[gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 785 bytes --]

Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be answered (so that we can 
make it a sort of rule).
How should manpages that are generated be managed?

The common sense and looking to other ebuilds would say to always build man 
pages, but when it asks me to install something like docbook-sgml-utils, I'm 
tempted not to do that ;)

The 'doc' useflag, as I see it, is not a good way to achieve that, as it's 
already used for API documentation (unless we start create a "apidoc" useflag 
instead, that would help, too). A 'man' useflag?

So people, flame on! [let's use the mailing list for some constructive 
development things ;)]

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 875 bytes --]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<flameeyes@gentoo.org> wrote:
| Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be answered (so that
| we can make it a sort of rule).
| How should manpages that are generated be managed?
| 
| The common sense and looking to other ebuilds would say to always
| build man pages, but when it asks me to install something like
| docbook-sgml-utils, I'm tempted not to do that ;)

man pages can't be considered optional (despite what RMS says). They're
not fancy extra HTML API documentation, they're core, so they don't get
a USE flag.

Of course, if FEATURES were in the USE expand list, you could use
! features_noman ? ( ) ...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Supreme Lord Gerbil Wrangler)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 661 bytes --]

On Friday 25 November 2005 00:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> man pages can't be considered optional (despite what RMS says). They're
> not fancy extra HTML API documentation, they're core, so they don't get
> a USE flag.
I know (and I *really* don't like info for one) but I think I'd rather disable 
it and ship pre-built manpages, instead of adding docbook-sgml-utils to the 
deps.

> Of course, if FEATURES were in the USE expand list, you could use
> ! features_noman ? ( ) ...
Right... that *would* be useful...

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1266 bytes --]


25.11.2005, 0:58:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Petteno"
> <flameeyes@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be answered (so that
> | we can make it a sort of rule).
> | How should manpages that are generated be managed?
> | 
> | The common sense and looking to other ebuilds would say to always
> | build man pages, but when it asks me to install something like
> | docbook-sgml-utils, I'm tempted not to do that ;)

> man pages can't be considered optional (despite what RMS says). They're
> not fancy extra HTML API documentation, they're core, so they don't get
> a USE flag.

> Of course, if FEATURES were in the USE expand list, you could use
> ! features_noman ? ( ) ...

That is all fine and dandy, but if you search bugzilla for USE=doc related
bugs, you might think twice before adding yet another inevitably broken thing
to portage. docbook-sgml-utils & co. is extremely fragile and buggy thing.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature ;)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Alexandre Buisse]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2050 bytes --]

On 11/25/05, Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>
> 25.11.2005, 0:58:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Petteno"
> > <flameeyes@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > | Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be answered (so that
> > | we can make it a sort of rule).
> > | How should manpages that are generated be managed?
> > |
> > | The common sense and looking to other ebuilds would say to always
> > | build man pages, but when it asks me to install something like
> > | docbook-sgml-utils, I'm tempted not to do that ;)
>
> > man pages can't be considered optional (despite what RMS says). They're
> > not fancy extra HTML API documentation, they're core, so they don't get
> > a USE flag.
>
> > Of course, if FEATURES were in the USE expand list, you could use
> > ! features_noman ? ( ) ...
>
> That is all fine and dandy, but if you search bugzilla for USE=doc related
> bugs, you might think twice before adding yet another inevitably broken
> thing
> to portage. docbook-sgml-utils & co. is extremely fragile and buggy thing.


Actually, every automated text generation tool seems to be extremely fragile
and buggy, see gtkdoc for instance, which also regularly breaks USE=doc.

About manpages, I agree that they are non-optional and should be provided
all the time, which leads us straight to the solution : have the
maintainer/ebuild writer generate once the manpages (they shouldn't depend
on anything on the host machine, right ?) and provide them either directly
in the portage tree, as many are under the 20K limit, or as a tarball in
distfiles. If the developer hasn't docbok-sgml-utils and doesn't want to
pollute his system with it, he could ask text-markup, for instance, to
generate the manpages for him.


Of course, this doesn't solve the problem of manpages whose content is not
the same everywhere (but are there some of these ? Or may be all of them are
and I completely missed the point of this thread ?)

