[gentoo-dev] USE flags

[gentoo-dev] USE flags

[A. Craig West]

So how does one go about getting a USE flag added to an ebuild? In my case, I
have my own version of the tin ebuild with a 'forgery' USE flag added which
adds the --enable-forgery option to the .configure command. I'm pretty sure
I'm not the only person around who uses that option, so it seems like
something worth contributing to the real ebuild.

-- 
Craig West         Ph: (416) 666-1645	|  It's not a bug,
acwest-sig@craigwest.net              	|  It's a feature...

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags

[Dhruba Bandopadhyay]

A. Craig West wrote:
> So how does one go about getting a USE flag added to an ebuild? In my case, I
> have my own version of the tin ebuild with a 'forgery' USE flag added which
> adds the --enable-forgery option to the .configure command. I'm pretty sure
> I'm not the only person around who uses that option, so it seems like
> something worth contributing to the real ebuild.
> 

Well you can either enable the option implicitly without a use flag or 
enable it with explicit mention dependent on a use flag.  The more packages 
which use that option the more the likelihood of a global use flag else 
local or no use flag.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags

[david]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 11:36:44PM +0100, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
> Well you can either enable the option implicitly without a use flag or 
> enable it with explicit mention dependent on a use flag.  The more packages 
> which use that option the more the likelihood of a global use flag else 
> local or no use flag.
> 

Ok, well can anybody explain to me the messyness of the 'doc' use flag
?  I see some packages support it, some don't, the ones that do seem
to all do it differently.  It would be really nice if say.. i wanted a
small router type system and I could give emerge USE="-man -info -doc"

and omit man pages, info pages, and /usr/share/doc type things...
is there any effort for this or do people not care ?
/me would be willing to try such a thing if there was interest


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1129 bytes --]

On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 18:58, david@futuretel.com wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 11:36:44PM +0100, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
> > Well you can either enable the option implicitly without a use flag or 
> > enable it with explicit mention dependent on a use flag.  The more packages 
> > which use that option the more the likelihood of a global use flag else 
> > local or no use flag.
> > 
> 
> Ok, well can anybody explain to me the messyness of the 'doc' use flag
> ?  I see some packages support it, some don't, the ones that do seem
> to all do it differently.  It would be really nice if say.. i wanted a
> small router type system and I could give emerge USE="-man -info -doc"
> 
> and omit man pages, info pages, and /usr/share/doc type things...
> is there any effort for this or do people not care ?
> /me would be willing to try such a thing if there was interest

I would love to see such a thing.  This would be great for anyone with a
large number of machines, or for building small installations.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 577 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:41:33 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:



> I would love to see such a thing.  This would be great for anyone with
> a large number of machines, or for building small installations.


it would be better implemented as a FEATURE, and less intrusive to the
vast amount of builds we have.

(FEATURE=nodoc  ::  Will toss away documentation and manpages post
install)


//Spider


-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags

[Patrick Kursawe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 401 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 10:46:38AM +0200, Spider wrote:
 
> it would be better implemented as a FEATURE, and less intrusive to the
> vast amount of builds we have.
> 
> (FEATURE=nodoc  ::  Will toss away documentation and manpages post
> install)

Good idea. Especially since adding a "use nodoc && rm some_stuff" to
nearly every ebuild is just unnecessary code duplication.

Bye, Patrick

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags

[Paul de Vrieze]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 23 October 2003 10:49, Patrick Kursawe wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 10:46:38AM +0200, Spider wrote:
> > it would be better implemented as a FEATURE, and less intrusive to
> > the vast amount of builds we have.
> >
> > (FEATURE=nodoc  ::  Will toss away documentation and manpages post
> > install)
>
> Good idea. Especially since adding a "use nodoc && rm some_stuff" to
> nearly every ebuild is just unnecessary code duplication.

I agree fully with this idea. It also removes a lot of complexity.

