FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-05-2008, 07:42 PM
Doug Goldstein
 
Default USE flag descriptions in metadata

All,

Here's a GLEP for the addition of USE flag descriptions to package
metadata. It does not address any future ideas that others may have had
or suggested. It merely gives developers the necessary "tools" to
document their USE flag usage it better detail on a per package basis.


An clearly motivation explanation that I didn't add, which I'm going to
add once I send this is the fact that as per the QA Project,
use.local.desc can not contain a USE flag that already appears globally
in use.desc. This would allow a description for that USE flag to be
contained in the metadata.


http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0056.html

I encourage any and all _technical_ feedback.

Thanks.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 06-05-2008, 08:33 PM
Marius Mauch
 
Default USE flag descriptions in metadata

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:42:24 -0400
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:

> All,
>
> Here's a GLEP for the addition of USE flag descriptions to package
> metadata. It does not address any future ideas that others may have
> had or suggested. It merely gives developers the necessary "tools" to
> document their USE flag usage it better detail on a per package basis.
>
> An clearly motivation explanation that I didn't add, which I'm going
> to add once I send this is the fact that as per the QA Project,
> use.local.desc can not contain a USE flag that already appears
> globally in use.desc. This would allow a description for that USE
> flag to be contained in the metadata.
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0056.html
>
> I encourage any and all _technical_ feedback.

Doesn't include any statement about compability with existing tools or
how it's related to use.local.desc (replacement, extension, ...)

Marius
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 06-05-2008, 09:01 PM
Doug Goldstein
 
Default USE flag descriptions in metadata

Marius Mauch wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:42:24 -0400
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:



All,

Here's a GLEP for the addition of USE flag descriptions to package
metadata. It does not address any future ideas that others may have
had or suggested. It merely gives developers the necessary "tools" to
document their USE flag usage it better detail on a per package basis.


An clearly motivation explanation that I didn't add, which I'm going
to add once I send this is the fact that as per the QA Project,
use.local.desc can not contain a USE flag that already appears

globally in use.desc. This would allow a description for that USE
flag to be contained in the metadata.

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0056.html

I encourage any and all _technical_ feedback.



Doesn't include any statement about compability with existing tools or
how it's related to use.local.desc (replacement, extension, ...)

Marius

It purposefully does not. XML is an extensible language that allows for
this type of expandability. Current tools should be able to validate
that adding these tags are valid if they appear in the DTD. However, if
those tools do not handle those tags they should not do anything with
them, hence the nature of XML.


The replacement of use.local.desc would necessitate a change to any and
all tools which use that file and require them to support the new XML
data. This of course introduces a chicken/egg issue. I have mentioned to
infra the possibility of having a pre-rsync process that condensed all
metadata.xml's into a use.local.desc that would be part of rsync data
but not part of CVS. This could be written as a CVS hook to see when a
metadata.xml was touched and run the utility appropriately.


But again, this is outside the scope of this GLEP, whose purpose merely
is to provide a way to document this.

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 06-05-2008, 09:53 PM
Marius Mauch
 
Default USE flag descriptions in metadata

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:01:00 -0400
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:42:24 -0400
> > Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> All,
> >>
> >> Here's a GLEP for the addition of USE flag descriptions to package
> >> metadata. It does not address any future ideas that others may have
> >> had or suggested. It merely gives developers the necessary "tools"
> >> to document their USE flag usage it better detail on a per package
> >> basis.
> >>
> >> An clearly motivation explanation that I didn't add, which I'm
> >> going to add once I send this is the fact that as per the QA
> >> Project, use.local.desc can not contain a USE flag that already
> >> appears globally in use.desc. This would allow a description for
> >> that USE flag to be contained in the metadata.
> >>
> >> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0056.html
> >>
> >> I encourage any and all _technical_ feedback.
> >>
> >
> > Doesn't include any statement about compability with existing tools
> > or how it's related to use.local.desc (replacement, extension, ...)
> >
> > Marius
> >
> It purposefully does not. XML is an extensible language that allows
> for this type of expandability. Current tools should be able to
> validate that adding these tags are valid if they appear in the DTD.
> However, if those tools do not handle those tags they should not do
> anything with them, hence the nature of XML.