Regards,
Alexandre

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2471 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Marius Mauch]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
> <flameeyes@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be answered (so that
> | we can make it a sort of rule).
> | How should manpages that are generated be managed?
> | 
> | The common sense and looking to other ebuilds would say to always
> | build man pages, but when it asks me to install something like
> | docbook-sgml-utils, I'm tempted not to do that ;)
> 
> man pages can't be considered optional (despite what RMS says). They're
> not fancy extra HTML API documentation, they're core, so they don't get
> a USE flag.
> 
> Of course, if FEATURES were in the USE expand list, you could use
> ! features_noman ? ( ) ...

Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Michael Cummings]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
  > man pages can't be considered optional (despite what RMS says). They're
> not fancy extra HTML API documentation, they're core, so they don't get
> a USE flag.

(not advocating a USE flag bug...) what about when the man pages are a 
duplication of the native documentation? perl module build process can 
generate man pages - but it is all a duplication of what you get from 
running perldoc instead.



-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Jason Stubbs]

On Friday 25 November 2005 08:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Of course, if FEATURES were in the USE expand list, you could use
> ! features_noman ? ( ) ...

All the way up until FEATURES="noman" is changed to FEATURES="man"...

--
Jason Stubbs
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Mike Frysinger]

On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 12:46:54PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten??"
> ><flameeyes@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >| Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be answered (so that
> >| we can make it a sort of rule).
> >| How should manpages that are generated be managed?
> >| 
> >| The common sense and looking to other ebuilds would say to always
> >| build man pages, but when it asks me to install something like
> >| docbook-sgml-utils, I'm tempted not to do that ;)
> >
> >man pages can't be considered optional (despite what RMS says). They're
> >not fancy extra HTML API documentation, they're core, so they don't get
> >a USE flag.
> >
> >Of course, if FEATURES were in the USE expand list, you could use
> >! features_noman ? ( ) ...
> 
> Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.

which doesnt make much sense when they can actually be pretty useful
in controlling DEPEND and/or steps in src functions which take quite a
long time to complete
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: manpages that requires dependencies

[Duncan]

Jason Stubbs posted <200511260152.17765.jstubbs@gentoo.org>, excerpted
below,  on Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:52:17 +0900:

> All the way up until FEATURES="noman" is changed to FEATURES="man"...

LOL!  I knew a guy that had the /reverse/ of that operation done!

-- 
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 in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 892 bytes --]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:43:23 -0500 Michael Cummings
<mcummings@gentoo.org> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
|   > man pages can't be considered optional (despite what RMS says).
|   > They're
| > not fancy extra HTML API documentation, they're core, so they don't
| > get a USE flag.
| 
| (not advocating a USE flag bug...) what about when the man pages are
| a duplication of the native documentation? perl module build process
| can generate man pages - but it is all a duplication of what you get
| from running perldoc instead.

Perl is of course speshul. perldoc is a man replacement which still
operates correctly in a basic command-line environment. Plus, doesn't
perldoc come with perl no matter what?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Supreme Lord Gerbil Wrangler)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Kevin F. Quinn]

On 25/11/2005 11:46:54, Marius Mauch (genone@gentoo.org) wrote:
> Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.

When you say 'to-die' do you mean completely removed, or do you
mean replaced with {man,info,doc} (i.e. removing inverted logic)?

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Ned Ludd]

On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
> > <flameeyes@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > | Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be answered (so that
> > | we can make it a sort of rule).
> > | How should manpages that are generated be managed?
> > | 
> > | The common sense and looking to other ebuilds would say to always
> > | build man pages, but when it asks me to install something like
> > | docbook-sgml-utils, I'm tempted not to do that ;)
> > 
> > man pages can't be considered optional (despite what RMS says). They're
> > not fancy extra HTML API documentation, they're core, so they don't get
> > a USE flag.
> > 
> > Of course, if FEATURES were in the USE expand list, you could use
> > ! features_noman ? ( ) ...
> 
> Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.

They are very valuable features and quite easy to use without mucking
with INSTALL_MASK. I'm against this change without some justification.

