[gentoo-dev] Should "server" be a global use flag?

[gentoo-dev] Should "server" be a global use flag?

[Anthony G. Basile]

Hi all,

I was looking at use.desc/use.local.desc to see if the "server" flag is
global or not.  I was surprised to see that it is not.  There are 26
packages that use a local "server" flag and they all say something to
the effect "Enable ${PN} server support".

Should we not promote this to global with a description

    server - Enable the packages server component

If yes, what's the procedure?  We'd have to have a lot of metadata.xml's
change.  I'm not sure what happens if you simultaneously have a local
and global USE flag by the same name (although I'm going to test in a
minute on an overlay :)

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 8040 5A4D 8709 21B1 1A88  33CE 979C AF40 D045 5535
GnuPG ID  : D0455535

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should "server" be a global use flag?

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Mon, 23 May 2011 10:26:49 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:

> If yes, what's the procedure?

Add the global one to use.desc.

Then remove the local ones from their respective metadata.xml files.
use.local.desc will be adjusted accordingly in time - no need to hurry.

> We'd have to have a lot of
> metadata.xml's change.  I'm not sure what happens if you
> simultaneously have a local and global USE flag by the same name
> (although I'm going to test in a minute on an overlay :)

They can happily coexist. No need to remove them simultaneously.


Regards,
     jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should "server" be a global use flag?

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Mon, 23 May 2011, Anthony G Basile wrote:

> I was looking at use.desc/use.local.desc to see if the "server" flag is
> global or not.  I was surprised to see that it is not.  There are 26
> packages that use a local "server" flag and they all say something to
> the effect "Enable ${PN} server support".

From <http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/use-flags/>:

| If the effect of the USE flag upon pkg-one is substantially
| different from the effect it has upon pkg-two, then the flag is not
| a suitable candidate for being made a global flag. In particular,
| note that if client and server USE flags are ever introduced, they
| can not be global USE flags for this reason.

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should "server" be a global use flag?

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 05/23/2011 10:48 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 23 May 2011, Anthony G Basile wrote:
>> I was looking at use.desc/use.local.desc to see if the "server" flag is
>> global or not.  I was surprised to see that it is not.  There are 26
>> packages that use a local "server" flag and they all say something to
>> the effect "Enable ${PN} server support".
> From <http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/use-flags/>:
>
> | If the effect of the USE flag upon pkg-one is substantially
> | different from the effect it has upon pkg-two, then the flag is not
> | a suitable candidate for being made a global flag. In particular,
> | note that if client and server USE flags are ever introduced, they
> | can not be global USE flags for this reason.
>
> Ulrich
>

My point was that the "server" flag has the *same* effect on all these
packages, ie to turn on their server support.  But the point was made on
#gentoo-dev that what is a server for one package is not the same as a
server for another package.  Thinking along those lines, the "server"
flag has a *different* effect on each package.

Reflecting on this, the stricter definition makes more sense, so I
retract my point.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 8040 5A4D 8709 21B1 1A88  33CE 979C AF40 D045 5535
GnuPG ID  : D0455535

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should "server" be a global use flag?

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 920 bytes --]

On Mon, 23 May 2011 16:48:15 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:

> >>>>> On Mon, 23 May 2011, Anthony G Basile wrote:
> 
> > I was looking at use.desc/use.local.desc to see if the "server"
> > flag is global or not.  I was surprised to see that it is not.
> > There are 26 packages that use a local "server" flag and they all
> > say something to the effect "Enable ${PN} server support".
> 
> From <http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/use-flags/>:
> 
> | If the effect of the USE flag upon pkg-one is substantially
> | different from the effect it has upon pkg-two, then the flag is not
> | a suitable candidate for being made a global flag. In particular,
> | note that if client and server USE flags are ever introduced, they
> | can not be global USE flags for this reason.

With that definition, USE=crypt should definitely not be global.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should "server" be a global use flag?

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 05/23/2011 12:37 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 16:48:15 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 May 2011, Anthony G Basile wrote:
>>> I was looking at use.desc/use.local.desc to see if the "server"
>>> flag is global or not.  I was surprised to see that it is not.
>>> There are 26 packages that use a local "server" flag and they all
>>> say something to the effect "Enable ${PN} server support".
>> From <http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/use-flags/>:
>>
>> | If the effect of the USE flag upon pkg-one is substantially
>> | different from the effect it has upon pkg-two, then the flag is not
>> | a suitable candidate for being made a global flag. In particular,
>> | note that if client and server USE flags are ever introduced, they
>> | can not be global USE flags for this reason.
> With that definition, USE=crypt should definitely not be global.
>
Yep.  Eg. USE="crypt" for evolution means dependence on app-crypt/gnupg
and is local while USE="crypt" for thunderbird means dependency on
x11-plugins/enigmail and is global.  Both are substantially different
from what USE="crypt" means for util-linux which enables crypto-loop and
is a global.

