Re: [gentoo-dev] iuse defaults example
On Sunday 15 July 2007, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > 2007-07-15 21:22:07 Mike Frysinger napisał(a): > > On Sunday 15 July 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: > > > the day you switch from IUSE="nocxx" to IUSE="+cxx", will you > > > remember that, as a consequence, you have to fix hardened/2.6/minimal > > > profile? > > > > there is no "nocxx" reference anywhere in the profiles/ tree > > grep -r "USE.*-\*" /usr/portage/profiles profile deserves what it gets then -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] iuse defaults example
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 2007-07-15 21:22:07 Mike Frysinger napisał(a): > On Sunday 15 July 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: > > the day you switch from IUSE="nocxx" to IUSE="+cxx", will you > > remember that, as a consequence, you have to fix hardened/2.6/minimal > > profile? > > there is no "nocxx" reference anywhere in the profiles/ tree > -mike grep -r "USE.*-\*" /usr/portage/profiles - -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGmoKZ/axNJ4Xo/ZERAv5dAJ9f+8hMkuRtrJtlYfy+KgdxYc3jFACeM3fn UZ2vEVoPm150Pe0vD+pKtnI= =GhHz -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] iuse defaults example
On Sunday 15 July 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: > My point is just that it doesn't work that well with the USE_ORDER that > have been chosen. Even keeping the "-* in make.conf" case appart > (obviously my opinion on how it should behave was not widely shared, i > can live with that), there is still a problem with -* in make.defaults > files: there are ways to make the USE=nocxx -> USE=cxx transition nice and i plan on going that route > the day you switch from IUSE="nocxx" to IUSE="+cxx", will you > remember that, as a consequence, you have to fix hardened/2.6/minimal > profile? there is no "nocxx" reference anywhere in the profiles/ tree -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] iuse defaults example
On 2007/07/15, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:53:08 +0200 > Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > My point is just that it doesn't work that well with the USE_ORDER > > that have been chosen. Even keeping the "-* in make.conf" case > > appart (obviously my opinion on how it should behave was not widely > > shared, i can live with that), there is still a problem with -* in > > make.defaults files: the day you switch from IUSE="nocxx" to > > IUSE="+cxx", will you remember that, as a consequence, you have to > > fix hardened/2.6/minimal profile? > > Well, it's just like any other renaming of USE flags in that regard. But it shows that the "we shouldn't care about per-ebuild defaults in profiles" argument doesn't really stand, which is unfortunate because Mike is probaly right that it would have been a good thing. > And while I can see why people would want IUSE defaults to have a > higher priority than USE in make.defaults and/or make.conf, I suspect > the vast majority of users would get completely lost in finding out > where a flag was enabled/disabled (the current system is already > confusing to a lot of people until they get a detailed explanation). I don't think it's something which would be that hard to explain to users. All it takes is having "emerge -pv" to clearly shows that something unusual is happening when a flag value is overidden by an IUSE-default, for instance with an exclamation mark suffix, and to document that in the man page, with the rest of the --verbose output: ! suffix = profile's global default value for this flag is overidden by an ebuild-specific setting. You can still enable / disable it in your own configuration (make.conf or package.use) if you really want to. Maybe i am over-estimating the average user, but to me it doesn't sound that complicated or obscure. -- TGL. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] iuse defaults example
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:53:08 +0200 Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2007/07/10, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > for some flags yes ... for others, i dislike that idea for the exact > > same reason for the other profile-based suggestions: these defaults > > should live in the ebuild, not the profile > > I agree that putting per-package defaults in ebuilds is far more > elegant than putting them in profiles. > > My point is just that it doesn't work that well with the USE_ORDER > that have been chosen. Even keeping the "-* in make.conf" case appart > (obviously my opinion on how it should behave was not widely shared, i > can live with that), there is still a problem with -* in make.defaults > files: the day you switch from IUSE="nocxx" to IUSE="+cxx", will you > remember that, as a consequence, you have to fix hardened/2.6/minimal > profile? Well, it's just like any other renaming of USE flags in that regard. > And also, in bug #61732 there is this comment from Zac about "-foo" > not being supported because pkginternal is at the bottom of the stack. > Imho, that's missing a great opportunity to make users' life a bit > easier... Take the "gtk" flag, which is on by default in usual desktop > profiles, but as the drawback to trigger GTK+-1.2 installation just > for a few CLI programs which comes with an optional obsolete GUI: > wouldn't it be nice if said packages could state IUSE="-gtk", so that > the default behavior would be to install only GTK+-2.x GUIs? I'm > pretty sure it would save a tenth of /etc/portage/package.use entries > for many users. IIRC that has been added a little while ago, but with the current default USE_ORDER it's more or less useless. And while I can see why people would want IUSE defaults to have a higher priority than USE in make.defaults and/or make.conf, I suspect the vast majority of users would get completely lost in finding out where a flag was enabled/disabled (the current system is already confusing to a lot of people until they get a detailed explanation). Marius -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] iuse defaults example