Paul

- -- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/l5v/bKx5DBjWFdsRArz8AKCA5J7xXcB2ozv0hQEIs7BNukamLACgpAG1
l7mZb+LUFDTGZojpPJBZ/w8=
=CfdU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: USE flags

[Björn Lindström]

Spider <spider@gentoo.org> writes:

> (FEATURE=nodoc :: Will toss away documentation and manpages post
> install)

Wouldn't it be more elegant if it just never installed anything in the
documentation directories? Also, it might be a good idea to have a
variable you can put in make.conf that says what directories are to be
considered documentation directories.

-- 
Björn Lindström <bkhl@elektrubadur.se>
http://bkhl.elektrubadur.se/


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: USE flags

[Patrick Kursawe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 323 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 11:45:53AM +0200, Björn Lindström wrote:
> Wouldn't it be more elegant if it just never installed anything in the
> documentation directories? 

Depends on your definition of "elegant". I don't consider modifying
every package where "make install" installs manpages "elegant".

Bye, Patrick

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: USE flags

[Björn Lindström]

Patrick Kursawe <phosphan@gentoo.org> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 11:45:53AM +0200, Björn Lindström wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be more elegant if it just never installed anything in the
>> documentation directories? 
>
> Depends on your definition of "elegant". I don't consider modifying
> every package where "make install" installs manpages "elegant".

I wasn't suggesting that. I just said that a) instead of first
installing stuff in e.g. /usr/share/doc and then deleting it, portage
would just not install stuff there in the first place, and b) that in
addition to (or maybe instead of) the FEATURE flag, there should be a
variable to set which directories to not install in.

I never said anything about modifying any ebuilds.

-- 
Björn Lindström <bkhl@elektrubadur.se>
http://bkhl.elektrubadur.se/


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: USE flags

[Patrick Kursawe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 809 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 01:20:13PM +0200, Björn Lindström wrote:

> I wasn't suggesting that. I just said that a) instead of first
> installing stuff in e.g. /usr/share/doc and then deleting it, portage
> would just not install stuff there in the first place,

I think here's a misunderstanding. The "install" in the mail to which
you replied means the "install" step of portage, not the "merge" step.
Portage should not stop any ebuild from putting stuff into ${D}/whatever,
but it can remove the doumentation directories before doing the "merge"
step which moves it to the place your are talking about.
	
> I never said anything about modifying any ebuilds.

"not installing" implies this. But since you seem to mean "not merging",
I don't think there's a problem with that.

Bye, Patrick

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: USE flags

[Björn Lindström]

Patrick Kursawe <phosphan@gentoo.org> writes:

> I think here's a misunderstanding. The "install" in the mail to which
> you replied means the "install" step of portage, not the "merge" step.
> Portage should not stop any ebuild from putting stuff into
> ${D}/whatever, but it can remove the doumentation directories before
> doing the "merge" step which moves it to the place your are talking
> about.

Yup, I admit to some misunderstanding. It makes sense now.

So what do you people think about my actual suggestion, which was to
have an option like INSTALL_PROTECT (or maybe with a better name),
corresponding to CONFIG_PROTECT, that if specified causes the named
directories to be deleted from the package before merging it. An option
corresponding to CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK is probably a good idea, too.

A FEATURE flag would probably not be needed with this solution.

-- 
Björn Lindström <bkhl@elektrubadur.se>
http://bkhl.elektrubadur.se/


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags

[Philippe Coulonges]

Le Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:46:38 +0200
Spider <spider@gentoo.org> écrivait :

> (FEATURE=nodoc  ::  Will toss away documentation and manpages post
> install)

What about people like me ?
I have a wrapper on emerge that localepurge and rm /usr/share/doc/*
after install, but in no way I would want to get rid of the manpages.

If you implement this stuff, please do separate options.