Ouch!

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 8040 5A4D 8709 21B1 1A88  33CE 979C AF40 D045 5535
GnuPG ID  : D0455535

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should "server" be a global use flag?

[Peter Volkov]

В Пнд, 23/05/2011 в 13:32 -0400, Anthony G. Basile пишет:
> On 05/23/2011 12:37 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 May 2011 16:48:15 +0200
> > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> From <http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/use-flags/>:
> >> | If the effect of the USE flag upon pkg-one is substantially
> >> | different from the effect it has upon pkg-two, then the flag is not
> >> | a suitable candidate for being made a global flag. In particular,
> >> | note that if client and server USE flags are ever introduced, they
> >> | can not be global USE flags for this reason.

We need to update this. As with USE ssl - it just enables ssl support
with no knowledge in advance how it'll be implemented. Since we are
allowed to have both global and local USE flag descriptions, global USE
flag now better defines overal sense of USE flag while local may adjust
it to make better sense for current package...

> > With that definition, USE=crypt should definitely not be global.
> >
> Yep.  Eg. USE="crypt" for evolution means dependence on app-crypt/gnupg
> and is local while USE="crypt" for thunderbird means dependency on
> x11-plugins/enigmail and is global.  Both are substantially different
> from what USE="crypt" means for util-linux which enables crypto-loop and
> is a global.

It's good idea to open bug and suggest better local USE flag
descriptions.

--
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should "server" be a global use flag?

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Mon, 23 May 2011 10:26:49 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I was looking at use.desc/use.local.desc to see if the "server" flag
> is global or not.  I was surprised to see that it is not.  There are
> 26 packages that use a local "server" flag and they all say something
> to the effect "Enable ${PN} server support".
> 
> Should we not promote this to global with a description
> 
>     server - Enable the packages server component

app-admin/bcfg2:server - Installs scripts to be used on the server-side
                         of this app
- If it means, to install a server and scripts, then YES. It should be
  clarified what this flag actually does install as extra.

app-mobilephone/obexd:server - Enables server installation, it's
                               incompatible with obex-data-server
                               provided one
- Is it really really necessary to describe that incompatibility? If
  no, YES.

app-office/akonadi-server:server - Use locally installed database
                                   server.
- Again, what does it mean? Does it install the database server too? If
  yes, YES, but again the description would need to be changed or
  omitted.

dev-libs/tntnet:server - Enable tntnet server daemon
- YES.

dev-python/dap:server - Enable OpenDAP server support
- YES if it actually installs a server/daemon.

dev-ruby/rubygems:server - Install support for the rubygems server
- YES if it actually installs a server/daemon.

dev-vcs/cvs:server - Enable server support
- YES if it actually installs a server/daemon.

games-strategy/wesnoth:server - Enable compilation of server
- YES: if it compiles it, then it installs a server/daemon.

media-plugins/vdr-streamdev:server - Compile the VDR plugin
                                     vdr-streamdev-server that allows
                                     remote systems to access the DVB
                                     cards used for the local VDR
- YES if it actually installs a server/daemon, but the description is
  rather more informative than "enable server component" would be.

media-sound/xmms2:server - Build xmms2 player daemon (otherwise only
                           clients are built)
- YES: it actually installs a server/daemon. That clients will be built
  regardless of this USE flag is irrelevant.

net-analyzer/zabbix:server - Enable zabbix server
- YES if it actually installs a server/daemon.

net-fs/coda:server - Build and install the server components of coda
filesystem. Note: at least one of client/server flags must be enabled.
- YES if it actually installs a server/daemon. REQUIRED_USE should
  replace the need to force either server or client in USE flags.

net-fs/samba:server - Enables the server part
- YES.

net-irc/quassel:server - Build the server binary. If this USE flag is
disabled, the 'core' server binary for quassel is not built, and cannot
be used. You need this enabled on the server, but you might want to
disable it on the client.
- YES. Lots of irrelevant information after the first sentence. If you
  want to explain how to use the ebuild or installed package, then
  write some real documentation and put it on the website.

net-libs/libinfinity:server - Build and install the server binary
including init.d/conf.d-scripts. Needed if you want to host an infinote
server for gobby.
- YES. Again write some documentation instead of abusing a USE flag
  description to explain how the package works.

net-libs/libssh:server - Build with SSH server support
- YES if it actually installs a server/daemon. It's not clear whether
  this just means it compiles in server components into the library it
  installs.

net-libs/wt:server - Compile in stand-alone httpd connector
- Looks like a YES.

