[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [project] Re: [RFC] some global useflags
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 4:42 AM, Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ryan Hill wrote: Steve Long wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Steve Long wrote: Have a look at, for example, [1], where Mike already gave you an answer one of the previous times we discussed it. I'm aware of the prior discussion. Re-read it, and tell me what it breaks, if you can. Well, which part of the previous times it's been explained to you didn't you understand? No one has ever given me a technical reason. I thought you might have light to shed; clearly not. Please don't reply to my posts if you don't have any actual information to add; I realise you like long fruitless mail 'discussions', and apparently have lots of time for them, but I don't, and I don't enjoy reading them either. This kind of one-liner with zero content, and no intent but to insult, should simply be binned without sending imo. Okay, Steve, stop. I don't think you realize it, but you are trolling this list. That wasn't my intention; I added that comment simply to stop the flow of one-line emails. Every second post is you and Ciaran bitching at each other I do wish one of you devs would pick him up on his behaviour _on the list_ one of these days.. instead it's _always_ me who gets the flak. Or do you think his post was anything other than a one-liner with zero content, and no intent but to insult? or you complaining about every single thing we do that you don't personally like. Not complaining, simply pointing out better ways to do things; a technical discussion iow. The reason that has been more difficult a discussion than it should be is because of the unpleasant comments from McCreesh, Ferdy and Leverton. Not all things are technical in nature. We appreciate your input, but please respect our right to do things the way we think is best for us, even if they aren't aligned to your personal preferences. I was never under the impression that Gentoo devs would do anything other than whatever they wanted. Can you tell me what a 'server' USE flag _breaks_? It breaks usability. I realize that is hard to measure but we have discussed this multiple times and have decided it is a Bad Idea for users and a Bad Idea for us. So it was not done. -Alec
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-portage/genflags
I wrote genflags years ago at the express request of drobbins. It's a pile of junk and completely useless these days. # Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] (20 Oct 2008) # genflags should never have been born. # Output needs to be specific per GCC version, and that's a big change. app-portage/genflags -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer Infra Guy E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgppiF40WLBIf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] virtualx eclass
Doug Goldstein wrote: Doug Goldstein wrote: While the rule of thumb has been if an eclass needs something it should provide it's own depends. However the virtualx eclass needs to be different simply because in some cases it's only uses for tests (this is it's most common usage in the whole) tree. When it's used for tests pulling in the xorg-server the most ideal situation would be if xorg-server was only pulled in on USE=test because currently for anyone emerging an app that uses GTK+ they have a weird situation in the fact that all of GTK+'s depends that have USE=X use it to mean libX11 (as do most usages of the X USE flag), however GTK+ itself due to it's usage of the virtualx eclass pulls in xorg-server when USE=X, which is only used for tests. This results in a confusing experience for users looking to built a headless machine. It'd be a lot more consistent if ebuilds provided a USE flag or directly depended on the xorg-server and then used the functions in the eclass. So in summary, those are the changes I plan on making very shortly. If someone's got some input, please speak up. Alright... after talking to Diego, Dave, and Remi the final result that I've come up with is the following: VIRTUALX_CONDITIONAL_USE=test inherit virtualx That'll result in virtualx adding the following: DEPEND=test? ( x11-base/xorg-server x11-apps/xhost ) if VIRTUALX_CONDITIONAL_USE is unset (as it will be for all ebuilds initially) the default will be X. Which means the default is the same as what we've got today. If it's set to an empty string, it'll always be required. Otherwise, it will use the supplied USE flag. Turns out this situation breaks down when multiple USE flags are required/used. One suggestion is to allow for that via: VIRTUALX_CONDITIONAL_USE=test X but needs someone to write some elegant shell to make that expansion happen. Also, it'll happen in the global scope when the data is cached so a little ugh on that part. The last fall back of course is to go to just defining VIRTUALX_DEPS and letting each ebuild USE it how it needs to use it. Feedback, comments, etc are appreciated. -- Doug Goldstein