CU
CPHIL
-- 
L'amour... Il y a ceux qui en parlent et il y a ceux qui le font. A
partir de quoi, il m'apparaît urgent de me taire.
	-- Pierre Desproges.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags

[Christian Birchinger]

Hi
Maybe more features would be needed "nodoc" "noman" "noinfo". I
guess many people never open an info page (mostly because the
info command sucks and they don't know about pinfo).

I think with the nodoc flag it would never "merge" the docs.
It sure wont install them first then rm -rf them again. It
would simply not move them from /var/tmp/portage.../image/usr/doc/appfoo-6.6.6
into the running system (Mabye exclude them from unpacking when
using tbz2 packages). I'm not the programmer of it but i guess
the mainquestion is how to configure it. Like a FEATURE="nodoc noinfo"
or with it's own variable like DOCS="man -info -doc" or whatever.

Christian

On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 01:39:53PM +0200, Philippe Coulonges wrote:
> Le Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:46:38 +0200
> Spider <spider@gentoo.org> écrivait :
> 
> > (FEATURE=nodoc  ::  Will toss away documentation and manpages post
> > install)
> 
> What about people like me ?
> I have a wrapper on emerge that localepurge and rm /usr/share/doc/*
> after install, but in no way I would want to get rid of the manpages.
> 
> If you implement this stuff, please do separate options.
> 
> CU
> CPHIL
> -- 
> L'amour... Il y a ceux qui en parlent et il y a ceux qui le font. A
> partir de quoi, il m'apparaît urgent de me taire.
> 	-- Pierre Desproges.
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Gentoo on the ARM

[Cliff Free]

I was wondering if anyone was currently doing any work on porting Gentoo
to the ARM processor.  I know the project was going, but it's apparently
been orphaned.  I'm interested in picking up on the ARM work.


-- 
Cliff Free <anaranjado@bellsouth.net>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo on the ARM

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 573 bytes --]

On Thursday 23 October 2003 09:03, Cliff Free wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone was currently doing any work on porting Gentoo
> to the ARM processor.  I know the project was going, but it's apparently
> been orphaned.  I'm interested in picking up on the ARM work.

it has been orphaned for the most part as the leading dev was zwelch ...

if you're looking to become a new lead for the team (which is needed) then i'd 
suggest hopping onto irc.freenode.net and joining #gentoo-arm and #gentoo-dev 
and talking to seemant/avenj about your intentions ...
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1536 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:20:40 +0200
Christian Birchinger <joker@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hi
> Maybe more features would be needed "nodoc" "noman" "noinfo". I
> guess many people never open an info page (mostly because the
> info command sucks and they don't know about pinfo).

Yelp is good here, but you're right that it should probably be
separated.



> I think with the nodoc flag it would never "merge" the docs.
> It sure wont install them first then rm -rf them again. It
> would simply not move them from >
> /var/tmp/portage.../image/usr/doc/appfoo-6.6.6 into the running
> system(Mabye exclude them from unpacking when using tbz2 packages). 

Well, the reason I suggest making it a FEATURE instead of anything else
is because that way we can include the whole package of man
pages and documentation in built binary packages, but simply prevent it
from entering the "final" system afterwards. 

This would probably just mean a few lines to check the feature, and if
it exists, scan usr/share/doc and remove all files that want to install
there...  

> I'm not the programmer of it but i guess the mainquestion is how to
> configure it. Like a FEATURE="nodoc noinfo" or with it's own variable
> like DOCS="man -info -doc" or whatever.

I'd say just a FEATURE, because it'd be cleaner configurationwise that
way.  No need in splitting it up in a case like this.


//Spider

-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: USE flags

[Björn Lindström]

Spider <spider@gentoo.org> writes:

> Well, the reason I suggest making it a FEATURE instead of anything else
> is because that way we can include the whole package of man
> pages and documentation in built binary packages, but simply prevent it
> from entering the "final" system afterwards. 
>
> This would probably just mean a few lines to check the feature, and if
> it exists, scan usr/share/doc and remove all files that want to install
> there...  

