 not
 just have it posted to the forums? That way it and the comments can be 
 viewed by
 the general public, but if you want to comment, you can just use your 
 existing
 forum account. No additional account creation needed.
 
 Is this supposed to be sarcastic? You're bringing it up like it's a new
 idea .. did you notice that was a suggestion in the original post?
 
 Thanks,
 Donnie
 
Er, no, I didn't actually. Must need coffee. I didn't read it closely enough.
And here I wondered why it seemed like a glaring omission . . .
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEmB1yrsJQqN81j74RAhyxAJ9+yBps7k30QCZv1YDgwqDrE2OJowCdF6Ve
zqAbi35OTMgPp7bUhcSdQ68=
=LbZW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Stefan Schweizer
Hi,

with kde4 approaching and the new Qt-4 being in the tree we suddenly see the
same problems that gtk had with the gtk2 flag again.

I am currently using the flags that way:
[ebuild   R   ] app-text/poppler-bindings-0.5.3  USE=cairo gtk qt qt4 0 kB

so qt = qt3. Now that scheme will sure break when people start using the qt
useflag for applications that only use qt4. Now cardoe thinks a qt3 useflag
would make sense to disable qt3 support easily:

sys-apps/dbus-0.62  USE=X gtk mono python -qt3 qt4 -debug -doc 0 kB

I do not think it there should be different useages of the qt, qt3 and qt4
useflag all over the tree, so there are a few options:

1) enable qt4 and qt3 by default when both are possible, and merge the qt4
and qt3 useflags currently in the tree into one qt useflag. What we lose
here is use.masking qt4, I think this will only be an option when qt4 is
marked for all architectures that qt3 is marked for.

2) use qt for qt3 only and a special qt4 for qt4. This is what I did
originally and it makes sense if done right. However when paackages with
qt4 start using the qt4 useflag you can no longer do USE=-qt to disable
qt3 and the concept breaks.

3) split the qt flag into a qt3 and a qt4 flag. This allows users to
specifically pick qt3 or qt4 and the flag meanings are obvious - downsides
are it is a lot of work.

4) do nothing and happyly use the qt useflag for qt3 or qt4 as well as
sometimes a qt3 useflag or a qt4 useflag, just how the maintainer likes
it :) This is also not that bad since we do not need to set any rules here.
But it might be confusing and makes it impossible to disable all qt3 uses
or all qt4 uses

Currently we are at 4), should we change anything?

Regards,
Stefan

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 18:40, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
 3) split the qt flag into a qt3 and a qt4 flag. This allows users to
 specifically pick qt3 or qt4 and the flag meanings are obvious - downsides
 are it is a lot of work.
I would like migration to this idea, that would have been what I've liked to 
see for gtk too.

-- 
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE


pgpr9mpgtI9J6.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Harald van Dijk
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 06:56:58PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
 On Tuesday 20 June 2006 18:40, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
  3) split the qt flag into a qt3 and a qt4 flag. This allows users to
  specifically pick qt3 or qt4 and the flag meanings are obvious - downsides
  are it is a lot of work.
 I would like migration to this idea, that would have been what I've liked to 
 see for gtk too.

Same here, both for gtk and for qt. Also, with qt it's slightly worse
than with gtk: qt3 and qt4 are both huge, so if at all possible, I'd 
like to not see a requirement to install both qt3 and qt4 just to get
poppler-bindings support for one (which would be required with a single
flag).
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 19:10, Joshua Jackson wrote:
 I don't want to go down the path again of having two nearly identical
 flags for a different slotted version of a framework. I'd like to see
 just qt with a maintainer deciding if its going to be qt3 or qt4.
Unfeasible. GTK 1.2 was deprecated when the two flags were merged, Qt3 is all 
but deprecated right now. If you decide to use just one version of qt, it 
would be qt3 for all, and a mess when KDE 4 will come out, we can't think of 
NOT having time for the change from 3.x to 4.

Also, gtk and gtk2 flags did NOT work as I asked, gtk2 was to enable gtk2 
version when both a 1.2 and 2 version was available, so for instance ethereal 
+gtk -gtk2 built gtk 1.2, and -gtk +gtk2 built NOTHING. What I'm asking is 
for qt3 enable the qt3 version, qt4 the qt4 version, qt3 and qt4 both if 
possible (that is usually the case for stuff that has both version available, 
as one does not obsolete the other right now).

