Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Jason Wever]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 19:56:01 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> huh ?  i think you're thinking of per-package use.mask, not
> per-package use defaults

Oh yeah good call.

-- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

[Peter Gordon]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:39:46 -0700 Peter Gordon
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | If they were so "extremely important" then they would not be optional,
> | and hence not even be USE flags at all, no? Or am I missing something?
> 
> You're missing something. Vim used to have an ncurses USE flag, that
> would switch it between using ncurses and termcap-compat. On some
> archs, only ncurses was available, so some way was needed to force
> the use flag.
> 
That's a nice counterexample. Thanks for the explanation. :)

-- 
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
Gentoo Forums Global Moderator
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
  DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479
My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Update notes on -p ?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 22:55:39 +0200 Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| some packages print out important notices on install/update. 
| I'd like to see those notes before actually updating, so when
| using --pretend. 

I think you should spend some time learning what Gentoo is, how to use
it and how development works before you carry posting. Maybe you could
start by reading GLEP 42.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: app-doc/chmlib - call for maintainer

[Joshua Jackson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Ryan Hill wrote:
> Raphael Marichez wrote:
>
>> app-doc/chmlib is without an active ebuild maintainer and has an open
security
>> bug [1]
>>
>> Anyone willing to take care of this package in the future, please update
>> metadata.xml and CC yourself on the bug.
>>
>> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143181
>
> if no one else takes it (and i sneak by the recruiters ;)) i can.  i use it
> daily and follow the ml.
>
> --de.
>
Gasp! my mentee isn't in the sea like a good mentee should be *gets
out the cow tazer* Back you go back to the sea and holding your pole
for the oil companies. Glad you want to take things on though :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFE2SvDSENan+PfizARAu8+AKCTeY3LaZnLkmIvKppAW6eIdNKD4ACdHuA/
x+US03hZSmnDyLTvDIQPW4g=
=1ISG
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: app-doc/chmlib - call for maintainer

[Ryan Hill]

Raphael Marichez wrote:

> app-doc/chmlib is without an active ebuild maintainer and has an open 
> security 
> bug [1]
> 
> Anyone willing to take care of this package in the future, please update 
> metadata.xml and CC yourself on the bug.
> 
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143181

if no one else takes it (and i sneak by the recruiters ;)) i can.  i use it
daily and follow the ml.

--de.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Brian Harring]

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 05:49:40PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 August 2006 15:18, Zac Medico wrote:
> > Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > > Any chance of per-package USE defaults support?  That's much more useful
> > > to me.
> >
> > Attached to bug 61732 there's a patch that implements this via a new
> > IUSE_DEFAULTS ebuild variable.  If people like that particular
> > implementation, then I'll update the patch so that it applies to
> > portage-2.1.1_pre.  Some might suggest that an EAPI bump is proper for the
> > addition of this type of functionality, but perhaps we can slide it in
> > without that extra annoyance.
> 
> i'm really really partial to overloading IUSE here rather than introducing a 
> new variable ...

Same here.

Upshot of reuse, it's cheaper from a char standpoint for the cache.

Plus, it saves us having to write an extra check to repoman to verify 
that IUSE_DEFAULTS stated flags are all in IUSE ;)

Does require an EAPI bump for it, but there is enough stuff sitting 
around that requires an EAPI bump, probably worthwhile to roll a glep 
for it and do it in one shot.
~harring


pgpRnOMKFnFi3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 08 August 2006 19:46, Jason Wever wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 22:57:44 +0100
> "Stuart Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As a package maintainer, I'm happy :)  Is this going to cause problems
> > for arch teams at all?
>
> I hope not.  I've been looking forward to this for arch specific
> reasons (like if package foo fails to build with the perl use flag
> enabled but only on arch bar, arch bar can mask it but no other arches
> are affected).

huh ?  i think you're thinking of per-package use.mask, not per-package use 
defaults
-mike


pgpOueNnKxibQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Jason Wever]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 22:57:44 +0100
"Stuart Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> As a package maintainer, I'm happy :)  Is this going to cause problems
> for arch teams at all?

I hope not.  I've been looking forward to this for arch specific
reasons (like if package foo fails to build with the perl use flag
enabled but only on arch bar, arch bar can mask it but no other arches
are affected).

Cheers,
-- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 16:22:42 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| So the best fix for this is not just retaining two ways to say the
| same thing but actually expanding it? (!foo vs nofoo). That feels
| really wrong.

The Vim / ncurses example I posted earlier is perhaps a more practical
illustration of the same point. The problem is, any system that doesn't
allow forcing as well as masking use flags leads to ugly cases needing
either !arch? or weirdly named (e.g. noncurses) USE flags. Without use
forcing, we have to have a mixture of foo and nofoo flags including
cases where there are both foo and nofoo for the same value of foo.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

[Donnie Berkholz]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Uh, no it wouldn't. Part of the reason we have no* flags is to avoid
> dep problems. Consider:
> 
> USE="!foo? ( some_unavailable_on_x86_package )"
> 
> versus:
> 
> USE="nofoo? ( some_unavailable_on_x86_package )"
> 
> The nofoo flag can be use masked. The foo flag can't. This patch solves
> that problem.

So the best fix for this is not just retaining two ways to say the same
thing but actually expanding it? (!foo vs nofoo). That feels really wrong.

Maybe it needs to get fixed, but is this the right way?

Thanks,
Donnie



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 15:56:24 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Jason Wever wrote:
| > This could allow for us to get rid of the nofoo use flag
| > nomenclature that folks have been doing for functionality that is
| > highly suggested to be on by default.
| 
| So would just adding it to make.defaults ... people using -* deserve
| what they get, if they don't pay attention.

Uh, no it wouldn't. Part of the reason we have no* flags is to avoid
dep problems. Consider:

USE="!foo? ( some_unavailable_on_x86_package )"

versus:

USE="nofoo? ( some_unavailable_on_x86_package )"

The nofoo flag can be use masked. The foo flag can't. This patch solves
that problem.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

[Donnie Berkholz]

Jason Wever wrote:
> This could allow for us to get rid of the nofoo use flag nomenclature
> that folks have been doing for functionality that is highly suggested to
> be on by default.

So would just adding it to make.defaults ... people using -* deserve
what they get, if they don't pay attention.

Thanks,
Donnie



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Alec Warner]

Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Hi Zac,
> 
> On 8/8/06, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Stuart Herbert wrote:
>> > Any chance of per-package USE defaults support?  That's much more
>> useful
>> > to me.
>>
>> Attached to bug 61732 there's a patch that implements this via a new
>> IUSE_DEFAULTS ebuild variable.  If people like that particular
>> implementation, then I'll update the patch so that it applies to
>> portage-2.1.1_pre.  Some might suggest that an EAPI bump is proper for
>> the addition of this type of functionality, but perhaps we can slide
>> it in without that extra annoyance.
>>
>> Zac
> 
> As a package maintainer, I'm happy :)  Is this going to cause problems
> for arch teams at all?
> 
> Best regards,
> Stu

I think we are doing both profile and ebuild default USE, so arches can
still turn stuff on and off and (probably) over-ride your ebuild defaults.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Stuart Herbert]

Hi Zac,

On 8/8/06, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Any chance of per-package USE defaults support?  That's much more useful
> to me.

Attached to bug 61732 there's a patch that implements this via a new 
IUSE_DEFAULTS ebuild variable.  If people like that particular implementation, 
then I'll update the patch so that it applies to portage-2.1.1_pre.  Some might 
suggest that an EAPI bump is proper for the addition of this type of 
functionality, but perhaps we can slide it in without that extra annoyance.

Zac


As a package maintainer, I'm happy :)  Is this going to cause problems
for arch teams at all?

Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Update notes on -p ?