And why couldn't those lines check the INSTALL_PROTECT (if that's what
we'll call it) variable? Including the non-installed files in binary
packages would work doesn't really have anything to do with whether this
is implemented as a FEATURE flag or a separate variable.

The disadvantage of having FEATURE:s for it, is that it will be limited
to certain directories. Using a configuration variable, people can apply
it to whatever they want.

-- 
Björn Lindström <bkhl@elektrubadur.se>
http://bkhl.elektrubadur.se/


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: USE flags

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 664 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:34:10 +0200
bkhl@elektrubadur.se (Björn Lindström) wrote:


> And why couldn't those lines check the INSTALL_PROTECT (if that's what
> we'll call it) variable? Including the non-installed files in binary
> packages would work doesn't really have anything to do with whether
> this is implemented as a FEATURE flag or a separate variable.
> 


True, and then we could do some interesting default masking, like
walling off /usr/local per default...

//Spider


-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: USE flags

[Christian Birchinger]

Yes, a generic INSTALL_PROTECT sounds good. I'd vote for that :)
It should be used at the final merge stage and not before.

For performance reasons it could be also used at the untar stage
when using .tbz2 packages (with --exclude=FILE).

On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 01:08:13AM +0200, Spider wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:34:10 +0200
> bkhl@elektrubadur.se (Björn Lindström) wrote:
> 
> 
> > And why couldn't those lines check the INSTALL_PROTECT (if that's what
> > we'll call it) variable? Including the non-installed files in binary
> > packages would work doesn't really have anything to do with whether
> > this is implemented as a FEATURE flag or a separate variable.
> > 
> 
> True, and then we could do some interesting default masking, like
> walling off /usr/local per default...
> 

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: USE flags

[Luke-Jr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 24 October 2003 03:16 pm, Christian Birchinger wrote:
> For performance reasons it could be also used at the untar stage
> when using .tbz2 packages (with --exclude=FILE).
I'm not sure how it's done right now, but it may be a good idea to implement 
{CONFIG,INSTALL}_PROTECT *only* in the merge process since both variables 
could very well change for another merge at a later time (very likely w/ 
GRP).
- -- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQE/mdTHZl/BHdU+lYMRAtf0AJj4QV8rd2sRG1FKsOMniyM5wQoNAKCD5Mzw
bBaXS820bHMZlNIH+4CNUg==
=qX6C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: USE flags

[Björn Lindström]

Philippe Coulonges <cphil@cphil.net> writes:

> If you implement this stuff, please do separate options.

That was what my suggestion for an option with a list of directories to
affect, similar to CONFIG_PROTECT.

-- 
Björn Lindström <bkhl@elektrubadur.se>
http://bkhl.elektrubadur.se/


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags

[Masatomo Nakano]

hi,

> > I would love to see such a thing.  This would be great for anyone with
> > a large number of machines, or for building small installations.
> 
> 
> it would be better implemented as a FEATURE, and less intrusive to the
> vast amount of builds we have.
> 
> (FEATURE=nodoc  ::  Will toss away documentation and manpages post
> install)

I've thought the similar feature.

See these links and comment there if possible:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25296
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24769

I posted a patch for this feature there:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9988

# Of course, we don't need to modify any ebuilds :)

Thanks,
Masatomo Nakano

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 909 bytes --]

On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 17:34, A. Craig West wrote:
> So how does one go about getting a USE flag added to an ebuild? In my case, I
> have my own version of the tin ebuild with a 'forgery' USE flag added which
> adds the --enable-forgery option to the .configure command. I'm pretty sure
> I'm not the only person around who uses that option, so it seems like
> something worth contributing to the real ebuild.

I would say you should hack up the ebuild and post a copy of it to
bugzilla as a bug.  Assign it to the maintainer of the ebuild and
hopefully they'll accept it.  It helps to also have a few people that
you know use it to chime in and also to be around to help the developer
solve any problems there may be with the new functionality, such as
being a testing guinea pig for the developer.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]