net-misc/dhcp:server - Install the dhcpd and dhcrelay programs
- YES.

net-misc/knock:server - Installs the knockd server daemon.
- YES.

net-misc/tigervnc:server - Build TigerVNC server
- YES.

net-misc/tightvnc:server - Build vncserver. Allows us to only build
server on one machine if set, build only viewer otherwise.
- YES. Again, write the HOWTO instead of abusing a USE flag description.

sci-biology/ucsc-genome-browser:server - Install genome browser Web
                                         application. If this flag is
                                         off, only libraries and
                                         utilities from the suite are
                                         installed.
- It isn't clear, but would probably boil down to a YES. The second
  sentence is irrelevant in the context.

sci-mathematics/yacas:server - Build the network server version
- Build the version? You mean build the daemon? If so, YES.

sys-cluster/pvfs2:server - Enable compilation of server code
- Server code? If it builds and installs a daemon, then YES.

sys-cluster/torque:server - Enable compilation of pbs_server and
pbs_sched.
- YES.

sys-fs/owfs:server - Enable building the OWFS server (owserver)
- YES.

(I find myself wondering why so much information is being jammed into
USE flag descriptions that /should/ be available in HOWTOs from
upstream, or else should be written down in HOWTOs we maintain
ourselves - we (Gentoo) used to be good at providing HOWTOs as needed
and it's a good tradition to keep up. It helps the entire open source
community and not just our users, too.)

Anyway, count the YESs above. Maybe some people want to
comment/explain/defend how they wrote their descriptions, so don't
touch them just yet. :)


     jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should "server" be a global use flag?

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 563 bytes --]

El lun, 23-05-2011 a las 17:19 +0200, Jeroen Roovers escribió:
[...]
> app-mobilephone/obexd:server - Enables server installation, it's
>                                incompatible with obex-data-server
>                                provided one
> - Is it really really necessary to describe that incompatibility? If
>   no, YES.
> 

I want that description as-is to prevent some people thinking
obexd[server] should be used instead of obex-data-server even if all
stuff still needs obex-data-server and that one is incompatible with
obexd one.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should "server" be a global use flag?

[Dale]

Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>
> (I find myself wondering why so much information is being jammed into
> USE flag descriptions that /should/ be available in HOWTOs from
> upstream, or else should be written down in HOWTOs we maintain
> ourselves - we (Gentoo) used to be good at providing HOWTOs as needed
> and it's a good tradition to keep up. It helps the entire open source
> community and not just our users, too.)
>
> Anyway, count the YESs above. Maybe some people want to
> comment/explain/defend how they wrote their descriptions, so don't
> touch them just yet. :)
>
>
>       jer
>
>    

The reason the info is there is so that users, like me, know what the 
USE flag is for.  Me personally, I still think some of them don't help 
much and need more info but it is better than it used to be.  So, if you 
can make them shorter and users still able to figure out what they do, 
great.  If not, then the info needs to stay.   Us users need it.

Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should "server" be a global use flag?

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> The reason the info is there is so that users, like me, know what the USE
> flag is for.  Me personally, I still think some of them don't help much and
> need more info but it is better than it used to be.  So, if you can make
> them shorter and users still able to figure out what they do, great.  If
> not, then the info needs to stay.   Us users need it.

++

A description of USE=foo enables foo support is just about useless.
Why even have the description at all in that case?

What I want to know is whether I want foo support.  A description of
"Disables 99% of the functionality in chromium but still lets you
parse the config files from a command line on an embedded system" lets
me know that unless I'm doing something exotic it isn't for me.

A long sentence is probably the right level of detail.  Two sentences
is probably warranted if messing with the flag can cause havoc.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should "server" be a global use flag?

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Mon, 23 May 2011 11:27:18 -0500
Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> >
> > (I find myself wondering why so much information is being jammed
> > into USE flag descriptions that /should/ be available in HOWTOs from
> > upstream, or else should be written down in HOWTOs we maintain
> > ourselves - we (Gentoo) used to be good at providing HOWTOs as
> > needed and it's a good tradition to keep up. It helps the entire
> > open source community and not just our users, too.)
> >
> > Anyway, count the YESs above. Maybe some people want to
> > comment/explain/defend how they wrote their descriptions, so don't
> > touch them just yet. :)

> The reason the info is there is so that users, like me, know what the 
> USE flag is for.  Me personally, I still think some of them don't
> help much and need more info but it is better than it used to be.
> So, if you can make them shorter and users still able to figure out
> what they do, great.  If not, then the info needs to stay.   Us users
> need it.