[Jakub Moc]

Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> 
> some packages print out important notices on install/update. 
> I'd like to see those notes before actually updating, so when
> using --pretend. 

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0042.html

> cu

better not.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 08 August 2006 15:18, Zac Medico wrote:
> Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > Any chance of per-package USE defaults support?  That's much more useful
> > to me.
>
> Attached to bug 61732 there's a patch that implements this via a new
> IUSE_DEFAULTS ebuild variable.  If people like that particular
> implementation, then I'll update the patch so that it applies to
> portage-2.1.1_pre.  Some might suggest that an EAPI bump is proper for the
> addition of this type of functionality, but perhaps we can slide it in
> without that extra annoyance.

i'm really really partial to overloading IUSE here rather than introducing a 
new variable ...
-mike


pgpeByW0KQ7YM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 08 August 2006 16:28, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> hmm, what do you do if there's a need for arch specific defaults ?

not accounted for as we really havent found this to be a big deal

> IMHO its better to have these defaults somewhere within the profile.
> Maybe another package.use alike file, which is read first ?

not a chance ... the entire point is to have this in the ebuild itself
-mike


pgpSbnwH3MotP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Lance Albertson]

Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> 
> 
> 
>>> And what does this flag exactly say at this point ?
>>>
>>> Install only xlib ? 
>>> Install xlib and some further ones ? Which ones ?
>>> Install all libs ?
>> Opening an ebuild and reading it must be hard.
> 
> Not what I asked. I'm talking about what an user can expect to get.
> You don't expect every user to look trough each ebuilt, seriously ?

If you really want to find out what it does? Yes. You can't expect us to
hand hold every user out there. Gentoo isn't meant to be that way. Its a
meta distribution, so you get to choose what you want to do. Just please
don't force the developer community to bend to your needs. If you don't
like that? Then fine, just accept that and please move on.

-- 
Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should patches sit withing the portage tree ?

[Steev Klimaszewski]

Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> 
> I'm interested in arguments whether patches should sit directly 
> within the portage tree or downloaded when needed.
> 
> My feeling: downloading on demand is better.
> 
> + makes the tree smaller, saves space, saves network traffic
> - downloading lots of patches may take a little bit
> 
> What do you think ?
> 
> 
> cu

I think you need to do more reading and stop posting random (obvious)
trolls.  You have stated many times in your other threads that you
haven't read $threadabout documentation.  Please do so, and then come
back and ask, or, even better, use the proper mailing list, or even the
forums.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Developer: Mart Raudsepp (leio)

[Bryan Ãstergaard]

On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:19:31AM +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> I'm a coward... or just find estonian language in computer terminology a
> bit weird to read.
I'd find it weird too :)
> 
> And my family name is Raudsepp, not Raudseep, where "seep" in the typo
> means soap in estonian. Bad bad Bryan. At least I'm clean now :)
Heh, sorry about the typo.

Regards,
Bryan Østergaard
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Curtis Napier]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: MD5

Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> 
> 
> 
>>> And what does this flag exactly say at this point ?
>>>
>>> Install only xlib ? 
>>> Install xlib and some further ones ? Which ones ?
>>> Install all libs ?
>> Opening an ebuild and reading it must be hard.
> 
> Not what I asked. I'm talking about what an user can expect to get.
> You don't expect every user to look trough each ebuilt, seriously ?
> 

Yes, he is completely serious. If you are unwilling to read the
documentation (which includes the actual ebuilds themselves) then you
are going to have a broken system. Nothing any of us can do for you but
keep repeating the same mantra "RTFM".

By the way, Gentoo has a reputation for providing the *BEST*
documentation of any other distro. Many distros actually point their
users to Gentoo docs/forums for answers. Why aren't you utilizing this
awesome resource? Do you know how many man hours we put into those docs?
Every question you have asked so far is already answered in one of our
documentation resources.. Please stop wasting everyones time and do
as we ask - RTFM.

- --Curtis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBRNkAlUb8Q0uRCeTQAQFLqwf/b4Y1zam3UD5X7OUg5qg6/CCyjFAQIDp6
ArqzZt+UL2ZnsTi4hw904lLF6ao0EAFL1z4HQbtK9KtovR6JdgHxAb2cE4dMnZ8z
0Hkc0snISmlha7f/h06+fLjRBUT5KNPJkPzDLToQSL7hLwYVqd31pjCykyC8QcBA
4n1VqaUzz03it3yDCI1LyXPTBb9BQ9J972xWPxmjWyiU4BMSE3HF/EWaTEm1svN6
+D5PzrpUnll7iD4s4DtTongQolBaWiUUGnxdkAbxPE1PD0oQ6g1R/RlW8LvoRuXR
XCB5jN05WWcWUnxYomZGD7JBk+ymPlhREAMg1O/iiNFL//chAgsI4Q==
=I+T+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Should patches sit withing the portage tree ?

[Enrico Weigelt]

Hi folks,


I'm interested in arguments whether patches should sit directly 
within the portage tree or downloaded when needed.

My feeling: downloading on demand is better.

+ makes the tree smaller, saves space, saves network traffic
- downloading lots of patches may take a little bit

What do you think ?


cu
-- 
-
 Enrico Weigelt==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
-
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
http://patches.metux.de/
-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Update notes on -p ?

[Martin Rud Ehmsen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> some packages print out important notices on install/update. 
> I'd like to see those notes before actually updating, so when
> using --pretend. 
> 
> I'd like to see this as an feature. We could put those texts into
> some ebuild variable or an separate file, so emerge can show it
> on emerge. 

It is impossible to predict which messages are going to get displayed,
if your were to upgrade/install a given package (reduces to the
halting-problem, you know the drill) :-)
Hence, what you want implemented is impossible to do (so that it works
in all cases).

If you want to know what the important notices you might get, then read
the ebuild and figure out which ones applies to your system (or actually
do the upgrade/install).

Martin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFE2P4NoCiIG96jYfYRAnFoAJ9ol7XVmaLsl6XFmgh3T4Ywxkk8bACfZ7Ou
uumpGQoII/bkMQyjiy4bvbw=
=rNqs
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Richard Fish]

On 8/8/06, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I think, modularized Xorg, as we have today, is far much better
than the old monolithic thing.


I think you are failing to realize that this isn't something that
Gentoo did on it's own.  Upstream went to separate packages, and
Gentoo followed.  Again, this is perfectly in line with "build what
$upstream expects" philosophy.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:



> Attached to bug 61732 there's a patch that implements this via 
> a new IUSE_DEFAULTS ebuild variable.

hmm, what do you do if there's a need for arch specific defaults ?

IMHO its better to have these defaults somewhere within the profile.
Maybe another package.use alike file, which is read first ? 

I did not yet had a deeper look the portage code, but maybe it's
enough to pull another file (coming somehow with the profile) 
through the same code which loads package.use.


cu
-- 
-
 Enrico Weigelt==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
-
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
http://patches.metux.de/
-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Update notes on -p ?

[Joshua Jackson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
>
> some packages print out important notices on install/update.
> I'd like to see those notes before actually updating, so when
> using --pretend.
>
> I'd like to see this as an feature. We could put those texts into
> some ebuild variable or an separate file, so emerge can show it
> on emerge.
>
> Yes, I tried --changelog with several packages, but it actually
> didn't show up anything. And I'm not sure if the changelog isn't
> too much text for the user - I only want those things, which
> today get printed out as important notices while/after emerging.
>
>
> cu
Another option is to use the new elog feature in the 2.1 portage, if
you look at the make.conf.example, it'll explain how to use it. Its
quite useful even if its after the fact, but you won't miss them at least.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFE2PtpSENan+PfizARAtFRAJ0ZHuNzjvfn6elk5wWUDv/CqANWKACcDZ1V
MKzvxhW+DMqL6qEgPgPEz5Q=
=YZvV
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Update notes on -p ?