-- 
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE


pgpkdzlOIoCBy.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Simon Stelling
I don't know all the details, but assuming no app supports qt3 and qt4 at the
same time (i.e. you have two interfaces, one against each, which is pretty
senseless), wouldn't something like

qt? ( || (=x11-libs/qt-3* =x11-libs/qt-4*))

be the best solution? It would allow the maintainer to set a reasonable default,
but in case the user only has the other version, it would take that one. If both
are installed, the one that the maintainer deemed the best is chosen.

-- 
Kind Regards,

Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 19:41, Simon Stelling wrote:
 I don't know all the details, but assuming no app supports qt3 and qt4 at
 the same time (i.e. you have two interfaces, one against each, which is
 pretty senseless), wouldn't something like
We're not talking about interfaces, but more likely bindings right now.
Would you accept being able to build only either python or perl bindings for a 
package, depending on what the maintainer thought it was the best for you?

-- 
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE


pgpEmjST7FmsQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
 On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:11:38PM -0400, Caleb Tennis wrote:
 I would personally like to stay with just the qt use flag.  The use flag
 will be for support of whichever version of Qt is supported (v3 or v4) for
 the particular emerge.
 
 I would like a single 'qt' USE flag as well. If a package supports
 multiple versions of Qt, it can easily be tested which one is
 available at build time, see for instance
 net-wireless/wpa_supplicant-0.5.3.
 
 In the cases where more than one version is supported, it should be for
 Qt4 only.  The Qt3 version should be a separate emerge.  For example, in
 the case of the poppler bindings, there should be a poppler-bindings-qt3
 package.
 
 How about using my idea from above (if USE=qt, then check which
 version(s) of Qt is available and compile in support for those)?

That makes for highly irreproduceable builds and particularly screws
with building packages on one machine and expecting them to work on
another. Same as autodetecting in configure scripts, except worse
because now we're doing it too.

Thanks,
Donnie



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Kevin F. Quinn
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:22:21 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
  On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:11:38PM -0400, Caleb Tennis wrote:
  I would personally like to stay with just the qt use flag.  The
  use flag will be for support of whichever version of Qt is
  supported (v3 or v4) for the particular emerge.
  
  I would like a single 'qt' USE flag as well. If a package supports
  multiple versions of Qt, it can easily be tested which one is
  available at build time, see for instance
  net-wireless/wpa_supplicant-0.5.3.
  
  In the cases where more than one version is supported, it should
  be for Qt4 only.  The Qt3 version should be a separate emerge.
  For example, in the case of the poppler bindings, there should be
  a poppler-bindings-qt3 package.
  
  How about using my idea from above (if USE=qt, then check which
  version(s) of Qt is available and compile in support for those)?
 
 That makes for highly irreproduceable builds and particularly screws
 with building packages on one machine and expecting them to work on
 another. Same as autodetecting in configure scripts, except worse
 because now we're doing it too.

+lots

Ebuilds should not use the build system to make choices about the
target, such choices should be USE based as far as possible.  The build
system should only be considered when ensuring sufficient support is
available to perform the build.

Always consider what happens if you build a binpkg (emerge -B) then try
to install that binpkg on another machine (emerge -K).


In this particular case, I think separate qt3 and qt4 use flags are
sensible and clear.  If both are specified, the package should build
both UIs; if only one can be built the ebuild should reject the USE flag
combinations it can't support.

Problems with having 'qt' to mean latest and 'qt3' as specifically
version 3 include:

1) Target package depends on build system (assuming 'qt' is interpreted
as 'qt3' if only that is installed, rather than pulling in qt4 if not
already present).

2) What 'qt' means changes as new releases are made - if/when qt5
becomes available, it means introducing a qt4 use flag and back-fitting
to existing ebuilds that used 'qt' but don't build against qt5.

-- 
Kevin F. Quinn


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
 Problems with having 'qt' to mean latest and 'qt3' as specifically
 version 3 include:
 
 1) Target package depends on build system (assuming 'qt' is interpreted
 as 'qt3' if only that is installed, rather than pulling in qt4 if not
 already present).

What? There will still be versioned dependencies in the ebuilds.

 2) What 'qt' means changes as new releases are made - if/when qt5
 becomes available, it means introducing a qt4 use flag and back-fitting
 to existing ebuilds that used 'qt' but don't build against qt5.

