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 (ewarns work too, but only after user tries to actually 
install the package).


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



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:
 http://dev.gentoo.org/~spb/pms.pdf - section 3.4.3

Which is fine, but PMS is just a draft.  I'm trying to see if everyone
can accept one solution, instead of throwing things into metadata.xml
and into use.local.desc without the process being documented in one place.
This is more of a proposal to see if we should even change how we do things
today.  Maybe we shouldn't, and that's what I'm trying to figure out...

  http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/gleps/glep-0054.html
 
 Please, don't use an already assigned GLEP number, it's a bit confusing. Note 
 that 55 is taken as well.

It wasn't taken when I first sent it (as far as I know).  I forgot to
change before resending.  Thanks for reminding me.

Thanks,

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


pgpnYkNt4leuz.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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 things like (from mplayer-1.0_rc2_p24929-r2.ebuild):

- Two flags are mutually exclusive:
  ( cdio implies !cdparanoia ) and (cdparanoia implies !cdio)
- A flag makes sense only if another flag is on:
  !encode implies !aac

This way portage will be able to inform/warn the user automatically
that the set of USE flags the user has chosen really means some other
thing. Something like:

[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

But this logic will have to be exposed on a .ebuild level.

 Is overriding the USE flag with use.local.desc sufficient and we just
 need to document the current solution properly?

I would say yes.

Also, what would we gain switching to xml?
The format as it is now is trivially parseable and human friendly.
While if the data is in xml format it will be less human friendly, as
well as, it will be harder to extract the information from shell
scripts.

Kindest regards,
Yuri.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list



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 default.

 But this logic will have to be exposed on a .ebuild level.


I don't think this is worth an EAPI change, or adding new variables to
ebuilds. metada.xml USE flag documentation could be extended to cover
such cases if it's really needed... but is it?

-- 
Santiago M. Mola
Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list



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 implemented with use.desc/use.local.desc. Paludis already
 does that by default.


Sorry. Paludis shows USE flags, and overrides definitions with use.local.desc.
But stuff like aac needs encode  and cdio conflicts with
cdparanoia should be something separate from USE flag documentation.
As you said, it should be handled at ebuild level.

-- 
Santiago M. Mola
Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list



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?
 

 It does, and maybe that's what we should use instead?  The reason for
 the email is to figure out if what we have now is good enough, or if we
 should switch to something else.

   

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.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



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.

 Because this behaviour is not documented anywhere

It is documented in the PMS draft and imho it makes perfect sense (at least 
with current solution):

Flags must be listed once for each package to which they apply, or if a flag 
is listed in both use.desc and use.local.desc, it must be listed once for 
each package for which its meaning differs from that described in use.desc.

-- 
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



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 definitions/global USE flag definitions/' and
's/override the USE flag definition/define the local USE flags/' I
would be even happier. Global USE flags should be defined in a central
place and never be overridden. Local flags should be defined locally
i.e. in the package subdirectory.

I'd even go as far as adding that metadata.xml could include some
clarifications/specifics/notes/warnings/whatever about a global USE
flag for a given package, but that should not be a redefinition of the
global USE flag. This would be appended by third party tools to
complement the definition of the global USE flag in the context of
that particular package.

 Problems with this approach include...
 * Easy to duplicate USE flags since we don't have a central repository for 
 them.

I'm not following you here. We'd have a central use.xml, so what do
you mean ? And it's OK for local flags to be conflicting or duplicated
since they're local.

 Lots of small files to go and parse to get the full picture of the tree.

This can be cached.

Denis.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



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 the best
solution moving forward.  I really don't want to be stuck with something
that is going to end up being a pain a year down the road.


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 separation of
local and global flags. No need to change the format of use.desc
though.


I completely agree with this. This allows each individual package to 
provide more insight to what a USE flag does.



The only benefit use.local.desc gives us is a fast way to list packages
using some flags, but that's unreliable at best. If needed such a list
could be autogenerated.

Marius



--
Doug Klima [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



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
use.desc, would help. The currently available documentation on USE
flags is clearly insufficient, maybe not for you and me and other
devs, but for the majority of our users. Note that this is not the
same as optionally adding more specific documentation on a global flag
in the metadata.xml of a package.

 and get rid of the stupid separation of local and global flags

Good idea. How do you plan to cope with the (currently) local USE flag
conflicts though ?

Denis.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



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 we should use instead?  The reason for
the email is to figure out if what we have now is good enough, or if we
should switch to something else.

 How does the glep intend to handle USE_EXPAND?

It doesn't say anything about them right now, but since you brought it
up...any ideas? :)

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


pgpUIrolgzHPs.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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 separation of
 local and global flags. No need to change the format of use.desc
 though.

 I completely agree with this. This allows each individual package to 
 provide more insight to what a USE flag does.

This sounds sane to me as well.  As I said, I'm just throwing ideas out
there to see what sticks :)

 The only benefit use.local.desc gives us is a fast way to list packages
 using some flags, but that's unreliable at best. If needed such a list
 could be autogenerated.

Completely agree.

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


pgpY4lku9pvmP.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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 a few words,
 which is what we're practically limited to with the current format of
 use.desc, would help. The currently available documentation on USE
 flags is clearly insufficient, maybe not for you and me and other
 devs, but for the majority of our users. Note that this is not the
 same as optionally adding more specific documentation on a global flag
 in the metadata.xml of a package.

Most of the time when I see complaints about the description of USE
flags (I'm fully aware of those) the issue isn't the format, just that
noone else has come up with a better description. And technically
use.desc isn't limited to a few words, unless you want to add
multiple paragraphs with formatting, just the (current) presentation
would get a bit ugly with longer descriptions. Of course the format
could be changed if needed, but that needs a more specific description
about the requirements.

  and get rid of the stupid separation of local and global flags
 
 Good idea. How do you plan to cope with the (currently) local USE flag
 conflicts though ?

You mean different descriptions? Just use a placeholder in use.desc
(like some global flags already have) and move the actual description
in metadata.xml if there isn't any common base.

Marius
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list