On 2007/07/10, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > for some flags yes ... for others, i dislike that idea for the exact > same reason for the other profile-based suggestions: these defaults > should live in the ebuild, not the profile I agree that putting per-package defaults in ebuilds is far more elegant than putting them in profiles. My point is just that it doesn't work that well with the USE_ORDER that have been chosen. Even keeping the "-* in make.conf" case appart (obviously my opinion on how it should behave was not widely shared, i can live with that), there is still a problem with -* in make.defaults files: the day you switch from IUSE="nocxx" to IUSE="+cxx", will you remember that, as a consequence, you have to fix hardened/2.6/minimal profile? And also, in bug #61732 there is this comment from Zac about "-foo" not being supported because pkginternal is at the bottom of the stack. Imho, that's missing a great opportunity to make users' life a bit easier... Take the "gtk" flag, which is on by default in usual desktop profiles, but as the drawback to trigger GTK+-1.2 installation just for a few CLI programs which comes with an optional obsolete GUI: wouldn't it be nice if said packages could state IUSE="-gtk", so that the default behavior would be to install only GTK+-2.x GUIs? I'm pretty sure it would save a tenth of /etc/portage/package.use entries for many users. -- TGL. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] iuse defaults example
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: > On 2007/07/10, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > the no* flags were introduced more to address default behavior than > > the -* case, so yes we can kick many of the no* USE flags > > To address only the default behavior, adding "foo" to the profile USE > instead of using a "nofoo" flag would have been enough. This could > have been done long ago, but my understanding has always been that it > was not considered a good enough solution because it was not -*-proof. for some flags yes ... for others, i dislike that idea for the exact same reason for the other profile-based suggestions: these defaults should live in the ebuild, not the profile -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] iuse defaults example
On 2007/07/10, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > the no* flags were introduced more to address default behavior than > the -* case, so yes we can kick many of the no* USE flags > To address only the default behavior, adding "foo" to the profile USE instead of using a "nofoo" flag would have been enough. This could have been done long ago, but my understanding has always been that it was not considered a good enough solution because it was not -*-proof. -- TGL. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] iuse defaults example
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: > On 2007/07/10, Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - we could finally kick all the no* USE flags. USE flags are use > > flags - they determine what should be used. not what should not be > > used... > > Because of the way USE flags stack in Portage (the USE_ORDER variable), > IUSE defaults are not a solution for dropping no* flags: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/43137/focus=43175 > As Zac pointed out in his reply to this post, dropping nocxx and > friends is more a job for use.force / package.use.force. the no* flags were introduced more to address default behavior than the -* case, so yes we can kick many of the no* USE flags also, use.force isnt exactly a nice solution ... more like brute force, i'm not sure any no* flag would be appropriate -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] iuse defaults example
On 2007/07/10, Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - we could finally kick all the no* USE flags. USE flags are use > flags - they determine what should be used. not what should not be > used... Because of the way USE flags stack in Portage (the USE_ORDER variable), IUSE defaults are not a solution for dropping no* flags: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/43137/focus=43175 As Zac pointed out in his reply to this post, dropping nocxx and friends is more a job for use.force / package.use.force. -- TGL. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] iuse defaults example
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Tuesday 10 July 2007, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature > > > on the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do > > > they really offer any benefit over package.use? > > > > Would iuse defaults not be appropriate when a certain use flag is > > recommended as the default for most users for a package?? > > other examples that make sense and are a pain with package.use: > - local USE flags (suddenly not so local huh) > - local USE flags and changing names > - defaults based on version (feature sucked <= 1.x and then rocked >= > 2.x) - developing new ebuilds for personal use > - developing new ebuilds for merging into tree (btw: need to update - we could finally kick all the no* USE flags. USE flags are use flags - they determine what should be used. not what should not be used... /usr/portage/profiles $ grep :no use.local.desc | wc -l 87 Thilo pgpCq4ecWgN3q.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] iuse defaults example
