Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Simon Stelling wrote: Paul de Vrieze wrote: I would go for the EAPI bump. Even then I think it would be smart to wait a short while for packages to use this as we ensure that the supporting portage version is stable. Err, EAPI was designed to assure that a supporting version is actually used, no need to wait then. The waiting time is for a sanity check on the portage that as the new EAPI. One doesn't want to force users to use a portage with bugs and issues just to use newer packages. Paul -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:12:40 +0100 Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | As the default USE flags are metadata about the package (not the | profile), it makes sense to store that data in the ebuild, along with | the rest of the package's metadata. No no on. Default USE flags are a property of the profile. Don't believe me? Go and have a look in an ebuild, and then in a profile. See which one specifies defaults for USE flags. I'm sorry, but Stuart's right. These flags specify what the recommended useflag usage is for a particular version of a package. The profile's version is specific to a particular tree, or even architecture. I would indeed argue that a nonempty global package specific use file in the profile is not needed. Paul -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | It's a stupid statement, not providing any further backing for your | position; please dear god spare us all the waste of time reading | your emails if that's how you're going to push for what you want... Not at all. Your argument could be rephrased like this: There are already lots of people dying in Africa, so it's ok to poison their food supply. That's a nonargument. But let me put it easier. Don't blame us when paludis made a design mistake and try to force that mistake on the rest of us. Instead fix paludis. Paul -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [rants] the IUSE=nocxx is that different than IUSE=+cxx ? the per ebuild defaults let you replace the ugly nofoo to +foo, archiving just the same. It is evaluated just only if there isn't anything before it (say make.conf and friends) So it doesn't look to me that problematic, am I missing something? lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:17:11 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's a nonargument. But let me put it easier. Don't blame us when paludis made a design mistake and try to force that mistake on the rest of us. Instead fix paludis. What design mistake? And what the hell does paludis have to do with this anyway? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Stephen Bennett wrote: And what the hell does paludis have to do with this anyway? [ ] You get the meaning of analogy. No, this has nothing to do with anal. -- Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:23:23 +0200 Sebastian Bergmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stephen Bennett wrote: And what the hell does paludis have to do with this anyway? [ ] You get the meaning of analogy. No, this has nothing to do with anal. There is no analogy to be made there. Arguing against carrying profile metadata in IUSE is trying to prevent a design decision, not trying to work around one by forcing extra work on people. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Stephen Bennett wrote: On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:23:23 +0200 Sebastian Bergmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stephen Bennett wrote: And what the hell does paludis have to do with this anyway? [ ] You get the meaning of analogy. No, this has nothing to do with anal. There is no analogy to be made there. Arguing against carrying profile metadata in IUSE is trying to prevent a design decision, not trying to work around one by forcing extra work on people. I don't think anyone is arguing *against* it (at least I'm not!); just that it is not the solution in all cases. Placing the default USE flags all in the profiles amounts to profile duplication where-ever you want to use the ebuilds - this is annoying. Placing the default USE flags all in the ebuilds (with NO profiles support) means that when I go off and make my own Gentoo; I get to modify thousands of ebuilds to set my defaults properly. Both ways suck. Hence we combine them to get a realistic result. A naked ebuild should *just work*; if upstream GCC provides fortran and libstdc++; then the ebuild should provide fortran and libstdc++ *by default* with no profiles. Most other cases are what I would call distribution tinkering. We (as the primary distributor of our own tree) muck around in our profiles setting certain flags so that stuff works on more systems and in a saner fashion. So that I DON'T need to emerge kde-meta only to find that I needed QT with opengl support. It's a USE dep; it's not as easily representable in a default IUSE format; but it's relatively easy to add opengl to QT's default use in a profile and say KDE requires qt with openGL support and most of our QT users are KDE users. There exists a qualifier there; that Users exist and provided feedback. -Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On 10/17/06, Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no analogy to be made there. Arguing against carrying profile metadata in IUSE is trying to prevent a design decision, not trying to work around one by forcing extra work on people. There seems to be very little support for your position (and Ciaran's) that a package's default USE flags are exclusively profile metadata. The only email I found from anyone else in support of your position was from Danny. My apologies to anyone else who I've missed. The broad concensus of the discussion is that a package's default USE flags (as intended by the package maintainer) belong with the package itself, with profiles being able to override these settings as needed. The different positions appear intractable. I suggest there's no real point carrying on with this discussion. Both the official Portage team, and the external Paludis maintainer, have had plenty of feedback via this thread. I suggest that both teams go forward and implement support how they see fit, and (as always) we leave it up to the external Paludis maintainer to decide whether he wants to make Paludis compatible with Gentoo's official package manager's implemented solution or not. Best regards, Stu -- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Stephen Bennett wrote: On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:43:08 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Placing the default USE flags all in the profiles amounts to profile duplication where-ever you want to use the ebuilds - this is annoying. This is exactly why we have cascading profiles, no? So that I DON'T need to emerge kde-meta only to find that I needed QT with opengl support. It's a USE dep; it's not as easily representable in a default IUSE format; but it's relatively easy to add opengl to QT's default use in a profile and say KDE requires qt with openGL support and most of our QT users are KDE users. There exists a qualifier there; that Users exist and provided feedback. So you put opengl in a profile package.use for qt. As soon as you invoke the argument that KDE needs it enabled in Qt, it becomes a repository-level issue, not an ebuild-level one. Er, yes I said that above.. but it's relatively easy to add opengl to QT's default use in a profile... Irregardless; Stuart wins ;) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 07:30, Luca Barbato wrote: the IUSE=nocxx is that different than IUSE=+cxx ? that is where we want to move to So it doesn't look to me that problematic, am I missing something? the issue is that Ciaran wants all of the stuff to be in the profile rather than in the ebuild itself -mike pgpjtjTbdbpNB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Friday 13 October 2006 18:40, Zac Medico wrote: Wow, this thread is pretty huge. Might wanna like.. take it to a council meeting or something in a medium (such as IRC) where message should be going back at forth at this sort of interval. Either that or just duke it out in a parking lot, tickets $50 ringside, $30 midrow, $20 upper level. -- Chris White Gentoo Developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:16:06 -0700 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did I miss the part that says package.use allows arbitrary tokens rather than just CP? If so, my bad. Every implementation of it that I've seen allows an arbitrary dep atom. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the profile level, I've added support for package.use which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar with. In a discussion about bug 151586 we realized that there might be an issue with profile package.use. With the current stacking order package.use in a profile will always override all make.defaults, independent of the profiles they come from. In particular a parent package.use can override a childs make.defaults USE. This doesn't exactly match the existing profile semantics. Changing this however isn't trivial and would mean that in the USE stack both files are treated as a single unit. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marius Mauch wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the profile level, I've added support for package.use which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar with. In a discussion about bug 151586 we realized that there might be an issue with profile package.use. With the current stacking order package.use in a profile will always override all make.defaults, independent of the profiles they come from. In particular a parent package.use can override a childs make.defaults USE. This doesn't exactly match the existing profile semantics. Changing this however isn't trivial and would mean that in the USE stack both files are treated as a single unit. That's a good point. I'll work on a patch to collapse make.defaults USE and package.use together at each level of the stacking process (and do the same for use.mask/package.use.mask). That means that USE_ORDER will be env:pkg:conf:defaults:pkginternal, where the previous pkgprofile part has been merged with defaults. Zac -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFM+Xm/ejvha5XGaMRAllYAKDhyzqRwp5oSIO087+3cKYF4+6THgCdFZHk 6hEO7OJZYRutlb3luqPxyao= =v/PQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Saturday 14 October 2006 21:46, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: As opposed to having to keep multiple ebuilds in sync, which is even harder because they're not all in the same location. what are you talking about ? the point of having per-package defaults is so that you can enable a flag by default in one package only to take the oss example, we would want to remove that from our profiles and only enable it by default on say libsdl -mike pgpj0MOumzBfJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:14:34 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I don't think there is The One Correct Way here; it's purely an | arbitrary choice. I'd prefer to let people do it either way. And I'd prefer that it all be kept in one place, to avoid making what's already fairly confusing even harder... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:09:58 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | what are you talking about ? the point of having per-package | defaults is so that you can enable a flag by default in one package | only package != ebuild. | to take the oss example, we would want to remove that from our | profiles and only enable it by default on say libsdl That's removing it from one place and adding it to five others. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Sunday 15 October 2006 14:16, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:09:58 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | what are you talking about ? the point of having per-package | defaults is so that you can enable a flag by default in one package | only package != ebuild. | to take the oss example, we would want to remove that from our | profiles and only enable it by default on say libsdl That's removing it from one place and adding it to five others. ... and you can have different default USE for some versions so if a feature changes between them, you can easily control it -mike pgp9bi8yQ8erY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 15:09:32 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Sunday 15 October 2006 14:16, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:09:58 -0400 Mike Frysinger | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | what are you talking about ? the point of having per-package | | defaults is so that you can enable a flag by default in one | | package only | | package != ebuild. | | | to take the oss example, we would want to remove that from our | | profiles and only enable it by default on say libsdl | | That's removing it from one place and adding it to five others. | | ... and you can have different default USE for some versions so if a | feature changes between them, you can easily control it Which is very much not the normal case, so it's not worth requiring five times as much duplication just for the occasional time when it is necessary. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 08:22:01PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 15:09:32 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Sunday 15 October 2006 14:16, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:09:58 -0400 Mike Frysinger | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | what are you talking about ? the point of having per-package | | defaults is so that you can enable a flag by default in one | | package only | | package != ebuild. | | | to take the oss example, we would want to remove that from our | | profiles and only enable it by default on say libsdl | | That's removing it from one place and adding it to five others. | | ... and you can have different default USE for some versions so if a | feature changes between them, you can easily control it Which is very much not the normal case, so it's not worth requiring five times as much duplication just for the occasional time when it is necessary. Ebuilds already have a boatload of duplication; bit of a red herring however complaining about a single char in IUSE to indicate a flag defaults to on (seriously, you're bitching about 5 chars of wasted space for a single flag forced on, switch to a better arguement). ~harring pgpxI9NfZFau3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:27:20 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ebuilds already have a boatload of duplication; They have no duplication related to whether a USE flag is enabled. | bit of a red herring | however complaining about a single char in IUSE to indicate a flag | defaults to on (seriously, you're bitching about 5 chars of wasted | space for a single flag forced on, switch to a better arguement). It's not a question of space. It's a question of maintainability. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 08:37:48PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:27:20 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ebuilds already have a boatload of duplication; They have no duplication related to whether a USE flag is enabled. ...Because until up until now, THEY DIDN'T SPECIFY IF A USE FLAG WAS ENABLED. It's a stupid statement, not providing any further backing for your position; please dear god spare us all the waste of time reading your emails if that's how you're going to push for what you want... | bit of a red herring | however complaining about a single char in IUSE to indicate a flag | defaults to on (seriously, you're bitching about 5 chars of wasted | space for a single flag forced on, switch to a better arguement). It's not a question of space. It's a question of maintainability. Your proposal is using profiles. Ok, so for any overlay that is going to use default IUSE, they now have to bundle their own profile (and maintain said profile). Further, since portage (the official manager) supports *one*, and only *one* profile, the user has to specify their own high level profile pulling in their desired profile, and intermixing all base profiles from their overlays. This is regardless of whether that default use flag is applicable to *all* repos, like it or not, it's forced on via your proposal. Goes without saying, they have to maintain that themselves, further, due to the forced intermixing of disparate profiles, gentoo devs now get the fun of having to dig through nonstandard profile combinations (errant bashrcs can do *lots* of fun things). Further fodder against this daft arguement is just pointing out the (thus ignored) and what happens when the user goes to copy an ebuild into another repo?. Or... extend IUSE to support a prefixed '+' in front of a use flag. Simple enough, nothing complex, no forced hoops to jump through to make it work. Either I'm hitting the pipe pretty damn hard, or default IUSE is the simplest solution here, with nill maintainance cost. What are we all missing here? Nearest I can figure, you're pressing hard for the view that all USE flags must come from profiles (by extension user configuration); provide some reasoning behind that implicit assumption please, rather then stating it as fact. ~harring pgpPCd755tb48.