Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] per-package use.mask (bug 96368)
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:46:34PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: Brian Harring wrote: On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:38:39PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: I haven't seen a specification for use dependencies yet, so I'm not quite sure how they'd work. cat/pkg-ver[use1,use2,-use3,use4] cat/pkg-ver[use] etc. Okay, so the only difference from package.use format is that whitespace is replaced by square brackets and commas? Yep- bracket/comma usage allows the atom and use reqs to bundled as one token. Is the existing format of of use.mask bad? What about package.use? The implementation that I've proposed is a combination of these two formats that everyone is already familiar with. No... the issue is that this _is_ basically a crappy form of package.mask supporting use-deps; why use an alt syntax for it then? Well, no part of portage currently supports use-deps. Therefore, use-deps are an alternate syntax in themselves. The implementation that I've proposed uses the same type of syntax that portage already uses in package.use files. use-dep syntax is usable globally however- package.use is strictly config file, if/when portage gains use dep, killing off the package.use format for the globally usable use-dep will need to occur. With that in mind, why not just do it from the get go? Just use what was originally intended, and at some point down the line when either portage grows use deps, or it gets replaced, folks can just copy the package.use.mask into package.mask, and wipe the file. ~harring Such a migration (if it ever takes place) could just as well be performed by a simple conversion tool. Or if just using use-dep, a cat :P ~harring pgpEbCNxfV1Es.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] per-package use.mask (bug 96368)
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 02:54:36AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: Brian Harring wrote: On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:46:34PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: Brian Harring wrote: On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:38:39PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: I haven't seen a specification for use dependencies yet, so I'm not quite sure how they'd work. cat/pkg-ver[use1,use2,-use3,use4] cat/pkg-ver[use] etc. Okay, so the only difference from package.use format is that whitespace is replaced by square brackets and commas? Yep- bracket/comma usage allows the atom and use reqs to bundled as one token. Isn't there more of a difference than just in the parsing? Not for what I'm suggesting- I'm suggesting just using use dep syntax for package.use.mask. You've already got the code for the masking in your patch now, all you have to do is just change the parsing a bit. It seems to me that we'd also have to implement use-dep matching in order to correctly support use-dep syntax. If you were actually supporting use deps, yes. You're not however- package.use.mask is just a kludge in the (hopefully short) interim. I'm suggesting that you think a bit forward- use use-dep syntax for it now rather then having to change it down the line. ~harring pgpHaDIntI5xO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] has_version and built_with_use ignore package.provided
Paul Bredbury wrote: Hi, I was directed to this list after my Portage patches were rejected. I'm hoping that someone *other* than the rejecter will look at the bug, and: See it as a valid bug, reopen it, and take SpanKY's keyboard away so he can't reject it again. The bug is: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=139842 Executive Summary: built_with_use returns the opposite answer to what it should, when the package referred to is not installed. I provided patches to stop that broken behaviour. People decided to talk about some mystical third state which doesn't exist in Boolean logic, and ended up convinced that black is white. And then proceeded to get themselves run over at the next Zebra crossing. As I said on irc, you need to chill out; being a dick here won't help you anymore than it did there. -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] has_version and built_with_use ignore package.provided
There is a third option. Reporting an error. But it is not an error. The answer is known to be False, through the application of logic. -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] has_version and built_with_use ignore package.provided
Paul Bredbury wrote: But it is not an error. The answer is known to be False, through the application of logic. No. Let's get really sophisticated and do the 'application of logic' step. There is a function built_with_use(). That function reports whether something was built with or without a specific USE flag. The sentence above includes the fragment 'was built with or without'. So it was built. Uh, oh, but it wasn't built!!?!? - Error Really. Go find a mathematician and discuss this matter with him. Tell him what you told me, and he will slap you with a large frying pan. -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 Developer -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] has_version and built_with_use ignore package.provided
Paul Bredbury wrote: There is a third option. Reporting an error. But it is not an error. The answer is known to be False, through the application of logic. There are really 3 states here Either you have enough information to prove something true; OR you have enough information to prove something false; OR you don't have enough information to prove anything. In this case there is no USE information available for PROVIDE'd packages, which was your original complaint. Just because you can't prove that built_with_use provided pkg foo == true doesn't mean you have enough information to prove that built_with_use provided pkg foo == false Becauase there IS a third state, it's call the we don't have enough information to prove anything state, which is what we have here. The package may very well work fine, the package may not, there is no way to tell. Thats our whole point. Hell, SpanKY already filed the real bug, which is requesting support for provided packages so that you can provide a package with USE flags set, therefore solving this whole lack of information issue. Because you see, that is what the real issue is, a lack of information. -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] has_version and built_with_use ignore package.provided
and you have failed thus far. The only other things I could do are start muttering about good programming practices, and how to write correct and reliable programs. Oh well, I did try, but I'll drop the subject now. Remember: Every time that an ebuild dies for this reason, and the user wonders why stupid Portage couldn't just go ahead with the obvious answer, it annoys the user. -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] use.force and package.use.force (bug #142853)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi everyone,
I've written a patch [1] that implements support for use.force and
package.use.force as originally described by Sven Wegener [2] over a year ago.
Basically, this feature is the exact opposite of use.mask and package.use.mask.
It forces USE flags to be enabled. The only way to disable these forced flags
is to mask them via use.mask/package.use.mask or to unforce them in the
profile stack. Users can unforce them via
/etc/portage/profile/{use.force,package.use.force} in the usual -flag way.
One of the many benefits that this will provide is the ability to invert the
no* USE flags so that any flags can potentially have positive meaning if we
choose. Some type of functionality like this is certainly needed. Shall we add
support for this?
Zac
[1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/branches/2.1/patches/use.force.patch
[2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/28727
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFE1s4u/ejvha5XGaMRAhimAKDIL5nV9InPExsxDHimYt0Q4Oa4BQCZAfAA
P4Xre/afHVq/7R4ekEOlfzo=
=InC1
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] per-package use.mask (bug 96368)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brian Harring wrote: On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 02:54:36AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: seems to me that we'd also have to implement use-dep matching in order to correctly support use-dep syntax. If you were actually supporting use deps, yes. You're not however- package.use.mask is just a kludge in the (hopefully short) interim. It doesn't make any sense to me to have use-deps syntax without support for use-deps matching. Sorry. Zac -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFE1tIG/ejvha5XGaMRAmjCAKDU7guES8UhHKpcG43+ArEpLxu3fQCbBXn0 YlmPIQgPUO09mcdKqtkMJBY= =jXcS -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