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Ned Ludd]

On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
> > > <flameeyes@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > | Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be answered (so that
> > > | we can make it a sort of rule).
> > > | How should manpages that are generated be managed?
> > > | 
> > > | The common sense and looking to other ebuilds would say to always
> > > | build man pages, but when it asks me to install something like
> > > | docbook-sgml-utils, I'm tempted not to do that ;)
> > > 
> > > man pages can't be considered optional (despite what RMS says). They're
> > > not fancy extra HTML API documentation, they're core, so they don't get
> > > a USE flag.
> > > 
> > > Of course, if FEATURES were in the USE expand list, you could use
> > > ! features_noman ? ( ) ...
> > 



> > Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.
> 
> They are very valuable features and quite easy to use without mucking
> with INSTALL_MASK. I'm against this change without some justification.

further investigation shows that you can't simply get rid of these as 
several core ebuilds use the feature to control the creation of 
packages. A quick grep shows that several ebuilds do stuff like.
has noman FEATURES && do_stuff

openssl/glibc/gcc/dhcp/boa/gdb to name a few that take advantage of the 
no{man,info,doc} FEATURES= already.


-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Jason Stubbs]

On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:09, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.
> >
> > They are very valuable features and quite easy to use without mucking
> > with INSTALL_MASK. I'm against this change without some justification.
>
> further investigation shows that you can't simply get rid of these as
> several core ebuilds use the feature to control the creation of
> packages. A quick grep shows that several ebuilds do stuff like.
> has noman FEATURES && do_stuff
>
> openssl/glibc/gcc/dhcp/boa/gdb to name a few that take advantage of the
> no{man,info,doc} FEATURES= already.

Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up, the 
respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper solution could 
be found. When are the quick hacks going to stop? :|

--
Jason Stubbs
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1121 bytes --]


27.11.2005, 15:39:48, Jason Stubbs wrote:

> On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:09, Ned Ludd wrote:
>> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
>> > > Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.
>> >
>> > They are very valuable features and quite easy to use without mucking
>> > with INSTALL_MASK. I'm against this change without some justification.
>>
>> further investigation shows that you can't simply get rid of these as
>> several core ebuilds use the feature to control the creation of
>> packages. A quick grep shows that several ebuilds do stuff like.
>> has noman FEATURES && do_stuff
>>
>> openssl/glibc/gcc/dhcp/boa/gdb to name a few that take advantage of the
>> no{man,info,doc} FEATURES= already.

> Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up, the 
> respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper solution could 
> be found. When are the quick hacks going to stop? :|

I can't see why exactly do we need to get rid of useful features? :-(

-- 

jakub

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Ned Ludd]

On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 23:39 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:09, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > > Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.
> > >
> > > They are very valuable features and quite easy to use without mucking
> > > with INSTALL_MASK. I'm against this change without some justification.
> >
> > further investigation shows that you can't simply get rid of these as
> > several core ebuilds use the feature to control the creation of
> > packages. A quick grep shows that several ebuilds do stuff like.
> > has noman FEATURES && do_stuff
> >
> > openssl/glibc/gcc/dhcp/boa/gdb to name a few that take advantage of the
> > no{man,info,doc} FEATURES= already.
> 
> Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up, the 
> respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper solution could 
> be found. When are the quick hacks going to stop? :|

Yeah I can also confirm that things are broken and hacks probably wont 
stop till upstream for a given package starts making things like 
nroff/groff optional vs forced. I really don't think we will see that 
happening anytime soon.


-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 472 bytes --]

On Sunday 27 November 2005 15:39, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up,
> the respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper solution
> could be found. When are the quick hacks going to stop? :|
Is my mail enough as a speak-up for finding a proper solution? :P

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Jason Stubbs]

On Sunday 27 November 2005 23:50, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 15:39, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up,
> > the respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper
> > solution could be found. When are the quick hacks going to stop? :|
>
> Is my mail enough as a speak-up for finding a proper solution? :P

No because you haven't listed any requirements beyond those that solar has 
already pointed out. :P

--
Jason Stubbs

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Jason Stubbs]

