Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: USE flag documentation

2008-01-16 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 18:45 Tue 15 Jan , Alec Warner wrote:
 On 1/15/08, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 17:00 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
   My expectation is that `grep flag use.local.desc` will give me a
   list of packages using that flag (or having it in the description),
   one per line. Putting paragraphs in there doesn't seem right.
 
  A single long line still fills this requirement for us.  However, it
  does bring up the point.  Why even have use.local.desc (or
  metadata.xml's use tag) at all?  Is there really a need for a *global*
  list of flags that are ebuild-specific?  (I don't care or have much
  opinion, either way, I'm merely presenting some topic for discussion on
  this.)
 
 The global use.* files are convenient because it means we don't need
 to generate or push a cache for the data (like for metadata).  If it
 was per package or per-ebuild we would need to generate a cache to
 answer queries like 'what does the foo flag do'.

Since Chris only mentioned use.local.desc, I'm assuming he only meant 
local flags rather than use.desc also. In that case, asking what the 
foo local flag does doesn't make sense, because it does something 
different depending on the package you're curious about. Centralizing 
what feels like inherently local data seems odd to me. USE flag editors 
would still need to generate a complete list, though, so this would make 
more work for them.

Chris, I'm not entirely clear what you meant by your suggestion of also 
dropping metadata.xml use; where would we describe local flags?

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list



[gentoo-dev] Re: USE flag documentation

2008-01-16 Thread Ryan Hill
Mark Loeser wrote:
 Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

 My expectation is that `grep flag use.local.desc` will give me a list of 
 packages using that flag (or having it in the description), one per line. 
 Putting paragraphs in there doesn't seem right.

 One could argue that you can't do that currently for DEPEND strings and
 such, so that seems like a possibly weak argument to me.  Just because
 you can do something right now doesn't mean it was meant to be that way,
 or shouldn't be changed to make things better :)
 
 Either way, I would prefer (and I'm sure others will as well since it
 will cut down on confusion) if we pick either use.local.desc or to move
 them into metadata.xml.  Having it possibly be in both places just seems
 silly.

If we have to choose between the two, then metadata.xml gets my vote (yeah i'm
contradicting myself here ;)).  I think the benefits of being able to write long
flag descriptions outweigh the benefits of having them all in one place.

I'd like it if we had a util that displayed the descriptions from metadata
before (if) we switch over though.


-- 
fonts,by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,  for a fact or just for effect
wxwindows @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[gentoo-dev] Re: USE flag documentation

2008-01-15 Thread Ryan Hill

Mark Loeser wrote:

Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
a) Keep use.desc as it is:  a list of common flags and a short general 
description of their meaning.


Sounds good.

b) Keep use.local.desc as it is: a list of per-package flags that are 
specific to one to a few ebuilds (i think 5 is the number though i think 10 
is more appropriate, but that's not relevant to this discussion).  Again, 
each has a short description.


Also fine.

c) Allow flags from use.desc to also exist in use.local.desc.  In the case 
that a flag for a package exists in both, the use.local.desc description 
overrides the use.desc one.  This allows a more specific per-package 
description of global flags.


Still doing alright :)

d) Allow long descriptions in a package's metadata.xml, as some have begun 
to do already, for cases where more info is needed.  For example I'd like 
to explain exactly what the bindist flag on freetype does and what legal 
implications disabling it can have.


Why can't this be done in use.local.desc?


My expectation is that `grep flag use.local.desc` will give me a list of 
packages using that flag (or having it in the description), one per line. 
Putting paragraphs in there doesn't seem right.


--
fonts,by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,  for a fact or just for effect
wxwindows @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

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



[gentoo-dev] Re: USE flag documentation

2008-01-15 Thread Ryan Hill

Vlastimil Babka wrote:

Ryan Hill wrote:

What do people think of this?

a) Keep use.desc as it is:  a list of common flags and a short general 
description of their meaning.


Good.

b) Keep use.local.desc as it is: a list of per-package flags that are 
specific to one to a few ebuilds (i think 5 is the number though i 
think 10 is more appropriate, but that's not relevant to this 
discussion).  Again, each has a short description.


c) Allow flags from use.desc to also exist in use.local.desc.  In the 
case that a flag for a package exists in both, the use.local.desc 
description overrides the use.desc one.  This allows a more specific 
per-package description of global flags.


Good.

d) Allow long descriptions in a package's metadata.xml, as some have 
begun to do already, for cases where more info is needed.  For example 
I'd like to explain exactly what the bindist flag on freetype does and 
what legal implications disabling it can have.


Right. Also why not also add short descriptions there, and deprecate 
use.local.desc when tools are converted? Placing package-local info to 
global files (when not needed to distinguish profiles as with 
package.use.mask etc) is icky.
Note that the metadata.xml should be able to record per-version 
differences somehow.