I was more talking about tools that process use flag information
(equery, euse, ufed, ...).

> The replacement of use.local.desc would necessitate a change to any
> and all tools which use that file and require them to support the new
> XML data. This of course introduces a chicken/egg issue. I have
> mentioned to infra the possibility of having a pre-rsync process that
> condensed all metadata.xml's into a use.local.desc that would be part
> of rsync data but not part of CVS. This could be written as a CVS
> hook to see when a metadata.xml was touched and run the utility
> appropriately.
>
> But again, this is outside the scope of this GLEP, whose purpose
> merely is to provide a way to document this.

I disagree. At the very least state that the GLEP does not replace
use.local.desc if that's the intention, and which location is
supposed to take priority if a flag is defined in both. Otherwise
different tools will use different rules and generating inconsistent
results. And there are many tools affected by this ...

Marius

PS: I like the general idea, but as long as compability issues are
completely ignored by the GLEP I have to oppose it.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 06-05-2008, 10:40 PM
Doug Goldstein
 
Default USE flag descriptions in metadata

Marius Mauch wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:01:00 -0400
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:



Marius Mauch wrote:


On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:42:24 -0400
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:




All,

Here's a GLEP for the addition of USE flag descriptions to package
metadata. It does not address any future ideas that others may have

had or suggested. It merely gives developers the necessary "tools"
to document their USE flag usage it better detail on a per package
basis.

An clearly motivation explanation that I didn't add, which I'm
going to add once I send this is the fact that as per the QA
Project, use.local.desc can not contain a USE flag that already
appears globally in use.desc. This would allow a description for
that USE flag to be contained in the metadata.

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0056.html

I encourage any and all _technical_ feedback.



Doesn't include any statement about compability with existing tools
or how it's related to use.local.desc (replacement, extension, ...)

Marius



It purposefully does not. XML is an extensible language that allows
for this type of expandability. Current tools should be able to
validate that adding these tags are valid if they appear in the DTD.
However, if those tools do not handle those tags they should not do
anything with them, hence the nature of XML.



I was more talking about tools that process use flag information
(equery, euse, ufed, ...).



The replacement of use.local.desc would necessitate a change to any
and all tools which use that file and require them to support the new
XML data. This of course introduces a chicken/egg issue. I have
mentioned to infra the possibility of having a pre-rsync process that
condensed all metadata.xml's into a use.local.desc that would be part
of rsync data but not part of CVS. This could be written as a CVS
hook to see when a metadata.xml was touched and run the utility
appropriately.

But again, this is outside the scope of this GLEP, whose purpose
merely is to provide a way to document this.



I disagree. At the very least state that the GLEP does not replace
use.local.desc if that's the intention, and which location is
supposed to take priority if a flag is defined in both. Otherwise
different tools will use different rules and generating inconsistent
results. And there are many tools affected by this ...

Marius

PS: I like the general idea, but as long as compability issues are
completely ignored by the GLEP I have to oppose it.

Considering Portage and repoman currently require any and all USE flags
appearing in IUSE to be present in use.local.desc, there should be no
ambiguity to the compatibility issues currently. I 100% expect different
tools to provide different results. Writing a GLEP stating that one file
is preferred over another will not cause those tools to magically
choose. The tools and their maintainers should be pushed by the
community to use the best data available. If use.local.desc provides
this data, then so be it. The initial goal of this GLEP is really to
allow per-package descriptions of global USE flags[*]. There by
different tools will provide more detailed information about USE flags
and some will simply not. That will result in a community push to make
these tools use newer data available and as such will result in one day
use.local.desc becoming deprecated. But, we're speaking about something
which may never happen. Or may happen in another GLEP in the future.