What the hell are you talking about? *I* am a user... Please make a
direct point in reply to my superficial criticism on each USE=server
flag or reply to what you quoted above. I don't see anything
constructive or relevant in your reply. You seem to argue that I can
somehow technically or magically derive a USE flag's meaning whereas
you cannot. If you want to defend that, then start a new thread.


     jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should "server" be a global use flag?

[Dale]

Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 11:27:18 -0500
> Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>    
>> Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>>      
>>> (I find myself wondering why so much information is being jammed
>>> into USE flag descriptions that /should/ be available in HOWTOs from
>>> upstream, or else should be written down in HOWTOs we maintain
>>> ourselves - we (Gentoo) used to be good at providing HOWTOs as
>>> needed and it's a good tradition to keep up. It helps the entire
>>> open source community and not just our users, too.)
>>>
>>> Anyway, count the YESs above. Maybe some people want to
>>> comment/explain/defend how they wrote their descriptions, so don't
>>> touch them just yet. :)
>>>        
>    
>> The reason the info is there is so that users, like me, know what the
>> USE flag is for.  Me personally, I still think some of them don't
>> help much and need more info but it is better than it used to be.
>> So, if you can make them shorter and users still able to figure out
>> what they do, great.  If not, then the info needs to stay.   Us users
>> need it.
>>      
> What the hell are you talking about? *I* am a user... Please make a
> direct point in reply to my superficial criticism on each USE=server
> flag or reply to what you quoted above. I don't see anything
> constructive or relevant in your reply. You seem to argue that I can
> somehow technically or magically derive a USE flag's meaning whereas
> you cannot. If you want to defend that, then start a new thread.
>
>
>       jer
>
>    

I was talking about what you wrote and I quoted above in my reply.  
Since you want to have the attitude you have, please disregard my reply 
and I guess another reply to mine which agreed with me and even 
elaborated on the point I made.  I guess the two if us misread what you 
wrote.

Sorry to have wrinkled your feathers.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should "server" be a global use flag?

[Peter Volkov]

В Пнд, 23/05/2011 в 17:19 +0200, Jeroen Roovers пишет:
> I find myself wondering why so much information is being jammed into
> USE flag descriptions that /should/ be available in HOWTOs from
> upstream, or else should be written down in HOWTOs we maintain
> ourselves - we (Gentoo) used to be good at providing HOWTOs as needed
> and it's a good tradition to keep up. It helps the entire open source
> community and not just our users, too.

I don't see how moving USE flag descriptions from portage tree in HOWTOs
will help community. This will just take more time to check what USE
flag does. Also it's clear that maintaining another 10 guides will just
slow things down with no real benefit.

> Anyway, count the YESs above. Maybe some people want to
> comment/explain/defend how they wrote their descriptions, so don't
> touch them just yet. :) 

We can add global 'server' USE flag and still keep local USE flag
descriptions where they make global description a bit more clear. And if
I understood your last message correctly, in case you want to update USE
flag descriptions yourself, please, don't touch USE flag descriptions
but open bugs for maintainers to decide.

--
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should "server" be a global use flag?

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Tue, 24 May 2011 11:52:51 +0400
Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:

> В Пнд, 23/05/2011 в 17:19 +0200, Jeroen Roovers пишет:
> > I find myself wondering why so much information is being jammed into
> > USE flag descriptions that /should/ be available in HOWTOs from
> > upstream, or else should be written down in HOWTOs we maintain
> > ourselves - we (Gentoo) used to be good at providing HOWTOs as
> > needed and it's a good tradition to keep up. It helps the entire
> > open source community and not just our users, too.
> 
> I don't see how moving USE flag descriptions from portage tree in
> HOWTOs will help community. This will just take more time to check
> what USE flag does. Also it's clear that maintaining another 10
> guides will just slow things down with no real benefit.

I never suggested were moving USE flag descriptions into HOWTOs (how?
what does that mean?). I said USE flag descriptions were being (ab)used
where proper HOWTOs would serve users better.

And I suggested HOWTOs should be used to introduce users to new
software - good upstreams do this, and Gentoo used to do this a lot,
which is one of Gentoo's great attractions.

Explaining how a package works in USE flag descriptions is no
replacement for good documentation, and the <flag> tags in
metadata.xml weren't introduced to replace documentation.

> > Anyway, count the YESs above. Maybe some people want to
> > comment/explain/defend how they wrote their descriptions, so don't
> > touch them just yet. :) 
> 
> We can add global 'server' USE flag and still keep local USE flag
> descriptions where they make global description a bit more clear. And
> if I understood your last message correctly, in case you want to
> update USE flag descriptions yourself, please, don't touch USE flag
> descriptions but open bugs for maintainers to decide.

Who me? Please read the entire thread.

And please don't be so territorial either - just blame the right people
when they mess up, instead.


     jer