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Petteri Räty wrote: > Mike Frysinger kirjoitti: > > On Tuesday 10 July 2007, William Hubbs wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >>> As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on > >>> the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they > >>> really offer any benefit over package.use? > >> > >> Would iuse defaults not be appropriate when a certain use flag is > >> recommended as the default for most users for a package?? > > > > other examples that make sense and are a pain with package.use: > > - local USE flags (suddenly not so local huh) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/portage/profiles $ cat base/package.use > # This file requires >=portage-2.1.2 (see bug #61732) > > # Strongly recommended, otherwise all logos, icons, etc. appear in b/w. > app-editors/emacs xpm > app-editors/emacs-cvs xpm > > Seems local to me... you missed the point ... ideally local USE flags should not appear outside of an ebuild. if i had a solution for it, i'd propose getting rid of use.local.desc ... > > - local USE flags and changing names > > Normally you would only have to change base/package.use "normally" doesnt cut it. package.use is stackable and can appear in any profile directory which means these flags can be listed anywhere. > > - defaults based on version (feature sucked <= 1.x and then rocked >= > > 2.x) > > package.use should accept version atoms > > > - developing new ebuilds for personal use > > /etc/portage/package.use > > > - developing new ebuilds for merging into tree (btw: need to update all > > these other files in profiles/ instead of just committing the one ebuild) > > base/package.use your replies have just backed up my point: it's a [pain]ita when it should be a [pleasent]ita. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] iuse defaults example
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti: > On Tuesday 10 July 2007, William Hubbs wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on >>> the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they >>> really offer any benefit over package.use? >> Would iuse defaults not be appropriate when a certain use flag is >> recommended as the default for most users for a package?? > > other examples that make sense and are a pain with package.use: > - local USE flags (suddenly not so local huh) [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/portage/profiles $ cat base/package.use # This file requires >=portage-2.1.2 (see bug #61732) # Strongly recommended, otherwise all logos, icons, etc. appear in b/w. app-editors/emacs xpm app-editors/emacs-cvs xpm Seems local to me... > - local USE flags and changing names Normally you would only have to change base/package.use > - defaults based on version (feature sucked <= 1.x and then rocked >= 2.x) package.use should accept version atoms > - developing new ebuilds for personal use /etc/portage/package.use > - developing new ebuilds for merging into tree (btw: need to update all > these > other files in profiles/ instead of just committing the one ebuild) > -mike base/package.use Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] iuse defaults example
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on > > the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they > > really offer any benefit over package.use? > > Would iuse defaults not be appropriate when a certain use flag is > recommended as the default for most users for a package?? other examples that make sense and are a pain with package.use: - local USE flags (suddenly not so local huh) - local USE flags and changing names - defaults based on version (feature sucked <= 1.x and then rocked >= 2.x) - developing new ebuilds for personal use - developing new ebuilds for merging into tree (btw: need to update all these other files in profiles/ instead of just committing the one ebuild) -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] iuse defaults example
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on > the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they > really offer any benefit over package.use? Would iuse defaults not be appropriate when a certain use flag is recommended as the default for most users for a package?? Here is an example, I think, where an iuse default would make sense. Espeak uses the portaudio library as a way to actually play sounds. However, it can also be compiled without portaudio in order to just generate wav files. The way espeak is currently in the tree, it requires portaudio, and that is the way I figure most people would want it to compile. The issue though is that the way we have it right now it is not possible to build espeak only to create wav files. There would be 2 ways I can see to do that. 1) Use the portaudio use flag, and put it in IUSE as +portaudio so that a user can turn it off if they desire, or 2) use a use flag something like "noportaudio", which would turn it off if the user enables it, but I don't like that because of the reverse logic -- If a flag is in use, it should enable support for something, not disable it. Is there another option that I'm missing, or is something like this a good case for iuse defaults? - -- William Hubbs gentoo accessibility team lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGkxHwblQW9DDEZTgRAirDAJ4y50ul/NbtMM+nyTHH7y7Y7N3NdQCeMVEW 8rY3UNew30RgEFqW42sMwzE= =Um4Q -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