[Enrico Weigelt]

Hi folks,


some packages print out important notices on install/update. 
I'd like to see those notes before actually updating, so when
using --pretend. 

I'd like to see this as an feature. We could put those texts into
some ebuild variable or an separate file, so emerge can show it
on emerge. 

Yes, I tried --changelog with several packages, but it actually
didn't show up anything. And I'm not sure if the changelog isn't
too much text for the user - I only want those things, which
today get printed out as important notices while/after emerging.


cu
-- 
-
 Enrico Weigelt==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
-
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
http://patches.metux.de/
-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Developer: Mart Raudseep (leio)

[Mart Raudsepp]

On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 21:22 +0100, Luis Medinas wrote:
> Wow nice addiction to our team.

I am pondering which addiction do you mean here :/

> Congrats Mart and keep up with good work.

Thanks!

-- 
Mart Raudsepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Jan Kundrát]

Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>> Opening an ebuild and reading it must be hard.
> 
> Not what I asked. I'm talking about what an user can expect to get.
> You don't expect every user to look trough each ebuilt, seriously ?
> 
> And, in case of Xorg, the individual needs may very deeply.
> Some applications need just Xlib, some Xaw, others maybe some
> extensions, etc.
> 
> If you would put evrything in one monolithic package you would,
> in the end, need one useflag per library. Or you loose the ability
> to build the system for your special needs. Most times you'll get
> much, much stuff you won't ever need. Is this compatible with
> the gentoo philosphy ?

Please wake up. We have modular X.org now so just move along and b*tch
about anything else. If you really feel like this is the best thing you
can do for Gentoo development, please provide a procmail rule that kills
all your -dev mails along with relevant replies.

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Developer: Mart Raudseep (leio)

[Wolf Giesen]

> Please welcome Mart to the team.

Very much so - welcome Mart, enjoy the show!

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:



> $ grep minimal /usr/portage/profiles/use.desc
> minimal - Install a very minimal build (disables, for example, plugins,
> fonts, most drivers, non-critical features)

Very vague. 
The user has to take a deep look into the ebuilt and the binary
package to see what's actually inside.

And if you just use this one flag for the whole monolithic 
Xorg tree, you'll loose the ability to install just what's needed.
There has to be an frontline somewhere, and its only *one* line.
So you have to make a decision, where it actually is. 
No matter where you define it, in most situations you will have
to install much much more than really necessary. Either the minimal
variant is too big that it doesn't save much, or it is too small
that you'll need the whole thing.

I think, modularized Xorg, as we have today, is far much better
than the old monolithic thing.


cu
-- 
-
 Enrico Weigelt==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
-
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
http://patches.metux.de/
-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:



> > And what does this flag exactly say at this point ?
> > 
> > Install only xlib ? 
> > Install xlib and some further ones ? Which ones ?
> > Install all libs ?
> 
> Opening an ebuild and reading it must be hard.

Not what I asked. I'm talking about what an user can expect to get.
You don't expect every user to look trough each ebuilt, seriously ?

And, in case of Xorg, the individual needs may very deeply.
Some applications need just Xlib, some Xaw, others maybe some
extensions, etc.

If you would put evrything in one monolithic package you would,
in the end, need one useflag per library. Or you loose the ability
to build the system for your special needs. Most times you'll get
much, much stuff you won't ever need. Is this compatible with
the gentoo philosphy ?


cu
-- 
-
 Enrico Weigelt==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
-
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
http://patches.metux.de/
-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] New Developer: Mart Raudseep (leio)

[Bryan Ãstergaard]

Hi all.

Mart hails from Estonia and recently joined the Gentoo team to take care
of all the wx* stuff. Mart is also working on wx* stuff upstream so all
this stuff should be in very good hands now :)

Besides traditional "Estonian stuff" (wikipedia talks about Polka,
movies like "All my Lenins" and "Revolutions of Pigs" - I gave up
researching before it got even weirder :), Mart enjoys playing bridge
and optimizing applications.

Please welcome Mart to the team.

Regards,
Bryan Østergaard
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Masking practics

[Simon Stelling]

Joshua Nichols wrote:

While it is columnar, the D is in a dark blue font. If you happen to be
using a dark background, there is extremely little contrast. Perhaps it
could be a different color that would stick out in both light and dark
backgrounds?


There is color-mapping support in portage 2.1, i guess it could be done with 
that.


Also something that has always bugged me... isn't the U supposed to be
for upgrade and the D for downgrade? In this case, it would make sense
to only show the D when downgrades will occur, and not both, wouldn't it?


I always interpreted it as 'update' instead of 'upgrade'.

--
Kind Regards,

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Masking practics

[Joshua Nichols]

Patrick McLean wrote:
> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> [ebuild   R   ] sys-fs/cryptsetup-luks-1.0.3-r2
> [ebuild U ] x11-terms/rxvt-unicode-7.9 [7.8-r1]
> [ebuild U ] sci-chemistry/gromacs-3.3.1 [3.3]
> [ebuild UD] app-foo/bar-1.0.2 [1.1.0]
> [ebuild U ] app-text/evince-0.5.5 [0.5.4]
>
> Why do you think emerge has columnar output like this, notice how the D
> is in a different column than anything else, it makes it pretty easy to
> spot, if you are too lazy to at least scan the output of emerge -p
> before actually running the emerge, don't complain when you break your
> system.
>   
While it is columnar, the D is in a dark blue font. If you happen to be
using a dark background, there is extremely little contrast. Perhaps it
could be a different color that would stick out in both light and dark
backgrounds?

Also something that has always bugged me... isn't the U supposed to be
for upgrade and the D for downgrade? In this case, it would make sense
to only show the D when downgrades will occur, and not both, wouldn't it?

Not that I have ever had a problem with downgrades (that I remember),
but I think these two tidbits would probably be an overall improvement.

-- 
Joshua Nichols
Gentoo/Java - Project Lead

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

[Thomas de Grenier de Latour]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 00:22:50 -0700,
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> forcing cxx on via package.mask for gcc
> sys-devel/gcc[-cxx]

If i want to build a cxx-free system, am i supposed to add
"sys-devel/gcc[-cxx]" to its package.unmask?  If so, what will prevent
Portage upgrading to some package.masked 4.2_alpha version?  After all,
that's what a depatom interpretation would imply.

Or am i supposed to carefully unmask "=sys-devel/gcc-4.1*[-cxx]" only,
and pray for not overlooking the 4.2 upgrade when it comes (since it
would bring cxx back in), and that there won't ever be a gcc-4.1.99-r42
dev's playground?

Or am i supposed to put "-sys-devel/gcc[-cxx]" in
some profile overriding file? But then, when the tree mask is changed
to "sys-devel/gcc[-cxx,-fortran]", my diff rule will suddenly be lost
(this method of text lines overriding is okay in the context of
official profiles, where coherent changesets can be done at once, but
in user's config files, it's hell to maintain).

In short, i hope that either i have missed something about your
proposal, or that it's not what will be used to drop the "nofoobar"
flags and that this will wait for some more userfriendly system, like
the "set defaults in IUSE" one that has been mentionned in the initial
post.

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

[gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Zac Medico]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Any chance of per-package USE defaults support?  That's much more useful
> to me.

Attached to bug 61732 there's a patch that implements this via a new 
IUSE_DEFAULTS ebuild variable.  If people like that particular implementation, 
then I'll update the patch so that it applies to portage-2.1.1_pre.  Some might 
suggest that an EAPI bump is proper for the addition of this type of 
functionality, but perhaps we can slide it in without that extra annoyance.