Then instead of grepping a file I would need to read XML.  Also icky.  Utils 
would help, but then utils would need to implement an XML parser.



--
fonts,by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,  for a fact or just for effect
wxwindows @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

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



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: USE flag documentation

2008-01-15 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 17:00 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
 My expectation is that `grep flag use.local.desc` will give me a
 list of packages using that flag (or having it in the description),
 one per line. Putting paragraphs in there doesn't seem right.

A single long line still fills this requirement for us.  However, it
does bring up the point.  Why even have use.local.desc (or
metadata.xml's use tag) at all?  Is there really a need for a *global*
list of flags that are ebuild-specific?  (I don't care or have much
opinion, either way, I'm merely presenting some topic for discussion on
this.)

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer


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


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: USE flag documentation

2008-01-15 Thread Alec Warner
On 1/15/08, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 17:00 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
  My expectation is that `grep flag use.local.desc` will give me a
  list of packages using that flag (or having it in the description),
  one per line. Putting paragraphs in there doesn't seem right.

 A single long line still fills this requirement for us.  However, it
 does bring up the point.  Why even have use.local.desc (or
 metadata.xml's use tag) at all?  Is there really a need for a *global*
 list of flags that are ebuild-specific?  (I don't care or have much
 opinion, either way, I'm merely presenting some topic for discussion on
 this.)

The global use.* files are convenient because it means we don't need
to generate or push a cache for the data (like for metadata).  If it
was per package or per-ebuild we would need to generate a cache to
answer queries like 'what does the foo flag do'.


 --
 Chris Gianelloni
 Release Engineering Strategic Lead
 Games Developer


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



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: USE flag documentation

2008-01-15 Thread Mark Loeser
Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 Mark Loeser wrote:
 Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 c) Allow flags from use.desc to also exist in use.local.desc.  In the 
 case that a flag for a package exists in both, the use.local.desc 
 description overrides the use.desc one.  This allows a more specific 
 per-package description of global flags.
 Still doing alright :)
 d) Allow long descriptions in a package's metadata.xml, as some have 
 begun to do already, for cases where more info is needed.  For example 
 I'd like to explain exactly what the bindist flag on freetype does and 
 what legal implications disabling it can have.
 Why can't this be done in use.local.desc?

 My expectation is that `grep flag use.local.desc` will give me a list of 
 packages using that flag (or having it in the description), one per line. 
 Putting paragraphs in there doesn't seem right.

One could argue that you can't do that currently for DEPEND strings and
such, so that seems like a possibly weak argument to me.  Just because
you can do something right now doesn't mean it was meant to be that way,
or shouldn't be changed to make things better :)

Either way, I would prefer (and I'm sure others will as well since it
will cut down on confusion) if we pick either use.local.desc or to move
them into metadata.xml.  Having it possibly be in both places just seems
silly.

-- 
Mark Loeser
email -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web   -   http://www.halcy0n.com


pgpKNKGoZLuMg.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: USE flag documentation

2008-01-14 Thread Vlastimil Babka

Ryan Hill wrote:

What do people think of this?

a) Keep use.desc as it is:  a list of common flags and a short general 
description of their meaning.


Good.

b) Keep use.local.desc as it is: a list of per-package flags that are 
specific to one to a few ebuilds (i think 5 is the number though i think 
10 is more appropriate, but that's not relevant to this discussion).  
Again, each has a short description.


c) Allow flags from use.desc to also exist in use.local.desc.  In the 
case that a flag for a package exists in both, the use.local.desc 
description overrides the use.desc one.  This allows a more specific 
per-package description of global flags.


Good.

d) Allow long descriptions in a package's metadata.xml, as some have 
begun to do already, for cases where more info is needed.  For example 
I'd like to explain exactly what the bindist flag on freetype does and 
what legal implications disabling it can have.


Right. Also why not also add short descriptions there, and deprecate 
use.local.desc when tools are converted? Placing package-local info to 
global files (when not needed to distinguish profiles as with 
package.use.mask etc) is icky.
Note that the metadata.xml should be able to record per-version 
differences somehow.


On the other hand, if there are any far-reaching changes we need made to 
the USE flag system - any features we wish we had or misfeatures we wish 
we didn't - now would be a good time to address them.


I wish for use deps :P
Well, addressing conflicts and implications between flags at ebuild/PM 
level would be also nice, but really shouldn't affect the way 
documentation is handled, IMHO.


VB
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: USE flag documentation

2008-01-14 Thread Mark Loeser
Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 a) Keep use.desc as it is:  a list of common flags and a short general 
 description of their meaning.