This is mostly untrue. The 'qt' flag means build against the latest
available qt that _this package supports_, not an absolute build
against qt5. Yes, you will need to introduce a qt4 flag as upstreams
port packages to qt5, if they choose to also retain a qt4 frontend.

Thanks,
Donnie



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Mike Owen

On 6/20/06, Stefan Schweizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hi,

with kde4 approaching and the new Qt-4 being in the tree we suddenly see the
same problems that gtk had with the gtk2 flag again.


snip


From this user's perspective, simple is better. qt3 and qt4 as use

flags are completely and utterly obvious as to what they mean, and
there is no confusion about them. Adding a plain qt flag in there
brings back the gtk/gtk2 mess that we've presumably been trying to
avoid in the future.

Mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Mike Owen wrote:
 From this user's perspective, simple is better. qt3 and qt4 as use
 flags are completely and utterly obvious as to what they mean, and
 there is no confusion about them. Adding a plain qt flag in there
 brings back the gtk/gtk2 mess that we've presumably been trying to
 avoid in the future.

That depends on how it's done. If it's done in a simple and obvious way
(USE=qt means use the best available qt, USE=qt# for other weird stuff
that most people don't care about and so can ignore), it shouldn't be
that bad.

Thanks,
Donnie



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 00:52, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
 Yes, you will need to introduce a qt4 flag as upstreams
 port packages to qt5, if they choose to also retain a qt4 frontend.
You're trying to compare gtk to qt directly. They are not the same.
gtk regards only the graphic library, qt is a library of utility functions 
too. Qt can be considered like gtk+glib, and that make things more complex.

As I said, I'd rather see two flags, qt3 and qt4, to identify the two 
versions. A simpler alternative would be qt (defaults to 3) and qt4, but 
that's going to be confused on the long run to something similar to gtk.

-- 
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE


pgphRiuuiKxow.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
 On Wednesday 21 June 2006 00:52, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
 Yes, you will need to introduce a qt4 flag as upstreams
 port packages to qt5, if they choose to also retain a qt4 frontend.
 You're trying to compare gtk to qt directly. They are not the same.
 gtk regards only the graphic library, qt is a library of utility functions 
 too. Qt can be considered like gtk+glib, and that make things more complex.

How does that matter in this context?

 As I said, I'd rather see two flags, qt3 and qt4, to identify the two 
 versions. A simpler alternative would be qt (defaults to 3) and qt4, but 
 that's going to be confused on the long run to something similar to gtk.

I disagree with this and agree with Caleb's earlier suggestion.
Presumably he has some clue what he's talking about when it comes to qt.

Thanks,
Donnie



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Pending Removal of $KV

2006-06-20 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 08:49:41PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
  Could upstream have handled it better? Yes, most definitely. Did they?
  No, not yet. We're stuck picking up the pieces.
 What does upstream have to do with the decision to chmod u+s,go-r
 /usr/bin/gpg or not?
If using a kernel older than 2.6.9, and capabilities support is in the
kernel, using capabilities is only way to avoid needing to grant full
setuid to the binary. For kernels newer than 2.6.9, there is another
API as well.

By handling it better, I mean that the code should at runtime try both
interfaces, rather than pick one to compile into the binary.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85


pgpjNJVZuaUar.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 02:12, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
 I disagree with this and agree with Caleb's earlier suggestion.
 Presumably he has some clue what he's talking about when it comes to qt.
I suppose he has, that does not mean that I don't have any at all. Probably, 
if you want to put it this way, I have more clues than you when it comes to 
interfacing with users.

But _that_ is what you asked me to say.

-- 
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE


pgp0zdq01LWDL.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
 On Wednesday 21 June 2006 02:12, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
 I disagree with this and agree with Caleb's earlier suggestion.
 Presumably he has some clue what he's talking about when it comes to qt.
 I suppose he has, that does not mean that I don't have any at all. Probably, 
 if you want to put it this way, I have more clues than you when it comes to 
 interfacing with users.

I never said you didn't. And there's no need to bring in completely
offtopic points here, we're trying to have a discussion about qt.

 But _that_ is what you asked me to say.

Not really, I want you to say something about qt.

Thanks,
Donnie



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 03:06, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
 I never said you didn't. And there's no need to bring in completely
 offtopic points here, we're trying to have a discussion about qt.
I am talking about qt. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I was thinking of KDE 
users, that are, casually, the main users of Qt-related stuff.