Zac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFE2ONx/ejvha5XGaMRAhJPAKCE+xf2kDl/IpD/XDKzwONogUEIXwCg5e+2
PwPsRFyJMPtYvl2iwsrksso=
=mCJL
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gtk1 vs. gtk2

[Richard Fish]

On 8/7/06, Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

What sort of problems? An example backing up your claims would be very nice.


While I don't agree with Enrico that splitting up slotted packages is
the right thing to do, there  are some corner cases involving slots
that portage (more specifically, depclean) doesn't deal with very
well.

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/166809/focus=166809
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67179

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Colin Kingsley]

Enrico Weigelt wrote:



Would everybody please stop responding to this obvious troll? I admit
its very amusing reading about his clear lack of understanding, but
don't we have better things to do?

Colin



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

[Richard Fish]

On 8/8/06, Jason Wever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

This could allow for us to get rid of the nofoo use flag nomenclature that
folks have been doing for functionality that is highly suggested to be on
by default.


Which would be fantastic IMO.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

[Jason Wever]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Peter Gordon wrote:


Zac Medico wrote:

The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed
extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the user.


If they were so "extremely important" then they would not be optional,
and hence not even be USE flags at all, no? Or am I missing something?


This could allow for us to get rid of the nofoo use flag nomenclature that 
folks have been doing for functionality that is highly suggested to be on 
by default.


Cheers,
- -- 
Jason Wever

Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFE2Nc2dKvgdVioq28RAuwsAJ4vK8SgA1ghZmon2zRWIltyA/8OCQCcD6Dn
XYD/+4B+vVEDYpz9ahGpcxM=
=cP0R
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

[Ryan Tandy]

Brian Harring wrote:
Question your method of bootstraping then- note that for gcc it's 
nocxx, not cxx.


Meaning, USE=nocxx _disables_ building cxx; this is why default IUSE 
is requested, to kill off the 'no' (and it's seperate from my point)- 
c++ related failures there would be due to either 


Sorry, lack of thinking on my part.  Was actually USE="-* minimal nocxx 
pam", which is significantly different and therefore not related to the 
use.force discussion.  Sorry for wasting your bandwidth.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:57:55 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| It does seem appealing to unify the package.use.mask and
| package.use.force functionality into a single file that acts like
| package.mask with use-deps support.  If we do it this way, devs won't
| be able to start using package.use.mask until a new implementation is
| ready.  AFAIK Paludis already has support for separate
| package.use.mask and package.use.force, so they'd have to change
| their implementation to be compatible with the new unified format.

No, we already allow [use] deps in package.mask. It's just that using
this in place of {package.,}use.{mask,force} is a really really bad
idea and will massively hurt non-x86 users. Getting "all masked" errors
for this kind of thing instead of having the package manager handle it
is a huge step backwards.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

[Zac Medico]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 08:33:51AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 00:22:50 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> | On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 07:23:31AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> | > On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 21:41:39 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> | > wrote:
>> | > | > The use.force feature is complementary to use.mask.  It's
>> | > | > exactly the same concept, but inverted.
>> | > | 
>> | > | And both files _should_ be implemented via use deps.
>> | > 
>> | > Huh? How?
>> | 
>> | forcing cxx on via package.mask for gcc
>> | sys-devel/gcc[-cxx]
>> | 
>> | forcing it off
>> | sys-devel/gcc[cxx]
>>
>> Mmm. See, that'll lead to error messages if the user sets USE=cxx and
>> then tries to install gcc. With the .mask/.force, it's handled
>> automatically and indicated visibly by use flags being (parened).
> 
> The error msg would be "blah is masked", with an explanation of why.  
> Pretty standard fair, portage already does the same now for non use 
> dep maskings.

It does seem appealing to unify the package.use.mask and package.use.force 
functionality into a single file that acts like package.mask with use-deps 
support.  If we do it this way, devs won't be able to start using 
package.use.mask until a new implementation is ready.  AFAIK Paludis already 
has support for separate package.use.mask and package.use.force, so they'd have 
to change their implementation to be compatible with the new unified format.

> As is, the package.use.mask patch that got shoved in gives _no_ 
> indication that it's forcing a flag off for a pkg- leaves the user 
> wondering wtf occured once they spot the flag is disabled.
> 
> Point there is that arguing against it based on UI code is a 
> non-arguement; either implementation (for portage at least) requires 
> mangling portage's -vp code to indicate the forced disabling/enabling.

Some indication in the UI about flags being masked and/or forced would be nice, 
and prevent user confusion (as long as they understand the UI output).

Zac

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFE2NCi/ejvha5XGaMRAvpaAKDghZnY4yI98yte0X88h6AjpPbsFgCePu6J
x0WSvPuI/FO5Z41bgxdWLAQ=
=NWMt
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Joshua Nichols]

Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> How can I get an patch downloaded from some location and then applied ?
> I've inspecting some ebuilds in the portage tree and learned how to 
> apply patches in the files/ subdir. Now I need to know, how to download
> the patches (simply add them to $SRC_URI ?) and then get them referenced
> for applying ?
>
>   
You should be able to put it in SRC_URI, and it'll get downloaded. It
will then be available in ${DISTDIR} iirc... so you can just go:

epatch ${DISTDIR}/something.patch


-- 
Joshua Nichols
Gentoo/Java - Project Lead

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Masking practics

[FieldySnuts]

On Tuesday 08 August 2006 10:41, Patrick McLean wrote:
> We generally assume that our users have some intelligence, we don't put
> big fat warnings on everything that might break. We give the users all
> the information and let them decide if its going to break. Gentoo never
> was and never will be idiot-proof. We do not, and never will try to
> protect people from their own stupidity.

As an end user and also an administrator, I am very pleased to see this laid 
out so clearly. I mean, I knew it, but it seems like it needs to be yelled 
once in a while...

Thanks Patrick.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Adopt a Developer needs Developer Requests

[Thomas Cort]

Hello,

The Adopt a Developer[1] project hasn't gotten any requests[2] from
developers needing hardware or shell accounts or books or anything
else, so I'm just writing a little note to encourage any developer (who
has been a developer for at least 6 months) who could use extra stuff
to improve Gentoo to please request it.

As mentioned before, to test the waters, we are only dealing with items
worth about $100US or less. Some ideas for things you could request:
used PDAs (the pda herd really could use some help), GPS units to help
with the gps herd, extra RAM to improve compile times, a hard drive,
Logictech mice (sys-apps/locomo), TV tuner card (for PVR packages),
wireless cards to help the wireless herd, etc, etc. Arch team members
could request hardware to test hardware specific packages on their
architecture.

A few community members have offered[3] hosting with shell access if
anyone could use that to improve Gentoo.

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/userrel/adopt-a-dev/index.xml
[2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/userrel/adopt-a-dev/request.txt
[3] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/userrel/adopt-a-dev/index.xml#doc_chap8

-Thomas


pgpkNVc1I6VuJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] mulltiib cruft: /emul

[Mike Frysinger]

looks like your mail server ate this ...

someone remind me why our emul packages install in some obscure directory tree 
rooted in /emul

if we moved these things to the standard lib32 dirs, it would certainly ease 
the pain of people doing multilib building, both in and out of portage

it'd also let us free up env.d crap ... but most importantly, it'll stop 
breaking my friggin tab completion for /etc
-mike


pgpqVz23vGPt2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Thomas Cort]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 16:50:18 +0200
Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> * Jan Kundrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > > For example: I've got several headless server systems where I now
> > > have to run some X applications. I only need xlib (and its deps)
> > > on this system, not the whole X distribution. In a monolithic 
> > > world, I would have to install *everything*, from server to tools, 
> > > just for getting some libs.
> > 
> > Or you could have used the "minimal" USE flag.
> 
> And what does this flag exactly say at this point ?