Sounds good.

 b) Keep use.local.desc as it is: a list of per-package flags that are 
 specific to one to a few ebuilds (i think 5 is the number though i think 10 
 is more appropriate, but that's not relevant to this discussion).  Again, 
 each has a short description.

Also fine.

 c) Allow flags from use.desc to also exist in use.local.desc.  In the case 
 that a flag for a package exists in both, the use.local.desc description 
 overrides the use.desc one.  This allows a more specific per-package 
 description of global flags.

Still doing alright :)

 d) Allow long descriptions in a package's metadata.xml, as some have begun 
 to do already, for cases where more info is needed.  For example I'd like 
 to explain exactly what the bindist flag on freetype does and what legal 
 implications disabling it can have.

Why can't this be done in use.local.desc?

-- 
Mark Loeser
email -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web   -   http://www.halcy0n.com


pgpty7jvR7m5f.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[gentoo-dev] Re: USE flag documentation

2008-01-13 Thread Ryan Hill

Mark Loeser wrote:

Here is a newer revision of the GLEP.  I still have multiple methods of
solving this problem (mostly because I want and *need* input from people
as to what they would prefer).  Please tell me what you would want to
use so I can come up with a more precise specification.  What exactly do
we need this system to do that we can't do now?  Is overriding the USE
flag with use.local.desc sufficient and we just need to document the
current solution properly?

Please...let me know how you feel about this.

http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/gleps/glep-0054.html

Thanks,


What do people think of this?

a) Keep use.desc as it is:  a list of common flags and a short general 
description of their meaning.


b) Keep use.local.desc as it is: a list of per-package flags that are specific 
to one to a few ebuilds (i think 5 is the number though i think 10 is more 
appropriate, but that's not relevant to this discussion).  Again, each has a 
short description.


c) Allow flags from use.desc to also exist in use.local.desc.  In the case that 
a flag for a package exists in both, the use.local.desc description overrides 
the use.desc one.  This allows a more specific per-package description of global 
flags.


d) Allow long descriptions in a package's metadata.xml, as some have begun to do 
already, for cases where more info is needed.  For example I'd like to explain 
exactly what the bindist flag on freetype does and what legal implications 
disabling it can have.


The reason I suggest we do it this way is it's very close to what we're already 
doing now.  The only thing we'd need to do is decide it's okay to do (c) and 
adapt our various utils to use the use.local.desc description when both exist. 
I actually planned on proposing something like this about a year ago but never 
got around to it.  But at the time I did some poking and found that several of 
our utils already did the right thing while the others needed minor adjustments 
(I think I had a one-line patch for equery).  We also needn't worry about 
breaking 3rd party tools.  The worst that would happen is they'd display the 
use.desc description, which is what they do now.


On the other hand, if there are any far-reaching changes we need made to the USE 
flag system - any features we wish we had or misfeatures we wish we didn't - now 
would be a good time to address them.



--
fonts,by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,  for a fact or just for effect
wxwindows @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

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



[gentoo-dev] Re: USE flag documentation

2008-01-02 Thread Duncan
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on  Tue, 01
Jan 2008 06:09:28 +0100:

 Most of the time when I see complaints about the description of USE
 flags (I'm fully aware of those) the issue isn't the format, just that
 noone else has come up with a better description.

There are, I believe, two complaints, but one you don't see often as many 
don't think it's currently possible with a global USE flag (and possible 
but seldom done with local flags).

The first complaint is poor descriptions in general.  foo - Adds foo 
support just doesn't cut it.  (See USE=glw, for instance.  USE=gif's 
Adds GIF image support is at least somewhat better, saying GIF is an 
image format, at least.  I haven't a clue what libGlw does, except that 
it says requires mesa, which I know is 3D, so I suppose it's related to 
that, but what if someone doesn't know what mesa is?)  This seems to be 
the one you are addressing.

The second complaint, a frustration I often find myself experiencing, is 
that particularly with global flags, it's difficult to see exactly what 
they do in a particular package without actually seeing what the ebuild 
does.  Does it add the dependency and link against it?  Does it install 
example code and/or documentation for it?  Does it install bindings for 
it?  Is it build (static) against the included version vs using the 
system copy?  Does it not change what's supported at all, only the 
library/codec implementation used to handle it (the case with mp3/lame/
whatever sometimes)?  Etc.

It'd sure be nice to be able to run an euse -i flag and get the details 
of what flag actually does for various packages, or euse -i flag package, 
and get the info for just that package.  It'd be /real/ nice if emerge 
had a -vv or -vvv mode, that spit out what all the use flags actually did 
for those packages, at the detail level of the questions above.  If 
whatever proposal makes that easier, I say go for it. =8^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master.  Richard Stallman

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list