On Sunday 27 November 2005 23:43, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 27.11.2005, 15:39:48, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:09, Ned Ludd wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> >> > > Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.
> >> >
> >> > They are very valuable features and quite easy to use without mucking
> >> > with INSTALL_MASK. I'm against this change without some justification.
> >>
> >> further investigation shows that you can't simply get rid of these as
> >> several core ebuilds use the feature to control the creation of
> >> packages. A quick grep shows that several ebuilds do stuff like.
> >> has noman FEATURES && do_stuff
> >>
> >> openssl/glibc/gcc/dhcp/boa/gdb to name a few that take advantage of the
> >> no{man,info,doc} FEATURES= already.
> >
> > Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up,
> > the respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper
> > solution could be found. When are the quick hacks going to stop? :|
>
> I can't see why exactly do we need to get rid of useful features? :-(

Nobody said anything about getting rid of the features. The only thing that 
has been stated is that FEATURES="noman" cannot be relied upon to mean that 
portage won't install man pages or vice-versa.

There are three possibilities that I can see:
1) FEATURES="noman" becomes FEATURES="man"
2) FEATURES="noman" is dropped in favour of INSTALL_MASK="/usr/share/man"
3) FEATURES="noman" is dropped in favour of USE="man" or USE="manpages"

In light of the above requirements and the fact that dyn_* will likely be 
moved into the tree down the track, #3 seems to be the best in my mind. 
Similarly, it would solve the previously discussed problems related to 
FEATURES="test".

--
Jason Stubbs
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Jason Stubbs]

On Sunday 27 November 2005 23:50, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 15:39, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up,
> > the respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper
> > solution could be found. When are the quick hacks going to stop? :|
>
> Is my mail enough as a speak-up for finding a proper solution? :P

Err.. Apologies.

I has forgotten that you were the one to start the thread. :(

--
Jason Stubbs

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Jason Stubbs]

On Monday 28 November 2005 00:05, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> 3) FEATURES="noman" is dropped in favour of USE="man" or USE="manpages"
>
> In light of the above requirements and the fact that dyn_* will likely be
> moved into the tree down the track, #3 seems to be the best in my mind.
> Similarly, it would solve the previously discussed problems related to
> FEATURES="test".

I'd be very interested in people's thoughts on this. The more I think about 
it, the more I think it's the most appropriate solution. Nothing in 
FEATURES="noman nodoc noinfo test" affects portage whatsoever other than 
"noinfo" which (only recently) prevents emerge from regenerating info 
indexes. That one could be handled by a hook (although not yet available) and 
the rest could easily be switched to USE flags.

Anybody see any flaws? Anybody want (shudders) a GLEP?

--
Jason Stubbs
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Ned Ludd]

On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 00:48 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Monday 28 November 2005 00:05, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > 3) FEATURES="noman" is dropped in favour of USE="man" or USE="manpages"
> >
> > In light of the above requirements and the fact that dyn_* will likely be
> > moved into the tree down the track, #3 seems to be the best in my mind.
> > Similarly, it would solve the previously discussed problems related to
> > FEATURES="test".
> 
> I'd be very interested in people's thoughts on this. The more I think about 
> it, the more I think it's the most appropriate solution. Nothing in 
> FEATURES="noman nodoc noinfo test" affects portage whatsoever other than 
> "noinfo" which (only recently) prevents emerge from regenerating info 
> indexes. That one could be handled by a hook (although not yet available) and 
> the rest could easily be switched to USE flags.
> 
> Anybody see any flaws? Anybody want (shudders) a GLEP?

USE=(man|info|doc) wont quite work.
While they could have an advantage that you can use them to control 
depend strings the doc use flag has already been heavily used for other 
things which everybody surely wont want. by default only level of 
profiles should be using these features and it uses it because it needs 
it or things fail to build. I could bore you with how sandbox and groff 
don't get along and this functionality is a must.

I don't see any immediate benefits in removal so I'd rather we put off 
discussions of the removal of those 3 features till we are closer to the
2006.0 release cycle. portage-2.0.5(4|5) days. Unless you want to 
discuss SpanKY idea of use expanding FEATURES which clearly seems the
winner in desired functionality (my eyes anyway)


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 11:12:32AM -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 00:48 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Monday 28 November 2005 00:05, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > 3) FEATURES="noman" is dropped in favour of USE="man" or USE="manpages"
> > >
> > > In light of the above requirements and the fact that dyn_* will likely be
> > > moved into the tree down the track, #3 seems to be the best in my mind.
> > > Similarly, it would solve the previously discussed problems related to
> > > FEATURES="test".

this seems like the best idea imo too ...