$ grep minimal /usr/portage/profiles/use.desc
minimal - Install a very minimal build (disables, for example, plugins,
fonts, most drivers, non-critical features)
 
> Install only xlib ? 
> Install xlib and some further ones ? Which ones ?
> Install all libs ?

Look at the ebuilds and you will find the answer to these questions.

-Thomas


pgph43QwSXaOH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Lance Albertson]

Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Jan Kundrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>>> For example: I've got several headless server systems where I now
>>> have to run some X applications. I only need xlib (and its deps)
>>> on this system, not the whole X distribution. In a monolithic 
>>> world, I would have to install *everything*, from server to tools, 
>>> just for getting some libs.
>> Or you could have used the "minimal" USE flag.
> 
> And what does this flag exactly say at this point ?
> 
> Install only xlib ? 
> Install xlib and some further ones ? Which ones ?
> Install all libs ?

Opening an ebuild and reading it must be hard.

-- 
Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Thomas Cort]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 16:46:08 +0200
Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How can I get an patch downloaded from some location and then applied ?
> I've inspecting some ebuilds in the portage tree and learned how to 
> apply patches in the files/ subdir. Now I need to know, how to download
> the patches (simply add them to $SRC_URI ?) and then get them referenced
> for applying ?

This list is not the 'teach me how to write ebuilds' mailing list. If you
want help writing ebuilds, #gentoo-dev-help on irc.freenode.net is the
place for it. You should read the following documents all the way
through before asking for help: http://devmanual.gentoo.org/
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml

-Thomas


pgpEE1WfwrHIr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Jan Kundrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > For example: I've got several headless server systems where I now
> > have to run some X applications. I only need xlib (and its deps)
> > on this system, not the whole X distribution. In a monolithic 
> > world, I would have to install *everything*, from server to tools, 
> > just for getting some libs.
> 
> Or you could have used the "minimal" USE flag.

And what does this flag exactly say at this point ?

Install only xlib ? 
Install xlib and some further ones ? Which ones ?
Install all libs ?


cu
-- 
-
 Enrico Weigelt==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
-
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
http://patches.metux.de/
-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:



> To do that, you have to seperate any libs used between the two.  
> In such a pkg, there *should* be a common lib- so you're suggesting 

If there's any (noticable amount of) common code, yes of course.

 

> Yet *more* manual work.

Not for the gentoo devs. Either the upstream does that or OSS-QM.



> You want this, implement it in an overlay.

I'm doing so. Maybe you could give me some quick advise:

How can I get an patch downloaded from some location and then applied ?
I've inspecting some ebuilds in the portage tree and learned how to 
apply patches in the files/ subdir. Now I need to know, how to download
the patches (simply add them to $SRC_URI ?) and then get them referenced
for applying ?


cu
-- 
-
 Enrico Weigelt==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
-
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
http://patches.metux.de/
-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Masking practics

[Patrick McLean]

Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> So I'll probably have no other chance than writing a frontend 
> to emerge, parsing its output - hoping the output syntax remains
> the same for an sufficiant time :(
> 

[ebuild   R   ] sys-fs/cryptsetup-luks-1.0.3-r2
[ebuild U ] x11-terms/rxvt-unicode-7.9 [7.8-r1]
[ebuild U ] sci-chemistry/gromacs-3.3.1 [3.3]
[ebuild UD] app-foo/bar-1.0.2 [1.1.0]
[ebuild U ] app-text/evince-0.5.5 [0.5.4]

Why do you think emerge has columnar output like this, notice how the D
is in a different column than anything else, it makes it pretty easy to
spot, if you are too lazy to at least scan the output of emerge -p
before actually running the emerge, don't complain when you break your
system.

We generally assume that our users have some intelligence, we don't put
big fat warnings on everything that might break. We give the users all
the information and let them decide if its going to break. Gentoo never
was and never will be idiot-proof. We do not, and never will try to
protect people from their own stupidity.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Jan Kundrat]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> For example: I've got several headless server systems where I now
> have to run some X applications. I only need xlib (and its deps)
> on this system, not the whole X distribution. In a monolithic 
> world, I would have to install *everything*, from server to tools, 
> just for getting some libs.

Or you could have used the "minimal" USE flag.

Cheers,
-jkt
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Brand spanking new developer - Anrdrew Ross aka aross

[Christel Doty]

On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 21:05 +1000, Daniel Black wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 August 2006 21:00, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > The name is Andrew, Andrew Ross. He takes it shaken, not stirred.
> > Studies Computer Science, admins Gentoo servers for a living (how sick
> > of this will he get?),
> 
> Almost overdosed last week. Making a steady recovery and learning to pace 
> addiction.
> 
> > reads scifi and fantasy,
> Might still get time.
> 
> > spends time with his  
> > girlfriend; Fiona. 
> Hope so - don't want rumors that Gentoo kills relationships.

Yes, that would be bad.. and may make the need for date-a-dev even more
apparant.. And we don't want that. (There is no way I'm letting antarus
and ChrisWhite win..)

> /me looks around for my other half
> 
> > For us he will be maintaining xen alongside chrb and 
> > agriffis, considering latching on to the hardened team in a bit and may
> > offer a hand or two to the zope team.
> 
> Wow how handy is this guy!!

Yes! Well done on picking him up Daniel :P


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Simon Stelling]

Enrico Weigelt wrote:
But it's very unclear. Ask around in the user list, who knows what 
"minimal" in this special case means (without extra reading the 
documentation). Such useflags should be obvious, but "minimal" isnt.


"without extra reading the documentation"? Documentation is there to be read!

That being said, server/client flags are nice, but not really applicable until 
we have per-package default USE flags, which is soon I hope.


--
Kind Regards,

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> >foo/bar  gui=gtk
> >blah/blubb   gui=qt2
> 
> bleh/enrico   gui=qt4

s/qt4/ncurses/;


;-P

cu
-- 
-
 Enrico Weigelt==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
-
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
http://patches.metux.de/
-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Brian Harring]

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 12:55:28PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > On Tuesday 08 August 2006 09:56, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > > If you want an dhcp client, install "dhcp-client", if you
> > > want an dhcp server, install "dhcp-server". Could it be simpler ?
> > 
> > Maybe you missed the part of the discussion where we thought that 
> > maintaing 3 ebuilds vs 1 ebuild was a bad idea. Yes we would need 
> > 3 due to the way that the dhcp builds and installs.
> 
> Okay, but they're maintained at the same time. 
> 
> Let's see where the extra work could come from: 
> 
> + changes in build options. okay, have to type some things twice.
>   adds 5mins
> + three packages have to be tested now. today one package has to 
>   be tested in three variants. is there really more work ?
> 
> The 3rd package is mostly copy-and-paste, since doesn't actually
> do anything. It's just rdeps based on useflags. Just an multiplexer.
> 
> On the other hand I see some more changes on an split:
> Let's say, in a newer version, there's an interesting improvement 
> in the server, but an bad bug in the client. Currently the client
> would block the server, just for buerocrativ reasons.
> After a split, both part-packages can evolve separately.

To do that, you have to seperate any libs used between the two.  In 
such a pkg, there *should* be a common lib- so you're suggesting 
either static linkage of said code (disk but more importantly mem 
bloat), or so renaming (further divergance from upstream, more issues 
in glsa handling).

Yet *more* manual work.

You want this, implement it in an overlay.

You get what you want, and if you manage to make it not suck the big 
one, hey, maybe you might convince a few people.

Either way, people aren't going to yield- put in the work to prove 
them wrong rather then just trying to talk them into the ground 
please.

Besides... pushing this hard for something, you better be willing to 
do the work yourself- can't expect others to do what you want when 
they disagree.