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:05:09 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 08:37:48PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:27:20 -0700 Brian Harring | [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | Ebuilds already have a boatload of duplication; | | They have no duplication related to whether a USE flag is enabled. | | ...Because until up until now, THEY DIDN'T SPECIFY IF A USE FLAG WAS | ENABLED. Which is exactly my point. | It's a stupid statement, not providing any further backing for your | position; please dear god spare us all the waste of time reading | your emails if that's how you're going to push for what you want... Not at all. Your argument could be rephrased like this: There are already lots of people dying in Africa, so it's ok to poison their food supply. | It's not a question of space. It's a question of maintainability. | | Your proposal is using profiles. Ok, so for any overlay that is | going to use default IUSE, they now have to bundle their own profile | (and maintain said profile). | | Further, since portage (the official manager) supports *one*, and | only *one* profile, the user has to specify their own high level | profile pulling in their desired profile, and intermixing all base | profiles from their overlays. This is regardless of whether that | default use flag is applicable to *all* repos, like it or not, it's | forced on via your proposal. Which is why I suggested changing Portage's behaviour earlier in the thread. Like it or not, overlays are already getting complex enough that they'd benefit from profile behaviour. | Nearest I can figure, you're pressing hard for the view that all USE | flags must come from profiles (by extension user configuration); Yup. Default USE flags are profile dependent data. The sensible default value varies depending upon conditions like arch and system role. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:05:09 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 08:37:48PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:27:20 -0700 Brian Harring | [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | Ebuilds already have a boatload of duplication; | | They have no duplication related to whether a USE flag is enabled. | | ...Because until up until now, THEY DIDN'T SPECIFY IF A USE FLAG WAS | ENABLED. Which is exactly my point. Eh??? Which point? You didn't tell us any, except for your circular ranting. | It's a stupid statement, not providing any further backing for your | position; please dear god spare us all the waste of time reading | your emails if that's how you're going to push for what you want... Not at all. Your argument could be rephrased like this: There are already lots of people dying in Africa, so it's ok to poison their food supply. Oh noes, not more pink elephants... | It's not a question of space. It's a question of maintainability. | | Your proposal is using profiles. Ok, so for any overlay that is | going to use default IUSE, they now have to bundle their own profile | (and maintain said profile). | | Further, since portage (the official manager) supports *one*, and | only *one* profile, the user has to specify their own high level | profile pulling in their desired profile, and intermixing all base | profiles from their overlays. This is regardless of whether that | default use flag is applicable to *all* repos, like it or not, it's | forced on via your proposal. Which is why I suggested changing Portage's behaviour earlier in the thread. Like it or not, overlays are already getting complex enough that they'd benefit from profile behaviour. Because maintaining your own profiles and stacking them and dealing with all the related mess is a _lot_ easier that sticking a + before foo in IUSE. Right. ;) | Nearest I can figure, you're pressing hard for the view that all USE | flags must come from profiles (by extension user configuration); Yup. Default USE flags are profile dependent data. The sensible default value varies depending upon conditions like arch and system role. You are really circular, fix your record player :P Defaults that makes sense in profiles can and will stay there and noone's damn forcing you to change it. We are talking about per-package (or per-ebuild even) stuff here, which is a feature that has been missing for ages. Just search for all the bugzilla bugs where it would make sense but it can't be done without bloating the profiles' make.defaults with ebuild-specific mess, inventing redundant use flags so that other ebuilds don't pull in unwanted dependencies, check all the no* flags that exist just because of this missing feature. Sigh... -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=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] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:35:10 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Which is why I suggested changing Portage's behaviour earlier in the | thread. Like it or not, overlays are already getting complex enough | that they'd benefit from profile behaviour. | | Because maintaining your own profiles and stacking them and dealing | with all the related mess is a _lot_ easier that sticking a + before | foo in IUSE. Right. ;) You mean, than sticking a + before foo in IUSE in every ebuild, and ensuring that changes are kept in sync and consistent with the behaviour of every single existing profile. | | Nearest I can figure, you're pressing hard for the view that all | | USE flags must come from profiles (by extension user | | configuration); | | Yup. Default USE flags are profile dependent data. The sensible | default value varies depending upon conditions like arch and system | role. | | You are really circular, fix your record player :P That's not even remotely circular. They're profile dependent, so they belong in the profile. There is no circular. | Defaults that makes sense in profiles can and will stay there and | noone's damn forcing you to change it. We are talking about | per-package (or per-ebuild even) stuff here, which is a feature that | has been missing for ages. Which is solved quite happily in the profiles by package.use, and without the problems associated with the IUSE solution. | Sigh... You know Jakub, you'd be a lot less stressed if you sat down and thought about what was being discussed before posting. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Yup. Default USE flags are profile dependent data. The sensible default value varies depending upon conditions like arch and system role. I disagree; they are not all profile dependent. The point here being you can argue all your like; it's like me liking pink rather than blue. One cannot really prove one way or another which is best; there really isn't a best here. At best you can qualify that certain situations favor per-profile default USE and certain situations favor per-ebuild default USE. I don't think the quantity of situations disqualifies having support for both types of defaults however. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:01:58 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | Yup. Default USE flags are profile dependent data. The sensible | default value varies depending upon conditions like arch and system | role. | | | I disagree; they are not all profile dependent. The point here being | you can argue all your like; it's like me liking pink rather than | blue. One cannot really prove one way or another which is best; | there really isn't a best here. There is a solution that provides all of the functionality of the other, along with some functionality that the other does not provide, without the drawbacks. That is a better solution. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:35:10 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Which is why I suggested changing Portage's behaviour earlier in the | thread. Like it or not, overlays are already getting complex enough | that they'd benefit from profile behaviour. | | Because maintaining your own profiles and stacking them and dealing | with all the related mess is a _lot_ easier that sticking a + before | foo in IUSE. Right. ;) You mean, than sticking a + before foo in IUSE in every ebuild, and ensuring that changes are kept in sync and consistent with the behaviour of every single existing profile. Erm, what are you talking about here? What is there to be kept in sync with profiles? | Yup. Default USE flags are profile dependent data. The sensible | default value varies depending upon conditions like arch and system | role. | | You are really circular, fix your record player :P That's not even remotely circular. They're profile dependent, so they belong in the profile. There is no circular. You didn't say yet _WHY_ they are profile dependent. Repeating your statement ad nauseam won't fix your record player really. | Defaults that makes sense in profiles can and will stay there and | noone's damn forcing you to change it. We are talking about | per-package (or per-ebuild even) stuff here, which is a feature that | has been missing for ages. Which is solved quite happily in the profiles by package.use, and without the problems associated with the IUSE solution. Which problems? And how is duplicating the info across various profiles easier than sticking the darned +foo into IUSE and having it sticky regardless of to whichever overlay/repo I copy the ebuild? You know Jakub, you'd be a lot less stressed if you sat down and thought about what was being discussed before posting. Looks to me like you are actually the only one missing the whole point of this feature. I guess I'd be a lot less stressed if you brought some arguments to the discussion instead of repeating yourself over and over again without backing up your claims in any way. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=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] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:19:03 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | You mean, than sticking a + before foo in IUSE in every ebuild, and | ensuring that changes are kept in sync and consistent with the | behaviour of every single existing profile. | | Erm, what are you talking about here? What is there to be kept in sync | with profiles? Behaviour. Believe it or not, not all profiles target the same kind of system. | | | Yup. Default USE flags are profile dependent data. The sensible | | default value varies depending upon conditions like arch and | | system role. | | | | You are really circular, fix your record player :P | | That's not even remotely circular. They're profile dependent, so | they belong in the profile. There is no circular. | | You didn't say yet _WHY_ they are profile dependent. Repeating your | statement ad nauseam won't fix your record player really. I was kinda hoping you'd know that already, but clearly not... Go and have a look at the profiles as they are, and observe how lots and lots of USE flags have their default values specified somewhere other than in the base profile. Then ask yourself why that is. | | Defaults that makes sense in profiles can and will stay there and | | noone's damn forcing you to change it. We are talking about | | per-package (or per-ebuild even) stuff here, which is a feature | | that has been missing for ages. | | Which is solved quite happily in the profiles by package.use, and | without the problems associated with the IUSE solution. | | Which problems? And how is duplicating the info across various | profiles easier than sticking the darned +foo into IUSE and having it | sticky regardless of to whichever overlay/repo I copy the ebuild? The problems I've already explained, that I'm not going to repeat just because you can't or won't read them. And we're not talking various profiles, we're talking the base profile plus whatever subprofile overrides are required. And go and read the rest of the thread for the overlay thing. | You know Jakub, you'd be a lot less stressed if you sat down and | thought about what was being discussed before posting. | | Looks to me like you are actually the only one missing the whole point | of this feature. I guess I'd be a lot less stressed if you brought | some arguments to the discussion instead of repeating yourself over | and over again without backing up your claims in any way. Did you go and read the rest of the thread yet? Maybe you should. Then you might see the arguments. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:19:03 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | You mean, than sticking a + before foo in IUSE in every ebuild, and | ensuring that changes are kept in sync and consistent with the | behaviour of every single existing profile. | | Erm, what are you talking about here? What is there to be kept in sync | with profiles? Behaviour. Believe it or not, not all profiles target the same kind of system. Behaviour of what? Maybe, go re-read dostrow's mail a couple more times and you'll finally grok the intended use of this feature; if not, well too bad for you, sorry. This discussion is not productive, I'm finished here. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=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] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:44:09 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): | On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:19:03 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] | wrote: | | You mean, than sticking a + before foo in IUSE in every ebuild, | | and ensuring that changes are kept in sync and consistent with | | the behaviour of every single existing profile. | | | | Erm, what are you talking about here? What is there to be kept in | | sync with profiles? | | Behaviour. Believe it or not, not all profiles target the same kind | of system. | | Behaviour of what? The profiles change over time. Currently, when the profiles change, the only thing that has to be checked for conflicting USE behaviour is subprofiles. With IUSE defaults, the person making the change will also have to do a sanity check over the entire tree. Is that spelt out enough for you, or do you need it dumbed down even more? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:15:19 -0700 Daniel Ostrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 22:01 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:35:10 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] | wrote: | | Which is why I suggested changing Portage's behaviour earlier | | in the thread. Like it or not, overlays are already getting | | complex enough that they'd benefit from profile behaviour. | | | | Because maintaining your own profiles and stacking them and | | dealing with all the related mess is a _lot_ easier that sticking | | a + before foo in IUSE. Right. ;) | | You mean, than sticking a + before foo in IUSE in every ebuild, and | ensuring that changes are kept in sync and consistent with the | behaviour of every single existing profile. | | No one here is talking about doing that... | | What we are talking about is an instance where foo is *not* enabled by | default in profiles but there is *one* package where it is upstreams | intention that foo be enabled by default but they still provide the | capability to turn foo support off. This package (and all of the | ebuilds that are in the tree for it) would have a +foo in IUSE...thus | even though foo is generally off unless the user specifies -foo in | either make.conf or package.use foo is turned on for this package and | this package alone. Yes, that's what's being discussed. Moving something that's currently in one nice central location out into multiple ebuilds. | No one is talking about replacing tree wide defaults with this | functionality...this is for package maintainers to specify default | behavior for their package and their package alone independent of the | profiles intent. Yes, and it's going to create wildly inconsistent behaviour all over the place when people start using it. | Doing it your way in order to make sure that a package was built the | way a maintainer intended (by default) they would have to make an | entry in package.use in every single tier one profile (at the moment | only base)... Yes, over all one profile. Last time I checked, one was smaller than the number of ebuilds for most packages. | this is also something that they cannot enforce over | external overlays...so it looses any value at all. Read earlier in the thread for my remarks on that. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): The profiles change over time. Currently, when the profiles change, the only thing that has to be checked for conflicting USE behaviour is subprofiles. With IUSE defaults, the person making the change will also have to do a sanity check over the entire tree. Uh, what kind of conflicting behaviour and what sanity checks are you talking about here? Did you _really_ miss the whole point of this feature? -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=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] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:25:42 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): | The profiles change over time. Currently, when the profiles change, | the only thing that has to be checked for conflicting USE behaviour | is subprofiles. With IUSE defaults, the person making the change | will also have to do a sanity check over the entire tree. | | Uh, what kind of conflicting behaviour and what sanity checks are you | talking about here? Did you _really_ miss the whole point of this | feature? Before changing default values for USE flags, arch and release people have to make sure that that change won't do something nasty like introduce circular or built_with_use deps into the default system resolution. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:25:42 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): | The profiles change over time. Currently, when the profiles change, | the only thing that has to be checked for conflicting USE behaviour | is subprofiles. With IUSE defaults, the person making the change | will also have to do a sanity check over the entire tree. | | Uh, what kind of conflicting behaviour and what sanity checks are you | talking about here? Did you _really_ miss the whole point of this | feature? Before changing default values for USE flags, arch and release people have to make sure that that change won't do something nasty like introduce circular or built_with_use deps into the default system resolution. I don't see how the location of the default USE affects these things. If I change default USE in my ebuild; I have to do sanity checks. If I change default USE in the profile; I have to do sanity checks *in that profile*. So if your argument is that it's cheaper to check just N profiles ( the profiles affected by my change ) versus all available profiles; then I agree with you on that point. However I still believe there exist examples where default USE in an ebuild is a better solution. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Am Montag, 16. Oktober 2006 00:59 schrieb Alec Warner: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | | Uh, what kind of conflicting behaviour and what sanity checks are | you talking about here? Did you _really_ miss the whole point of | this feature? Before changing default values for USE flags, arch and release people have to make sure that that change won't do something nasty like introduce circular or built_with_use deps into the default system resolution. I don't see how the location of the default USE affects these things. If I change default USE in my ebuild; I have to do sanity checks. If I change default USE in the profile; I have to do sanity checks *in that profile*. So if your argument is that it's cheaper to check just N profiles ( the profiles affected by my change ) versus all available profiles; then I agree with you on that point. However I still believe there exist examples where default USE in an ebuild is a better solution. From my point of view as an architecture dev and releng member: Having all default USE-flags at one spot (per profile) _is_ easier to maintain. Ciaran has a point here: Default useflags have annoyed me in the past while building releases, and having to change several packages (and redigesting them) for the snapshot is way more: * complicated * time-consuming * error-prone than changing them in the profiles directory. Chris: I'd like to have your thoughts on this. Danny -- Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Sunday 15 October 2006 19:54, Danny van Dyk wrote: From my point of view as an architecture dev and releng member: Having all default USE-flags at one spot (per profile) _is_ easier to maintain. these arent arch or profile specific issues ... these are maintainers themselves being able to declare on a specific version basis if they want the default for a certain flag to be enabled Ciaran has a point here: Default useflags have annoyed me in the past while building releases, and having to change several packages (and redigesting them) for the snapshot is way more if you want to control the default for the profile you can still do it ... nothing has changed per-package IUSE defaults comes after everything else ... so if you want to change the default in the profile, nothing is stopping you from doing exactly that -mike pgp746W4anAs3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Danny van Dyk wrote: From my point of view as an architecture dev and releng member: Having all default USE-flags at one spot (per profile) _is_ easier to maintain. Ciaran has a point here: Default useflags have annoyed me in the past while building releases, and having to change several packages (and redigesting them) for the snapshot is way more: * complicated * time-consuming * error-prone than changing them in the profiles directory. On the other hand, package.use.mask could be used to mask out those flags in the profile (if necessary). Zac -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFMtWR/ejvha5XGaMRAjEpAJ9YMOohK8xAodAXDhyPCdYuFazjzQCdEKwi liGwA5NaKlOlVVZSOYXjcJ4= =Z5Wy -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:01:58 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | Yup. Default USE flags are profile dependent data. The sensible | default value varies depending upon conditions like arch and system | role. | | | I disagree; they are not all profile dependent. The point here being | you can argue all your like; it's like me liking pink rather than | blue. One cannot really prove one way or another which is best; | there really isn't a best here. There is a solution that provides all of the functionality of the other, along with some functionality that the other does not provide, without the drawbacks. That is a better solution. You're right, profiles don't provide the ability to change defaults per-ebuild. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:59:27 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I don't see how the location of the default USE affects these things. Searching across an entire tree, plus in things that can be defined in eclasses, is a pain in the ass. | However I still believe there exist examples where default USE in an | ebuild is a better solution. Such as? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:43:19 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | per-package IUSE defaults comes after everything else ... so if you | want to change the default in the profile, nothing is stopping you | from doing exactly that Which means that arch people are screwed if they need to override it. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:43:19 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | per-package IUSE defaults comes after everything else ... so if you | want to change the default in the profile, nothing is stopping you | from doing exactly that Which means that arch people are screwed if they need to override it. How? They have four ways to override IUSE defaults: 1) -flag or -* in make.defaults USE variable 2) -flag or -* in package.use 3) flag in use.mask 4) flag in package.use.mask Am I missing something? Zac -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFMu2P/ejvha5XGaMRArasAKCg+3buNeyZR2BF08DR956O04bqPwCg0HGQ J6qPtQcWlIKVyGwsRLDJHwY= =lo8H -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:59:27 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I don't see how the location of the default USE affects these things. Searching across an entire tree, plus in things that can be defined in eclasses, is a pain in the ass. | However I still believe there exist examples where default USE in an | ebuild is a better solution. Such as? A circumstance where not having the flag on causes unexpected behavior. Say compiling gcc without C++ support. The majority of use cases out there, C++ support is a requirement. Thus you enable it in the ebuild; because the chance of someone moving it into another overlay/repo and then getting a screwed system is rather high. The ebuild itself should be sane with no profile surrounding it. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Sunday 15 October 2006 22:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:43:19 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | per-package IUSE defaults comes after everything else ... so if you | want to change the default in the profile, nothing is stopping you | from doing exactly that Which means that arch people are screwed if they need to override it. such a drama queen they arent screwed at all ... profiles still allow you to override the defaults ... IUSE comes after *everything else* generally, if some USE flag is problematic, then the fact that it's on or off by default doesnt really matter. the arch should be dealing with it prorpely rather than just hoping people arent turning it on. -mike pgpGgOltVy6Y1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:56:00 -0700 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | There is a solution that provides all of the functionality of the | other, along with some functionality that the other does not | provide, without the drawbacks. That is a better solution. | | You're right, profiles don't provide the ability to change defaults | per-ebuild. Had you bothered to read any of the rest of this thread, you'd know that they do, via package.use. Did I miss the part that says package.use allows arbitrary tokens rather than just CP? If so, my bad. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On 13/10/06, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 13 October 2006 09:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use | which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar | with. The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be used for | default flags that should be enabled regardless of profile. Isn't that why we have base profiles? It's kinda icky moving that metadata partially into ebuilds IMO... no, we purposefully want this to be tied to an exact ebuild ... nothing in a profile can get us there -mike | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use | which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar | with. man portage says that package.use is one depend atom per line. -- Richard Brown -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Saturday 14 October 2006 04:00, Richard Brown wrote: man portage says that package.use is one depend atom per line. that addresses the we can do it but not the we should do it maintaining a large list of defaults in a profile is ugly ... instead of having all the information self contained in the ebuild, you need to keep multiple files in sync which can easily lead to bit rot (which we've seen plenty of with package.mask and use.*desc files) -mike pgpfWrTcAC6dt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 04:49:39 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Saturday 14 October 2006 04:00, Richard Brown wrote: | man portage says that package.use is one depend atom per line. | | that addresses the we can do it but not the we should do it | | maintaining a large list of defaults in a profile is ugly ... instead | of having all the information self contained in the ebuild, you need | to keep multiple files in sync which can easily lead to bit rot | (which we've seen plenty of with package.mask and use.*desc files) As opposed to having to keep multiple ebuilds in sync, which is even harder because they're not all in the same location. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:12:40 +0100 Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | As the default USE flags are metadata about the package (not the | profile), it makes sense to store that data in the ebuild, along with | the rest of the package's metadata. No no on. Default USE flags are a property of the profile. Don't believe me? Go and have a look in an ebuild, and then in a profile. See which one specifies defaults for USE flags. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Hi Zac, On 10/13/06, Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've written a patch for portage [1] that implements per-package default USE flags at both the ebuild and profile levels (discussed a couple of months ago [2] on this list). At the ebuild level, default flags are specified in IUSE with a + prefix as described in bug #61732 [3]. At the profile level, I've added support for package.use which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar with. The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be used for default flags that should be enabled regardless of profile. Then, package.use will be used for flags that might vary depending on the profile. For example, a server profile might enable server flags and a desktop profile might enable client flags. :) This is excellent news, both for the PHP Herd (per-package USE flags) and the Seeds project (per-profile USE flags). Should we include support in portage for one or both types of per-package default USE flags? If support is included for IUSE defaults now, we won't be able to use them in the tree until after a waiting period or an EAPI bump [4]. I can make good use of both, and would really love to see both supported. Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Zac Medico wrote: Should we include support in portage for one or both types of per-package default USE flags? If support is included for IUSE defaults now, we won't be able to use them in the tree until after a waiting period or an EAPI bump [4]. Great, this will be very useful, so +1 on implementing both now from me. -- Best regards, Luca Longinotti aka CHTEKK LongiTEKK Networks Admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Dev: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SysCP Dev: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TILUG Supporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Zac Medico wrote: Hi everyone, I've written a patch for portage [1] that implements per-package default USE flags at both the ebuild and profile levels (discussed a couple of months ago [2] on this list). At the ebuild level, default flags are specified in IUSE with a + prefix as described in bug #61732 [3]. At the profile level, I've added support for package.use which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar with. The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be used for default flags that should be enabled regardless of profile. Then, package.use will be used for flags that might vary depending on the profile. For example, a server profile might enable server flags and a desktop profile might enable client flags. Aside from being package specific, the per-package default USE flags behave much like USE flags that are currently listed in profiles' make.defaults. The flags are stacked incrementally as usual. The ebuild level defaults are at the bottom of the stack, followed by make.defaults, and finally package.use. The user can override these new flags in the same was as make.defaults USE flags could always be overridden (make.conf and package.use). Should we include support in portage for one or both types of per-package default USE flags? If support is included for IUSE defaults now, we won't be able to use them in the tree until after a waiting period or an EAPI bump [4]. I would go for the EAPI bump. Even then I think it would be smart to wait a short while for packages to use this as we ensure that the supporting portage version is stable. Paul -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On 10/13/06, Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would go for the EAPI bump. Even then I think it would be smart to wait a short while for packages to use this as we ensure that the supporting portage version is stable. +1 from me on that. Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Paul de Vrieze wrote: I would go for the EAPI bump. Even then I think it would be smart to wait a short while for packages to use this as we ensure that the supporting portage version is stable. Err, EAPI was designed to assure that a supporting version is actually used, no need to wait then. -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:53:27 +0200 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul de Vrieze wrote: I would go for the EAPI bump. Even then I think it would be smart to wait a short while for packages to use this as we ensure that the supporting portage version is stable. Err, EAPI was designed to assure that a supporting version is actually used, no need to wait then. Although obviously nothing using such an EAPI version could go stable until a supporting version of portage goes stable on all relevant arches (I think of EAPI as an implicit BDEPEND on the package manager version). -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use | which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar | with. The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be used for | default flags that should be enabled regardless of profile. Isn't that why we have base profiles? It's kinda icky moving that metadata partially into ebuilds IMO... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use | which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar | with. The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be used for | default flags that should be enabled regardless of profile. Isn't that why we have base profiles? It's kinda icky moving that metadata partially into ebuilds IMO... Are you saying you like a bunch of php-only USE flags (I'm not picking on php...it was just the first that came to mind) being in the default USE in the profile? Do you also like the nofoo flags? AFAIK, previous discussions said that the per-ebuild default USE would go in the USE stacking order above make.conf and below package.use, so that USE=-* wouldn't remove the default USE flags for the particular ebuild but the user could still disable it via package.use if they *really* wanted to. -- Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project Today's lesson in political correctness: Go asphyxiate on a phallus -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use | which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar | with. The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be used for | default flags that should be enabled regardless of profile. Isn't that why we have base profiles? It's kinda icky moving that metadata partially into ebuilds IMO... Eh no... Enough of profiles bloat with flags specifically needed for one package... -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=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] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:24:52 -0500 Andrew Gaffney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] | wrote: | | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use | | which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is | | familiar with. The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be | | used for default flags that should be enabled regardless of | | profile. | | Isn't that why we have base profiles? It's kinda icky moving that | metadata partially into ebuilds IMO... | | Are you saying you like a bunch of php-only USE flags (I'm not | picking on php...it was just the first that came to mind) being in | the default USE in the profile? Yes. It's better than them being hidden away in individual ebuilds, especially when they stop being PHP specific. | Do you also like the nofoo flags? No. You know that. | AFAIK, previous discussions said | that the per-ebuild default USE would go in the USE stacking order | above make.conf and below package.use, so that USE=-* wouldn't | remove the default USE flags for the particular ebuild but the user | could still disable it via package.use if they *really* wanted to. Which is nasty. Anyone using -* should really get -*. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Andrew Gaffney wrote: Are you saying you like a bunch of php-only USE flags (I'm not picking on php...it was just the first that came to mind) being in the default USE in the profile? Do you also like the nofoo flags? AFAIK, previous discussions said that the per-ebuild default USE would go in the USE stacking order above make.conf and below package.use, so that USE=-* wouldn't remove the default USE flags for the particular ebuild but the user could still disable it via package.use if they *really* wanted to. Actually, USE=-* would still remove them because make.conf is above the defaults in the stacking order (if i understood correctly). Plus, don't forget that we will get package.use for the profiles with this patch, so it fixes all the problems in-ebuild defaults would solve too. I agree that base/ would probably be the better place for this. It avoids another layer that seems just redundant. -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use | which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar | with. The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be used for | default flags that should be enabled regardless of profile. Isn't that why we have base profiles? It's kinda icky moving that metadata partially into ebuilds IMO... I think for me; it's a matter of duplication. I can take this ebuild and move it to a different repo; the sane defaults for a particular package move with it. I do agree that it's a fine line between what belongs in the ebuild versus profile default USE. I have a feeling that if this is not well hashed out we will get people setting flags improperly. Improperly would perhaps be setting QT on at the ebuild level. Properly may be setting USE=fortran for gcc; perhaps to match the behavior of upstream at the ebuild level. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:32:33 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] | wrote: | | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use | | which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is | | familiar with. The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be | | used for default flags that should be enabled regardless of | | profile. | | Isn't that why we have base profiles? It's kinda icky moving that | metadata partially into ebuilds IMO... | | Eh no... Enough of profiles bloat with flags specifically needed for | one package... Hardly bloat... And far less so that having the same data across zillions of different ebuilds. Or rather, confusingly slightly different data, which is how it'll end up... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:32:33 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] | wrote: | | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use | | which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is | | familiar with. The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be | | used for default flags that should be enabled regardless of | | profile. | | Isn't that why we have base profiles? It's kinda icky moving that | metadata partially into ebuilds IMO... | | Eh no... Enough of profiles bloat with flags specifically needed for | one package... Hardly bloat... And far less so that having the same data across zillions of different ebuilds. Or rather, confusingly slightly different data, which is how it'll end up... Apparently missed the whole point, so... never mind. How are those PHP-only flags in make.defaults shared across zillions of different ebuilds, e.g. ? Well, they are not. Never mind. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=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] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:29:57 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Hardly bloat... And far less so that having the same data across | zillions of different ebuilds. Or rather, confusingly slightly | different data, which is how it'll end up... | | Apparently missed the whole point, so... never mind. How are those | PHP-only flags in make.defaults shared across zillions of different | ebuilds, e.g. ? | | Well, they are not. Never mind. Remember that process whereby a local becomes a global? Look at the big picture here. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Zac Medico wrote: The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be used for default flags that should be enabled regardless of profile. Then, package.use will be used for flags that might vary depending on the profile. I don't understand the reasoning of this. Could you expand on it? What would make sense to me is using package.use for _local_ USE flags, and make.defaults for _global_ USE flags. But using make.defaults only in base/ and package.use everywhere else just seems weird, not to mention the duplication it will cause. Am I misunderstanding something? Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Am I misunderstanding something? On re-reading this for the third or fourth time, I finally get it. IUSE defaults from the ebuild (+foo, etc), not IUSE defaults at the profile level. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:29:57 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Hardly bloat... And far less so that having the same data across | zillions of different ebuilds. Or rather, confusingly slightly | different data, which is how it'll end up... | | Apparently missed the whole point, so... never mind. How are those | PHP-only flags in make.defaults shared across zillions of different | ebuilds, e.g. ? | | Well, they are not. Never mind. Remember that process whereby a local becomes a global? Look at the big picture here. Yeah, the big picture here is that make.defaults has been bloated by use flags needed/relevant for one or two ebuilds only for quite some time and users and devs alike have been ranting about the same for quite some time... A bunch of examples: libg++ cli ppds nptlonly reflection session spl dlloader isdnlog bitmap-fonts truetype-fonts type1-fonts ... Those plain don't make sense in make.defaults. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=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] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On 10/13/06, Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, the big picture here is that make.defaults has been bloated by use flags needed/relevant for one or two ebuilds only for quite some time and users and devs alike have been ranting about the same for quite some time... I believe Ciaran's saying that package.use in a base profile would do the same job as supporting default USE flags in IUSE. It's worth thinking about ... after all, package.use will just be ignored by older Portage implementations, whereas +flag in IUSE causes more breakage. The downside of it (and it's a big one) is that we'd be putting metadata about a package into a profile, instead of into the ebuild where arguably it belongs - and where the rest of the metadata already is. That'll make life harder for folks on o.g.o. On balance, I prefer +flag in IUSE, even w/ the b/c breakage it'll cause users who don't keep Portage up to date. Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:00:07 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Those plain don't make sense in make.defaults. So you'd rather stick them in lots of ebuilds rather than one profile file? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:00:07 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those plain don't make sense in make.defaults. Sure they do. They should be enabled by default, so put them in the place where the default USE flags are set. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On 10/13/06, Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure they do. They should be enabled by default, so put them in the place where the default USE flags are set. They should be enabled by default _only_ for the package that needs them enabled. Support for package.use in profiles gives us that, allowing us to override the package maintainer's defaults included in each ebuild's IUSE. Stuff in make.default gets enabled across the whole system. That's not what always what we want or need. Best regards, Stu -- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:09:32 +0100 Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | The downside of it (and it's a big one) is that we'd be putting | metadata about a package into a profile, instead of into the ebuild | where arguably it belongs - and where the rest of the metadata already | is. Except that a USE flag's state isn't metadata. It's something that comes from the profile. | That'll make life harder for folks on o.g.o. Perhaps you should look into getting Portage to allow separate profiles per repository. That'd get around the overlay issues... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
Jakub Moc wrote: Yeah, the big picture here is that make.defaults has been bloated by use flags needed/relevant for one or two ebuilds only for quite some time and users and devs alike have been ranting about the same for quite some time... Bloated doesn't even apply here. Why does anyone care? It has absolutely zero effect on anything else. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700, Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aside from being package specific, the per-package default USE flags behave much like USE flags that are currently listed in profiles' make.defaults. The flags are stacked incrementally as usual. The ebuild level defaults are at the bottom of the stack, followed by make.defaults, and finally package.use. The user can override these new flags in the same was as make.defaults USE flags could always be overridden (make.conf and package.use). I don't really understand this USE_ORDER. I don't see why you have put some per-package settings at a lower level than some of the global ones (pkginternal below defaults, and pkgprofile below conf). I mean, when a dev take time to state something special about a flag for one of his package, i guess he has a good reason to do so, and one can't really expect that a global decision taken with the general case in mind (be it at profile or at user level) will still be sensitive for this particular case. The most obvious problem is that this USE_ORDER won't work for killing noXXX flags. For instance: - sys-devel/gcc cxx in profiles/base/package.use (or IUSE=+cxx in it's ebuild) - USE=-* but some sane global defaults in /etc/make.conf If, instead, package-specific defaults were at a higher level than all global configs, this would behave as expected (ie., the C++ compiler would be built). An other misbehavior of this USE_ORDER is that it completly hides the particular cases, meaning users won't even notice that they may have had a particular decision to take for one package. For instance: - in pkg/foo, there is an attempt of moving toward some XML config files, but support is not yet has good as the one for old .ini style files, and it is discouraged by upstream for now. - still, the ebuild writer would like to IUSE=xml, just to give XML-zealot an opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot if they really want. Well... he can't, because this would also affect all the sane users who happen to have USE=xml in their /etc/make.conf. Again, if pkgprofile was stronger than conf, then this dev could have introduced the xml flag and added pkg/foo -xml in the base profile. And the USE=xml user would either have merged the package with the right defaults without wondering, or would have seen at --pretend time that there was something unusual here (ie, the xml flag being off), and would have had a chance to take whatever decision he want. In short, i would rather see a default USE_ORDER like this one: env:pkg:pkgprofile:pkginternal:conf:defaults -- TGL. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On 10/13/06, Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The examples he gave were of flags that should be enabled by default for every package that uses them. Even if that's just one or two packages, there's no reason not to put them in global defaults. That's one way. I know some folks prefer it, and there's nothing wrong with doing so. Personally, I prefer to keep the global USE down to a minimum, and tweak each package's USE flags via /etc/portage/package.use. I find it helps ensure that what gets installed onto a box is much closer to what you intended. My personal experience is that it makes boxes a little easier to support as a result, because less installed packages == less to go wrong. Best regards, Stu -- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:08:36 -0700, Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a flag is supposed to be resisant to -*, then use.force/package.use.force are the existing ways to accomplish that. Arrh, i had completly forgotten that you had added *use.force files support already. Well, sorry for the noise then. I still think i will change USE_ORDER here tho, because i assume that when my make.conf will disagree with some package-speific defaults, it will more often be the package-specific defaults that will be right (and thus i should less often have to edit my package.use). But without the kill nofoo flags argument, i agree it's much more a matter of personal preference, and i can understand that you and Marius prefer keeping the current -flag in make.conf semantics. -- TGL. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Friday 13 October 2006 09:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use | which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar | with. The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be used for | default flags that should be enabled regardless of profile. Isn't that why we have base profiles? It's kinda icky moving that metadata partially into ebuilds IMO... no, we purposefully want this to be tied to an exact ebuild ... nothing in a profile can get us there -mike pgpVjdy6Otq4I.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: per-package default USE flags
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi everyone, I've written a patch for portage [1] that implements per-package default USE flags at both the ebuild and profile levels (discussed a couple of months ago [2] on this list). At the ebuild level, default flags are specified in IUSE with a + prefix as described in bug #61732 [3]. At the profile level, I've added support for package.use which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar with. The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be used for default flags that should be enabled regardless of profile. Then, package.use will be used for flags that might vary depending on the profile. For example, a server profile might enable server flags and a desktop profile might enable client flags. Aside from being package specific, the per-package default USE flags behave much like USE flags that are currently listed in profiles' make.defaults. The flags are stacked incrementally as usual. The ebuild level defaults are at the bottom of the stack, followed by make.defaults, and finally package.use. The user can override these new flags in the same was as make.defaults USE flags could always be overridden (make.conf and package.use). Should we include support in portage for one or both types of per-package default USE flags? If support is included for IUSE defaults now, we won't be able to use them in the tree until after a waiting period or an EAPI bump [4]. I think adding both is fine, assuming that profile package.use overrides the IUSE defaults. Though not sure if pkginternal should come before or after the defaults in USE_ORDER, both make some sense to me (but that's a detail that's trivial to change, so don't get distracted by it too much). Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