In this particular issue, KDE (3) users are the main part, they need poppler 
and other stuff built for Qt 3. There are still just a few packages that 
relies on Qt 4 right now.

Still, I'm not for the idea of just putting qt to mean Qt 3 and discard Qt 4 
until it's the chosen one, not only for a compatibility reason with 
migration from older version, but also because we do have people using gentoo 
for KDE 4 development (I happen to know a few of them), and they need Qt 4 
support.

I want to save both of them, asking a little bit more work for the developers, 
as they usually know what to do, rather than for users, which might as well 
be half clueless.

Did I explain this long enough, or should I demonstrate again that I don't say 
stuff just because I have a mail client and a GPG signature?

-- 
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE


pgpLqTDHv9L1n.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
 I am talking about qt. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I was thinking of KDE 
 users, that are, casually, the main users of Qt-related stuff.
 
 In this particular issue, KDE (3) users are the main part, they need poppler 
 and other stuff built for Qt 3. There are still just a few packages that 
 relies on Qt 4 right now.

OK, so we can add qt3 to make.defaults.

 Still, I'm not for the idea of just putting qt to mean Qt 3 and discard Qt 4 
 until it's the chosen one, not only for a compatibility reason with 
 migration from older version, but also because we do have people using gentoo 
 for KDE 4 development (I happen to know a few of them), and they need Qt 4 
 support.
 
 I want to save both of them, asking a little bit more work for the 
 developers, 
 as they usually know what to do, rather than for users, which might as well 
 be half clueless.

I don't see how any other suggestion is simpler than mine for developers
or users. Maybe I missed something in skimming the discussion.

To summarize:

- USE=qt enables support for the most current qt.

- USE=qt3 enables qt3 if there is also qt4 interface. This will be an
easy switch now, because very few packages have a qt4 flag, and it will
get progressively harder.

- Add qt3 to make.defaults to avoid breaking things like KDE.

I suppose it will also need some clause for the mutually exclusive cases:
USE=qt -qt3 enables most recent
any USE combination containing qt3 forces back to qt3

Thanks,
Donnie



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Dan Meltzer

On 6/20/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:

[snip]

I don't see how any other suggestion is simpler than mine for developers
or users. Maybe I missed something in skimming the discussion.

To summarize:

- USE=qt enables support for the most current qt.

- USE=qt3 enables qt3 if there is also qt4 interface. This will be an
easy switch now, because very few packages have a qt4 flag, and it will
get progressively harder.

- Add qt3 to make.defaults to avoid breaking things like KDE.

I suppose it will also need some clause for the mutually exclusive cases:
USE=qt -qt3 enables most recent
any USE combination containing qt3 forces back to qt3



One problem I see with this is users that currently have -qt are going
to be confused when it no longer does what they expect


Thanks,
Donnie






--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 03:34, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
 OK, so we can add qt3 to make.defaults.
Firulì Firulà (sounds of whistling in Italy at least)

-* says nothing to you? :)

I was looking at the less work possible for both users and bug wranglers.
Still, I think you took too personally the fact that I cleared up the gtk+glib 
vs qt stuff; maybe that's my fault, I want to clear that up so that people 
not used to know how qt works can know the situation, as the idea of dropping 
one of the two support stated in other mails of this thread and on IRC is 
something really unfeasible.

-- 
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE


pgp1yqK7Ozpud.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
 On Wednesday 21 June 2006 03:34, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
 OK, so we can add qt3 to make.defaults.
 Firulì Firulà (sounds of whistling in Italy at least)
 
 -* says nothing to you? :)

Sure it does, but -* has always been unsupported and users are on their
own to watch USE flag changes when using it.

 I was looking at the less work possible for both users and bug wranglers.
 Still, I think you took too personally the fact that I cleared up the 
 gtk+glib 
 vs qt stuff; maybe that's my fault, I want to clear that up so that people 
 not used to know how qt works can know the situation, as the idea of dropping 
 one of the two support stated in other mails of this thread and on IRC is 
 something really unfeasible.

I'm trying to find the easiest answer too, we're on the same side here. =)

Thanks,
Donnie



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Pending Removal of $KV

2006-06-20 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 20:18, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
 By handling it better, I mean that the code should at runtime try both
 interfaces, rather than pick one to compile into the binary.

yeah, this differentiates good packages and mediocre packages ;)
-mike


pgpp6T4cBLu01.pgp
Description: PGP signature