~harring


pgp18Ovu0jbO1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

[Brian Harring]

Pardon the spam, but correcting a misstatement on my part-

On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:41:39PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> I know of selinux, and multilib- all that are effectively features, 
> and exist in the use conditional namespace because they
> unfortunately straddle both (same issue with FEATURES=test).
> 
> So... two flags I can think of, and it requires recording the setting 
> in multiple spots (features, use, and now use.force).
> 
> How is this improving it really?  It blocks people from disabling 
> automatic pulling in of selinux policies, presumably trying to prevent 
> them *accidentally* disabling it.
> 
> If the target is those flags... this patch doesn't really cut it 
> either.
>   
> Said patch is actually atom -> flags forcing, not global forcing.

A chunk of the patch actually supports flat out global forcing, thus 
this particular critique is invalid (the package.* stuff stands still 
though).

Would blame me just misreading the diff, but I think the real culprit
is Adult Swim showing Pee Wee's playhouse for rotting the brain 
instead ;)

~harring


pgpTKiRU9xdFm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Jakub Moc]

Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> Maybe there could be an extra file, ie. package.use.alias
> 
> foo/bar   gui=gtk
> blah/blubbgui=qt2
> ...
> 
> I'm not sure if this alias handling should be done by emerge, 
> or better by some frontend (I learned that explicit downgrade 
> warnings should be done by an frontend, so why should useflag
> aliasing shouldn't ?). But I'm sure these information should
> not go directly to the ebuilds.

Look, you really didn't invent anything new (refer fex. to GLEP-29)

- http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0029.html
- http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=10980233365&r=1&w=2

Unless you have some reference implementation that doesn't suck and does
address all the concerns why this has been withdrawn, there's no point
in continuing this discussion and flooding the mailing list. If you read
on the above, it turned out that instead of simplification things can
become a lot more complicated and confusing instead.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Tuesday 08 August 2006 09:56, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > If you want an dhcp client, install "dhcp-client", if you
> > want an dhcp server, install "dhcp-server". Could it be simpler ?
> 
> Maybe you missed the part of the discussion where we thought that 
> maintaing 3 ebuilds vs 1 ebuild was a bad idea. Yes we would need 
> 3 due to the way that the dhcp builds and installs.

Okay, but they're maintained at the same time. 

Let's see where the extra work could come from: 

+ changes in build options. okay, have to type some things twice.
  adds 5mins
+ three packages have to be tested now. today one package has to 
  be tested in three variants. is there really more work ?

The 3rd package is mostly copy-and-paste, since doesn't actually
do anything. It's just rdeps based on useflags. Just an multiplexer.

On the other hand I see some more changes on an split:
Let's say, in a newer version, there's an interesting improvement 
in the server, but an bad bug in the client. Currently the client
would block the server, just for buerocrativ reasons.
After a split, both part-packages can evolve separately.

 

> The minimal flag currently controls this anyway - you always get 
> the client but the server is optional. 

But it's very unclear. Ask around in the user list, who knows what 
"minimal" in this special case means (without extra reading the 
documentation). Such useflags should be obvious, but "minimal" isnt.


cu
-- 
-
 Enrico Weigelt==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
-
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
http://patches.metux.de/
-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Brand spanking new developer - Anrdrew Ross aka aross

[Daniel Black]

On Tuesday 08 August 2006 21:00, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> The name is Andrew, Andrew Ross. He takes it shaken, not stirred.
> Studies Computer Science, admins Gentoo servers for a living (how sick
> of this will he get?),

Almost overdosed last week. Making a steady recovery and learning to pace 
addiction.

> reads scifi and fantasy,
Might still get time.

> spends time with his  
> girlfriend; Fiona. 
Hope so - don't want rumors that Gentoo kills relationships.

/me looks around for my other half

> For us he will be maintaining xen alongside chrb and 
> agriffis, considering latching on to the hardened team in a bit and may
> offer a hand or two to the zope team.

Wow how handy is this guy!!

> Welcome on board Andrew!
$ !!


-- 
Daniel Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Crypto/Forensics/NetMon


pgprzqytVWsWR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] New(-ish) developer - Elfyn McBratney

[Christian Heim]

On Monday 07 August 2006 23:45, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> It is my pleasure to introduce to you... the artist formerly known as...
> beu! Many will know Elfyn from his previous stint as a Gentoo developer.
> This time around, we have a understanding.. the sort that involves
> sleeping with fish and finding horseheads in your bed. Capish? He won't
> magically (well, I believe it was by magic, he is afterall an elf)
> disappear again and will be joining the kernel guys, the perl people and
> he'll be donning an apron and pink marigolds while helping out with the
> QA tree cleaner project.
>
> I of course am thrilled, not only did we (re-)gain another UK based dev,
> but a UK based dev with a great taste in music, a sick and twisted mind
> and the ability to put up with me singing. Welcome back, Elfyn!
>
> Christelxx

Welcome back Elfyn! :)


-- 
Christian Heim 
GPG: 9A9F68E6 / AEC4 87B8 32B8 4922 B3A9  DF79 CAE3 556F 9A9F 68E6

Your friendly mobile/kernel/vserver/openvz monkey


pgpbZu27sM1Re.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> W.Kenworthy wrote:
> >My personal opinion is that whilst things like modular X are good for
> >developers, they are not so good for users - particularly gentoo users.
> 
> Definitely not true. The X.Org 7.1 release shared the vast majority of 
> packages with 7.0, so there were very few upgrades -- just a few drivers 
> and the server. In the monolithic world, you would've needed to rebuild 
> the whole thing for that. Installing it is a one-time cost, upgrading 
> goes on forever. And the security updates that already occurred proved 
> modularization well worth the effort -- often, just a single package 
> (the server) needed an update.

ACK. It's not only an big improvement to maintenability, also 
stops wasting resources.

For example: I've got several headless server systems where I now
have to run some X applications. I only need xlib (and its deps)
on this system, not the whole X distribution. In a monolithic 
world, I would have to install *everything*, from server to tools, 
just for getting some libs.

The modularization is an *huge* improvement. Installations get
smaller and faster and development is much easier.


cu
-- 
-
 Enrico Weigelt==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
-
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
http://patches.metux.de/
-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Simon Stelling]

Enrico Weigelt wrote:

foo/bar gui=gtk
blah/blubb  gui=qt2


bleh/enrico gui=qt4

SCNR

--
Kind Regards,

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Monday 07 August 2006 21:44, W.Kenworthy wrote:
> > My personal opinion is that whilst things like modular X are good for
> > developers, they are not so good for users - particularly gentoo users.
> 
> we provide meta packages (X/kde/gnome/etc...) for the split packages 
> so users can just emerge 1 package to get them all
> 
> on one machine i like to run kde so the meta packages are a godsend ... 
> yet on another machine, i only want k3b/kmail and nothing else so the 
> split packages too are a godsend :)

Very good point. 
What's best here is a matter of personal taste or individual
system requirements.

Gentoo's strength comes from respecting those user wishes.
If you stop doing that, you aren't better then all these 
Evil-Binary-Distros (TM) ;-P


cu
-- 
-
 Enrico Weigelt==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
-
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
http://patches.metux.de/
-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:



> > I just want to keep things simple. We're talking about introducing
> > new (additional) logic. This has to be maintained. And it doesn't
> > actually *solve* the problem which is this discussion was started.
> 
> Removing the stuff from the ebuild and maintaining two ebuilds that 
> must be synchronized with eachother is complex.

Where exactly have the two packages gtk1 and gtk2 to be synchonized ?