[*] As decided by the Gentoo QA Team, any USE flag that appears in
use.desc CAN NOT appear in use.local.desc. There by, there is no way for
a descriptive variation of a global USE flag to officially appear in any
medium.

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 06-06-2008, 01:51 PM
Doug Goldstein
 
Default USE flag descriptions in metadata

Doug Goldstein wrote:

Marius Mauch wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:01:00 -0400
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:



Marius Mauch wrote:


On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:42:24 -0400
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:



All,

Here's a GLEP for the addition of USE flag descriptions to package
metadata. It does not address any future ideas that others may have

had or suggested. It merely gives developers the necessary "tools"
to document their USE flag usage it better detail on a per package
basis.

An clearly motivation explanation that I didn't add, which I'm
going to add once I send this is the fact that as per the QA
Project, use.local.desc can not contain a USE flag that already
appears globally in use.desc. This would allow a description for
that USE flag to be contained in the metadata.

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0056.html

I encourage any and all _technical_ feedback.


Doesn't include any statement about compability with existing tools
or how it's related to use.local.desc (replacement, extension, ...)

Marius


It purposefully does not. XML is an extensible language that allows
for this type of expandability. Current tools should be able to
validate that adding these tags are valid if they appear in the DTD.
However, if those tools do not handle those tags they should not do
anything with them, hence the nature of XML.



I was more talking about tools that process use flag information
(equery, euse, ufed, ...).



The replacement of use.local.desc would necessitate a change to any
and all tools which use that file and require them to support the new
XML data. This of course introduces a chicken/egg issue. I have
mentioned to infra the possibility of having a pre-rsync process that
condensed all metadata.xml's into a use.local.desc that would be part
of rsync data but not part of CVS. This could be written as a CVS
hook to see when a metadata.xml was touched and run the utility
appropriately.

But again, this is outside the scope of this GLEP, whose purpose
merely is to provide a way to document this.



I disagree. At the very least state that the GLEP does not replace
use.local.desc if that's the intention, and which location is
supposed to take priority if a flag is defined in both. Otherwise
different tools will use different rules and generating inconsistent
results. And there are many tools affected by this ...

Marius

PS: I like the general idea, but as long as compability issues are
completely ignored by the GLEP I have to oppose it.

Considering Portage and repoman currently require any and all USE
flags appearing in IUSE to be present in use.local.desc, there should
be no ambiguity to the compatibility issues currently. I 100% expect
different tools to provide different results. Writing a GLEP stating
that one file is preferred over another will not cause those tools to
magically choose. The tools and their maintainers should be pushed by
the community to use the best data available. If use.local.desc
provides this data, then so be it. The initial goal of this GLEP is
really to allow per-package descriptions of global USE flags[*].
There by different tools will provide more detailed information about
USE flags and some will simply not. That will result in a community
push to make these tools use newer data available and as such will
result in one day use.local.desc becoming deprecated. But, we're
speaking about something which may never happen. Or may happen in
another GLEP in the future.

[*] As decided by the Gentoo QA Team, any USE flag that appears in
use.desc CAN NOT appear in use.local.desc. There by, there is no way
for a descriptive variation of a global USE flag to officially appear
in any medium.
Replying to myself is evil, but I'm going to try to clarify a bit more.
GLEPs are more like RFCs. We can't force any application to do anything
with a GLEP. We technically can't even force Portage to do anything in a
GLEP since there's nothing that states Portage is the official package
manager of Gentoo Linux and must follow all GLEPs. I personally feel any
GLEP that tries to force any action to be taken by application
developers and does not include a reference implementation or patches
for said application(s), is fundamentally flawed (this is something I
look to address in the future.


For example, take RFC 3514 [1], it might be great on paper if you could
have everyone follow it. However, go ahead and try to actually force
every single developer out there to implement it. Similar situation. A
GLEP being approved isn't going to make truedfx suddenly hop up and
update ufed to support these new descriptions because a) what's forcing
him? it's open source. There's no corporate overlord threatening to fire
him if he doesn't. b) it's pretty worthless initially since there won't
be any content for it to consume.