> > I'd be very interested in people's thoughts on this. The more I think about 
> > it, the more I think it's the most appropriate solution. Nothing in 
> > FEATURES="noman nodoc noinfo test" affects portage whatsoever other than 
> > "noinfo" which (only recently) prevents emerge from regenerating info 
> > indexes. That one could be handled by a hook (although not yet available) and 
> > the rest could easily be switched to USE flags.
> 
> USE=(man|info|doc) wont quite work.
> While they could have an advantage that you can use them to control 
> depend strings the doc use flag has already been heavily used for other 
> things which everybody surely wont want.

i dont see what USE=doc has to do with this ?  doc should never be used
to control manpages in ebuilds now ...
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 922 bytes --]

On Sunday 27 November 2005 17:12, Ned Ludd wrote:
> USE=(man|info|doc) wont quite work.
> While they could have an advantage that you can use them to control
> depend strings the doc use flag has already been heavily used for other
> things which everybody surely wont want.
As vapier said, doc useflag does not mean much in this discussion. 
FEATURES="nodoc" is less than an install mask, as it just (iirc) make dodoc 
commands no-ops. An INSTALL_MASK makes simpler to handle that.
We already use the doc useflag to avoid adding dependencies only for doc 
building, so the similar meaning for info and man is already in use.

Basic doc does not require any dep (as it's already built), while man and info 
requires the man command and texinfo, so there's a big difference.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Ned Ludd]

On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 16:28 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 11:12:32AM -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 00:48 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > On Monday 28 November 2005 00:05, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > > 3) FEATURES="noman" is dropped in favour of USE="man" or USE="manpages"
> > > >
> > > > In light of the above requirements and the fact that dyn_* will likely be
> > > > moved into the tree down the track, #3 seems to be the best in my mind.
> > > > Similarly, it would solve the previously discussed problems related to
> > > > FEATURES="test".
> 
> this seems like the best idea imo too ...
> 
> > > I'd be very interested in people's thoughts on this. The more I think about 
> > > it, the more I think it's the most appropriate solution. Nothing in 
> > > FEATURES="noman nodoc noinfo test" affects portage whatsoever other than 
> > > "noinfo" which (only recently) prevents emerge from regenerating info 
> > > indexes. That one could be handled by a hook (although not yet available) and 
> > > the rest could easily be switched to USE flags.
> > 
> > USE=(man|info|doc) wont quite work.
> > While they could have an advantage that you can use them to control 
> > depend strings the doc use flag has already been heavily used for other 
> > things which everybody surely wont want.
> 
> i dont see what USE=doc has to do with this ?  doc should never be used
> to control manpages in ebuilds now ...

The 3 no* features in question. Removing just one would be silly. So 
they either all should go or all stay. If noman were to become USE=man 
then logic would say that nodoc would become USE=doc and noinfo would 
become USE=info. Unless we want to call them 
USE=(docpages|manpages|infopages) all respectively then it wont matter 
so much. But then USE=-* emerge foo would all of the sudden make USE=-* 
kinda suck for users who just want to escape the normal default-linux 
USE flag bloat.

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 604 bytes --]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:39:48 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came
| up, the respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper
| solution could be found. When are the quick hacks going to stop? :|

A proper solution requires Portage changes. Unfortunately, for some
packages waiting a year or more to fix something isn't an option.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (The one that looks before leaping)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] manpages that requires dependencies

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 695 bytes --]

On Sunday 27 November 2005 17:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> A proper solution requires Portage changes. Unfortunately, for some
> packages waiting a year or more to fix something isn't an option.
Maybe not, if we just make man and info two useflags enabled by default in all 
profiles and change one-by-one the ebuilds that installs man pages or info 
manuals.
The info index regen can go in an eclass, as it's only needed for packages 
that does install info pages, and they are not so many.

Not a simple way, but it would be clean on the long run.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]