> > Rember: we started with the thesis, "grandma wants graphical
> > frontends whereever possible". This is in fact not an technical
> > issue, instead a matter of personal taste, or lets say, an individual
> > system configuration. Grandma wants to click, okay, so she should
> > use graphical applications. She's not interested what sits behind,
> > she just wants to have a buch of applications. And she also doesn't
> > wann have anything to do with emerge and useflags. She just wants
> > to have a choice between a bunch of end-user applications.
> > That's the job of an Grandma-(sub-)distro.
> 
> gentoo is not a grandma distro and does not try to be so.

No, it is not, and it shall not.
But this was example at the start of this whole discussion.

I understand the intentions to make such things easier, 
but I really doubt it will be an *real* solution. 

If you see it as a huge set of possible system configurations 
(defined by list of installed packages, versions, useflags, ...), 
each individual configuration as an element of this set, then our 
Grandma-scenario is an subset: we cut out a bunch of elements 
which may be interesting for the intended audience.

So in other words: we need some kind of preselection.
Default useflags and useflag aliases on profile basis.

Maybe there could be an extra file, ie. package.use.alias

foo/bar gui=gtk
blah/blubb  gui=qt2
...

I'm not sure if this alias handling should be done by emerge, 
or better by some frontend (I learned that explicit downgrade 
warnings should be done by an frontend, so why should useflag
aliasing shouldn't ?). But I'm sure these information should
not go directly to the ebuilds.



> > Okay, let's say we want to intruduce an meta-useflag for "GUI"
> > (although having additional GUIs in the same package as the
> > backend isn't what I consider clean design). If there's just *one*
> > than it's easy - just an alias. But what's if we have more ?
> > Who makes the decision, which one to take ? Based on what rules ?
> 
> The council makes the decisions.

How detailed is this decision ? 
Global for all or by package ?


 
> > Yes. For optional features. Additional programs aren't features of
> > some other program, but additional programs.
> 
> You should read up on your history. Useflags are as well for additional 
> programs as for features. This is especially true when things should 
> be kept together as they are tightly coupled.

This soon gets confusing for many people. See the dhcp thread.
There're lots of discussions about the server and client useflags.
Could have been done easily by splitting off into two packages,
one for server, one for client and providing an meta package for
people who like to have both.



> > I consider it *very* clean. What could be easier than have an
> > consistent database which *knows* what's installed on the system
> > instead of having to run lots of esoteric tests which shall *guess*
> > it somehow ?!
> 
> The tests don't actually guess. 

Really ? 

In the recent years I had do lots of fixes in many autoconf stuff
(autotools itself as well as configure.ac's) to get them working
on situations where building and target systems aren't the same.
Obviously this is not the case for gentoo (it's an self-building
distro, not system A building for an completely different system B),
so you probably don't get involved in such problems.

For example, if you're building in an sysroot'ed environment, you
have tweak patches - "/" mostly doesn't mean the running systems's 
root, but the target system image. 

Many packages provide their own autoconf macros for detecting if 
the package is installed. In 99% they don't provide more information
than can be found in an .pc file. But they introduce additional 
complexity, could have been nailed down by an simple pkg-config 
query. You don't even need autoconf for that - can also directly 
be done within an makefile. But if each package provides its own 
implementation, they all have to be tweaked by their own for such
non-stardard situations. When using pkg-config, there's only 
one central point to intercept. 

If you regenerate the configure stuff of some package A which *may*
require some package B (if the appropriate feature is selected),
you will need to have the package B installed, so the macros can
be found. Not because it will be actually required, but just for 
getting the configure script built. Okay, some packages ship a
copy of the macros by their own, but this again is additional 
complexity: the pack

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Brian Harring]

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 August 2006 09:56, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > If you want an dhcp client, install "dhcp-client", if you
> > want an dhcp server, install "dhcp-server". Could it be simpler ?
> 
> Maybe you missed the part of the discussion where we thought that maintaing 3 
> ebuilds vs 1 ebuild was a bad idea. Yes we would need 3 due to the way that 
> the dhcp builds and installs.

There also is the fun part of how seperation of pkgs actually is 
accomplished- have to maintain a list of which files go where.

Manually.

And because of FEATURES=collision-protect, you have to verify the 
bugger, and update it for every verbump.

Lot of manual work. :)

~harring


pgpRVY3EYmLoh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

[Roy Marples]

On Tuesday 08 August 2006 09:56, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> If you want an dhcp client, install "dhcp-client", if you
> want an dhcp server, install "dhcp-server". Could it be simpler ?

Maybe you missed the part of the discussion where we thought that maintaing 3 
ebuilds vs 1 ebuild was a bad idea. Yes we would need 3 due to the way that 
the dhcp builds and installs.

The minimal flag currently controls this anyway - you always get the client 
but the server is optional. And it's easier this way I think as it also 
mirrors upstream which is something we strive to achieve.

Thanks

-- 
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo/Linux Developer (baselayout, networking)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Brand spanking new developer - Anrdrew Ross aka aross

[Danny van Dyk]

Am Dienstag, 8. August 2006 13:00 schrieb Christel Dahlskjaer:
> Well, well.. who was I to complain when Gentoo had to fly me to
> Melbourne, Australia to check out our newest recruit. Like a scene
> out of Home and Away (ok, it's the only Australian TV show I know) we
> swam with dolphins, we ran along the beach.. *snap* Ok, so Gentoo
> didn't fly me to Oz, not that I would have complained if they did..
> but we did gain another australian developer.
>
> The name is Andrew, Andrew Ross. He takes it shaken, not stirred.
> Studies Computer Science, admins Gentoo servers for a living (how
> sick of this will he get?), reads scifi and fantasy, spends time with
> his girlfriend; Fiona. For us he will be maintaining xen alongside
> chrb and agriffis, considering latching on to the hardened team in a
> bit and may offer a hand or two to the zope team.
Not to forget he's working on an eselect module for app-admin/logrotate.

Welcome aboard, Andrew!

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Brand spanking new developer - Anrdrew Ross aka aross

[Christel Dahlskjaer]

Well, well.. who was I to complain when Gentoo had to fly me to
Melbourne, Australia to check out our newest recruit. Like a scene out
of Home and Away (ok, it's the only Australian TV show I know) we swam
with dolphins, we ran along the beach.. *snap* Ok, so Gentoo didn't fly
me to Oz, not that I would have complained if they did.. but we did gain
another australian developer.

The name is Andrew, Andrew Ross. He takes it shaken, not stirred.
Studies Computer Science, admins Gentoo servers for a living (how sick
of this will he get?), reads scifi and fantasy, spends time with his
girlfriend; Fiona. For us he will be maintaining xen alongside chrb and
agriffis, considering latching on to the hardened team in a bit and may
offer a hand or two to the zope team. 

Welcome on board Andrew! 
-- 
$a="gentoo.org"; Christel Dahlskjaer | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.$a 
Gentoo Developeress - User Relations, Developer Relations, Gentoo/MIPS,
Gentoo/Alpha, PR, Events, Release Engineering


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] app-doc/chmlib - call for maintainer

[Raphael Marichez]

Hi,

app-doc/chmlib is without an active ebuild maintainer and has an open security 
bug [1]

Anyone willing to take care of this package in the future, please update 
metadata.xml and CC yourself on the bug.

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143181

cheers
-- 

Raphael Marichez aka Falco
Gentoo Linux Security Team


pgpLUuAS53kxx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

[Simon Stelling]

Peter Gordon wrote:

Zac Medico wrote:

The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed
extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the user.


If they were so "extremely important" then they would not be optional,
and hence not even be USE flags at all, no? Or am I missing something?


