Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation

2008-01-14 Thread Vlastimil Babka
Santiago M. Mola wrote: But stuff like aac needs encode and cdio conflicts with cdparanoia should be something separate from USE flag documentation. Well, at least until it's handled at ebuild level, local USE flag documentation can be used to explain the implications to the user beforehand

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation

2008-01-14 Thread Mark Loeser
Piotr Jaroszyński [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Tbh, I don't have any issues with the current solution, but I may be missing something. Rationale doesn't seem to help though, afaics it is just saying that the current behaviour needs to be documented and fwiw PMS draft covers this already:

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation

2008-01-13 Thread Yuri Vasilevski
Hello, On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:24:53 -0500 Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What exactly do we need this system to do that we can't do now? The only interesting thing I can think of, is to expose some of the USE flags logic found in some ebuilds in a parseable fashion. I'm talking about

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation

2008-01-13 Thread Santiago M. Mola
On 1/14/08, Yuri Vasilevski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ebuild R ] media-video/mplayer-1.0_rc2_p24929-r2 USE=X cdio -aac#1 -cdparanoia#2 -encode ... #1 aac needs encode #2 cdio conflicts with cdparanoia This can be implemented with use.desc/use.local.desc. Paludis already does that by

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation

2008-01-13 Thread Santiago M. Mola
On 1/14/08, Santiago M. Mola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/14/08, Yuri Vasilevski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ebuild R ] media-video/mplayer-1.0_rc2_p24929-r2 USE=X cdio -aac#1 -cdparanoia#2 -encode ... #1 aac needs encode #2 cdio conflicts with cdparanoia This can be

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation

2008-01-02 Thread Doug Klima
Mark Loeser wrote: Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: One of the GLEP's primary goals is to provide a global use flag definition and over-ride it with a local definition. How does putting all flags in use.desc and over-riding local flags in use.local.desc not accomplish this?

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation

2008-01-02 Thread Piotr Jaroszyński
On Wednesday 02 of January 2008 16:58:33 Mark Loeser wrote: Doug Klima [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: You're the one forcing people to remove overriding USE flags from use.local.desc when that's something that people have been doing for ages. The current Portage tools support that method.

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation

2007-12-31 Thread Denis Dupeyron
I like the overall idea. I will comment the first proposed alternative as this is the one that makes the most sense in my opinion. Having one global use.xml where the default definitions are, and then using metadata.xml for each package to override the USE flag definition. With 's/default

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation

2007-12-31 Thread Doug Klima
Marius Mauch wrote: On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:54:04 -0500 Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me know if you like any of those ideas, or if they all suck (and if they do, you better tell me why). I'm not sure which is the best way forward, which is why I want everyone to contribute towards

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation

2007-12-31 Thread Denis Dupeyron
On Dec 31, 2007 3:30 PM, Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What benefit does use.xml have over use.desc? [...] No need to change the format of use.desc Anything that would enable us to document with more than a few words, which is what we're practically limited to with the current format of

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation

2007-12-31 Thread Mark Loeser
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: One of the GLEP's primary goals is to provide a global use flag definition and over-ride it with a local definition. How does putting all flags in use.desc and over-riding local flags in use.local.desc not accomplish this? It does, and maybe that's what

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation

2007-12-31 Thread Mark Loeser
Doug Klima [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Marius Mauch wrote: What benefit does use.xml have over use.desc? My opinion is that we should use use.desc for a complete list of use flags, including a generic description, allow a more verbose description in metadata.xml and get rid of the stupid

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag documentation

2007-12-31 Thread Marius Mauch
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:55:10 +0100 Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 31, 2007 3:30 PM, Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What benefit does use.xml have over use.desc? [...] No need to change the format of use.desc Anything that would enable us to document with more than