[1] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3514.html

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 06-06-2008, 03:11 PM
Marius Mauch
 
Default USE flag descriptions in metadata

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:51:22 -0400
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Replying to myself is evil, but I'm going to try to clarify a bit
> more. GLEPs are more like RFCs. We can't force any application to do
> anything with a GLEP. We technically can't even force Portage to do
> anything in a GLEP since there's nothing that states Portage is the
> official package manager of Gentoo Linux and must follow all GLEPs. I
> personally feel any GLEP that tries to force any action to be taken
> by application developers and does not include a reference
> implementation or patches for said application(s), is fundamentally
> flawed (this is something I look to address in the future.

It's not about "forcing" anyone to do something but giving people enough
information on how to implement it _if they choose to do so_. With the
current GLEP they'd have to make arbitrary decisions if e.g. a flag is
defined in both use.local.desc and metadata.xml, or some people might
think that it replaces use.local.desc completely.
Really, all I'm looking for is something like

"This proposal does not intend to replace the existing use.local.desc
format. If a flag is defined for a package in both use.local.desc and
metadata.xml the latter should be preferred by tools"

Do you really consider that to be such a huge deal?

Marius
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 06-06-2008, 11:40 PM
Vlastimil Babka
 
Default USE flag descriptions in metadata

Doug Goldstein wrote:
An clearly motivation explanation that I didn't add, which I'm going to
add once I send this is the fact that as per the QA Project,
use.local.desc can not contain a USE flag that already appears globally
in use.desc. This would allow a description for that USE flag to be
contained in the metadata.


What reason does the QA Project have to disallow such thing? Is it just
so that package-specific info does not concentrate in one huge file? Or
is it the danger that the meaning of package-specific flags would drift
too far from the global flag's meaning and lead to confusion?
If it's the first, then metadata.xml seems like a good place. If the
latter, then it wouldn't make much sense to approve the syntax and then
disallowing it by QA



I encourage any and all _technical_ feedback.


Technically, I think linking to blogs, especially outside of g.o domain
is not the best thing durability-wise

--
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
 
Old 06-06-2008, 11:43 PM
Vlastimil Babka
 
Default USE flag descriptions in metadata

Marius Mauch wrote:

It's not about "forcing" anyone to do something but giving people enough
information on how to implement it _if they choose to do so_. With the
current GLEP they'd have to make arbitrary decisions if e.g. a flag is
defined in both use.local.desc and metadata.xml, or some people might
think that it replaces use.local.desc completely.
Really, all I'm looking for is something like

"This proposal does not intend to replace the existing use.local.desc
format. If a flag is defined for a package in both use.local.desc and
metadata.xml the latter should be preferred by tools"


++ I suppose you want people to read the package-specific information
and not e.g. fill bug reports caused by wrong assumptions about the
flag's meaning.


--
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
 
Old 06-06-2008, 11:49 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default USE flag descriptions in metadata

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:40:36 +0200
Vlastimil Babka <caster@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > An clearly motivation explanation that I didn't add, which I'm
> > going to add once I send this is the fact that as per the QA
> > Project, use.local.desc can not contain a USE flag that already
> > appears globally in use.desc. This would allow a description for
> > that USE flag to be contained in the metadata.
>
> What reason does the QA Project have to disallow such thing? Is it
> just so that package-specific info does not concentrate in one huge
> file? Or is it the danger that the meaning of package-specific flags
> would drift too far from the global flag's meaning and lead to
> confusion? If it's the first, then metadata.xml seems like a good
> place. If the latter, then it wouldn't make much sense to approve the
> syntax and then disallowing it by QA

As I recall, the logic was that global use flags have a single, well
defined global meaning. Using use.local.desc for *refinements* wouldn't
go against that, but it's a fairly badly defined line.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:22 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org