Yes. Some flags are extremely important to certain users (read: profiles) but 
not to others. In some cases the USE flag are so extremely important because 
they are more or less what makes the whole profile. Think of 'selinux' or 
'multilib'.


http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/2316

--
Kind Regards,

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

[Brian Harring]

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 08:33:51AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 00:22:50 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 07:23:31AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 21:41:39 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | > wrote:
> | > | > The use.force feature is complementary to use.mask.  It's
> | > | > exactly the same concept, but inverted.
> | > | 
> | > | And both files _should_ be implemented via use deps.
> | > 
> | > Huh? How?
> | 
> | forcing cxx on via package.mask for gcc
> | sys-devel/gcc[-cxx]
> | 
> | forcing it off
> | sys-devel/gcc[cxx]
> 
> Mmm. See, that'll lead to error messages if the user sets USE=cxx and
> then tries to install gcc. With the .mask/.force, it's handled
> automatically and indicated visibly by use flags being (parened).

The error msg would be "blah is masked", with an explanation of why.  
Pretty standard fair, portage already does the same now for non use 
dep maskings.

As is, the package.use.mask patch that got shoved in gives _no_ 
indication that it's forcing a flag off for a pkg- leaves the user 
wondering wtf occured once they spot the flag is disabled.

Point there is that arguing against it based on UI code is a 
non-arguement; either implementation (for portage at least) requires 
mangling portage's -vp code to indicate the forced disabling/enabling.

> | *Full* implementation of use deps requires ability to flip on use 
> | flags as needed
> 
> I implemented this a while back for Paludis and then chucked it. It
> doesn't turn out nicely, mostly because of flags like build and
> bootstrap. You'd end up with dumb cases like patch being built with
> USE=build then USE=-build, and all kinds of hairy USE flags being
> turned on.

Alternative is not being able to resolve unixodbc/qt and sizable 
chunks of bootstrap'ing without resorting to telling the resolver to 
ignore cycles.

This is part of why use deps aren't implemented in portage now; doing 
it *fully* requires a lot of bitchy internal tracking.  You can ignore 
it, but resolution capabilities pay the cost.

~harring


pgpEjhkORpaHF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

[Stuart Herbert]

Hi Zac,

On 8/8/06, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi everyone,

I've written a patch [1] that implements support for use.force and package.use.force as originally 
described by Sven Wegener [2] over a year ago.  Basically, this feature is the exact opposite of 
use.mask and package.use.mask.  It forces USE flags to be enabled.  The only way to disable these 
forced flags is to mask them via use.mask/package.use.mask or to "unforce" them in the 
profile stack.  Users can unforce them via /etc/portage/profile/{use.force,package.use.force} in 
the usual "-flag" way.


Looks useful for arch teams.  Doesn't seem very interesting for
package maintainers.

Any chance of per-package USE defaults support?  That's much more useful to me.

Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 00:22:50 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 07:23:31AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 21:41:39 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | > The use.force feature is complementary to use.mask.  It's
| > | > exactly the same concept, but inverted.
| > | 
| > | And both files _should_ be implemented via use deps.
| > 
| > Huh? How?
| 
| forcing cxx on via package.mask for gcc
| sys-devel/gcc[-cxx]
| 
| forcing it off
| sys-devel/gcc[cxx]

Mmm. See, that'll lead to error messages if the user sets USE=cxx and
then tries to install gcc. With the .mask/.force, it's handled
automatically and indicated visibly by use flags being (parened).

| *Full* implementation of use deps requires ability to flip on use 
| flags as needed

I implemented this a while back for Paludis and then chucked it. It
doesn't turn out nicely, mostly because of flags like build and
bootstrap. You'd end up with dumb cases like patch being built with
USE=build then USE=-build, and all kinds of hairy USE flags being
turned on.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Endless frustrations again :(

[Stuart Herbert]

On 8/7/06, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Okay, you simply don't want to talk or even think about this issue.


You have had lots of help from many different Gentoo developers and
users on your recent issues.  All of these people are volunteers, and
have given their time and expertise to you for free.

Folks have been *very* patient with you - far more than *you* have
been with them.


I won't waste more of my lifetime with it, and I won't let you
do more acts of demotiviation. If you wouldn't have descrited my
intensions this way and these personal attacks didn't happen,


Again - folks have been *very* patient with you, and have worked hard
to explain to you why the suggestions you've made are ones that we
don't agree with.

Instead of trying to fight all of Gentoo, you would do better to first
learn how a Gentoo system (and its packages) are intended to work, and
why.  Gentoo's radical improvements over binary distros can be both
overwhelming and confusing at first.


I would have set up my own overlay for this project and simply
fix the problem. But obviously this isn't wanted here.


We welcome contributions to Gentoo.  Folks are free to contribute by
contacting package maintainers directly, by getting involved on
mailing lists, by filing bugs and patches in bugzilla, by contributing
to official overlays (on o.g.o and elsewhere), and by contributing to
the Sunrise project.  We're truly a community distro - one of only two
(Debian being the other) - and we live or die by the support we get
from the wider community.

I think setting up your own overlay is a great idea.  I can't think of
a better way for you to learn about upgrades, downgrades, SLOTing and
dependency atoms than by maintaining a bunch of packages for a year or
two.


All my other improvement efforts were simply ignored either or
directly discredited, so they're also not wanted.


If you are saying that patches from you have been included into Gentoo
without appropriate credit, please let us know.  That should not
happen.

On the other hand, if you are saying that you are feeling ignored ...
well, imagine how we feel.  We've tried to help you, and explain
what's where and why, and we feel that you're either not listening or
just not understanding what we're saying.


You just want
to remain in your traditional grid of thinking. You won't ever
listen, so I'll let you stay there in peace.


Maybe *you* need to learn to listen, in order for others to listen to you?


I'm now warned that I it's not wise to use gentoo for mission
critical environments.


Bullshit.  Gentoo is a *great* solution for mission critical environments.

We have suggested to you that it's not wise for *you* to be using
Gentoo.  You either don't want to learn how to use Gentoo the way it
is meant to be used, or it's too difficult for you.  Either way, until
that changes, it's difficult to see how you will be happy using
Gentoo, or trying to contribute back to it.

Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force as a complement to use.mask in profiles

[Brian Harring]

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 07:23:31AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 21:41:39 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | > The use.force feature is complementary to use.mask.  It's exactly 
> | > the same concept, but inverted.
> | 
> | And both files _should_ be implemented via use deps.
> 
> Huh? How?

forcing cxx on via package.mask for gcc
sys-devel/gcc[-cxx]

forcing it off
sys-devel/gcc[cxx]

Pretty simple.

*Full* implementation of use deps requires ability to flip on use 
flags as needed (whether to break soft cycles, or just implemented 
such that use deps force what they need), and requires *tracking* of 
the history of the toggling so that a

DEPEND="sys-devel/gcc[cxx] sys-devel/gcc[-cxx]"

results in unsolvable; granted, it's a contrived example, but in a 
large graph it *will* occur.

Getting it right is hard, but it's a requirement for any 
implementation that intends a nonsucky resolver- 'soft' (breakable) 
cycles exist already (unixodbc and qt is the classic example), the 
number of soft cycles will grow once use deps are available.

So... to be able to handle use deps fully, you have to track the 
flipping of it; to discern if a pkg is even usable, you have to pass 
it through the mask/unmask, which can do the 'imprinting' up front.

Using package.{un,}mask for use.force/package.use.mask doesn't 
actually require *fully* supporting use deps though; portage already 
supports it in a limited fashion via package.use and the 
package.use.mask patch zac stuffed in the other day.

Pretty much all it requires is just mangling his patches slightly so 
if it's a use atom, it gets shifted out into the new dicts he's trying 
to add to config.

Goes without saying there is a delay for support on this for (yet 
another) mangling of portage profile support to protect itself.

~harring


pgpAIxIUhiXdo.pgp
Description: PGP signature