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 12-30-2007, 11:54 PM
Mark Loeser
 
Default USE flag documentation

This is a very very rough draft/question about how we should move
forward with USE flag documentation and specification. The entire idea
of a single USE flag having different meanings will need to be revisted
later. I just want to get an idea of how we can document these
different meanings. Please read my ideas here:

http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/gleps/glep-0054.html

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.

Thanks,

--
Mark Loeser
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web - http://www.halcy0n.com
 
Old 12-31-2007, 02:02 AM
"Alec Warner"
 
Default USE flag documentation

On 12/30/07, Mark Loeser <halcy0n@gentoo.org> wrote:
> This is a very very rough draft/question about how we should move
> forward with USE flag documentation and specification. The entire idea
> of a single USE flag having different meanings will need to be revisted
> later. I just want to get an idea of how we can document these
> different meanings. Please read my ideas here:
>
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/gleps/glep-0054.html
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
>

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?

How does the glep intend to handle USE_EXPAND?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 12-31-2007, 10:26 AM
"Denis Dupeyron"
 
Default USE flag documentation

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.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 12-31-2007, 01:30 PM
Marius Mauch
 
Default USE flag documentation

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:54:04 -0500
Mark Loeser <halcy0n@gentoo.org> 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.
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
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 12-31-2007, 03:14 PM
Doug Klima
 
Default USE flag documentation

Marius Mauch wrote:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:54:04 -0500
Mark Loeser <halcy0n@gentoo.org> 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 <cardoe@gentoo.org>
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 12-31-2007, 04:55 PM
"Denis Dupeyron"
 
Default USE flag documentation

On Dec 31, 2007 3:30 PM, Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org> 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.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 12-31-2007, 07:10 PM
Mark Loeser
 
Default USE flag documentation

Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> 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
 
Old 12-31-2007, 07:12 PM
Mark Loeser
 
Default USE flag documentation

Doug Klima <cardoe@gentoo.org> 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
 
Old 01-01-2008, 04:09 AM
Marius Mauch
 
Default USE flag documentation

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:55:10 +0100
"Denis Dupeyron" <calchan@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Dec 31, 2007 3:30 PM, Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org> 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
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 01-02-2008, 10:21 AM
Duncan
 
Default USE flag documentation

Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org> posted
20080101060928.2a500186.genone@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on Tue, 01
Jan 2008 06:09:28 +0100:

> 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.

There are, I believe, two complaints, but one you don't see often as many
don't think it's currently possible with a global USE flag (and possible
but seldom done with local flags).

The first complaint is poor descriptions in general. "foo - Adds foo
support" just doesn't cut it. (See USE=glw, for instance. USE=gif's
"Adds GIF image support" is at least somewhat better, saying GIF is an
image format, at least. I haven't a clue what libGlw does, except that
it says requires mesa, which I know is 3D, so I suppose it's related to
that, but what if someone doesn't know what mesa is?) This seems to be
the one you are addressing.

The second complaint, a frustration I often find myself experiencing, is
that particularly with global flags, it's difficult to see exactly what
they do in a particular package without actually seeing what the ebuild
does. Does it add the dependency and link against it? Does it install
example code and/or documentation for it? Does it install bindings for
it? Is it build (static) against the included version vs using the
system copy? Does it not change what's supported at all, only the
library/codec implementation used to handle it (the case with mp3/lame/
whatever sometimes)? Etc.

It'd sure be nice to be able to run an euse -i flag and get the details
of what flag actually does for various packages, or euse -i flag package,
and get the info for just that package. It'd be /real/ nice if emerge
had a -vv or -vvv mode, that spit out what all the use flags actually did
for those packages, at the detail level of the questions above. If
whatever proposal makes that easier, I say go for it. =8^)

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:29 AM.

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