[gentoo-dev] Re: Apply patch depending on USE flag

[gentoo-dev] Re: Apply patch depending on USE flag

[Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.-]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Lars Strojny wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 18:20:48 +0100
> Tom Wesley <tom.wesley@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 18:18, Ajai Khattri wrote:
> > > I would like to have an ebuild apply a patch based on whether a USE flag
> > > is set or not - what is the standard way to do this in an ebuild? (Or is
> > > there some function already available to do it?).
> > 
> > You can
> > 
> >         if use nntp; then
> >             epatch ${DISTDIR}/${nntp_patch}
> >         fi
> 
> I think 
> if [ "`use nntp`" ] ; then
> is more elegant ;)

Between the two, the first example is preferred.

Michael Sterrett
  -Mr. Bones.-
mr_bones_@gentoo.org

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Apply patch depending on USE flag

[Don Seiler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 549 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 03:33:31PM -0400, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- wrote:
> > >         if use nntp; then
> > >             epatch ${DISTDIR}/${nntp_patch}
> > >         fi
> > 
> > I think 
> > if [ "`use nntp`" ] ; then
> > is more elegant ;)
> 
> Between the two, the first example is preferred.

Except that you may want ${FILESDIR} and not ${DISTDIR}.  I still prefer
the 'use flag && epatch blah' syntax.

-- 
Don Seiler             rizzo@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux Developer      net-im Herd
http://dev.gentoo.org/~rizzo/

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Apply patch depending on USE flag

[brettholcomb]

Out of curiosity and because I'm doing some ebuilds and would like to do them correctly why is the first preferred?

> 
> From: "Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.-" <msterret@coat.com>
> Date: 2004/04/29 Thu PM 07:33:31 GMT
> To: Lars Strojny <lars@strojny.net>
> CC: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Apply patch depending on USE flag
> 
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Lars Strojny wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 18:20:48 +0100
> > Tom Wesley <tom.wesley@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 18:18, Ajai Khattri wrote:
> > > > I would like to have an ebuild apply a patch based on whether a USE flag
> > > > is set or not - what is the standard way to do this in an ebuild? (Or is
> > > > there some function already available to do it?).
> > > 
> > > You can
> > > 
> > >         if use nntp; then
> > >             epatch ${DISTDIR}/${nntp_patch}
> > >         fi
> > 
> > I think 
> > if [ "`use nntp`" ] ; then
> > is more elegant ;)
> 
> Between the two, the first example is preferred.
> 
> Michael Sterrett
>   -Mr. Bones.-
> mr_bones_@gentoo.org
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> 


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Apply patch depending on USE flag

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 29 April 2004 03:33 pm, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Lars Strojny wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 18:20:48 +0100
> > Tom Wesley <tom.wesley@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > You can
> > >
> > >         if use nntp; then
> > >             epatch ${DISTDIR}/${nntp_patch}
> > >         fi
> >
> > I think
> > if [ "`use nntp`" ] ; then
> > is more elegant ;)
>
> Between the two, the first example is preferred.

and by prefered he means 'do not use the following syntax anymore in ebuilds':
[ `use nntp` ]
[ "`use nntp`" ]
[ -z "`use nntp`" ]
[ -n "`use nntp`" ]
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Apply patch depending on USE flag

[Brett I. Holcomb]

For the sake of one who is doing ebuilds - why is the first form
preferred?  I'm curious.  I'm working on revising an ebuild now that has
the bad form.

Thanks.

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Mike Frysinger wrote:

> On Thursday 29 April 2004 03:33 pm, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Lars Strojny wrote:
> > > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 18:20:48 +0100
> > > Tom Wesley <tom.wesley@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > > You can
> > > >
> > > >         if use nntp; then
> > > >             epatch ${DISTDIR}/${nntp_patch}
> > > >         fi
> > >
> > > I think
> > > if [ "`use nntp`" ] ; then
> > > is more elegant ;)
> >
> > Between the two, the first example is preferred.
>
> and by prefered he means 'do not use the following syntax anymore in ebuilds':
> [ `use nntp` ]
> [ "`use nntp`" ]
> [ -z "`use nntp`" ]
> [ -n "`use nntp`" ]
> -mike
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>

-- 
Brett I. Holcomb

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Apply patch depending on USE flag

[Georgi Georgiev]

maillog: 29/04/2004-22:27:22(-0400): Brett I. Holcomb types
> For the sake of one who is doing ebuilds - why is the first form
> preferred?  I'm curious.  I'm working on revising an ebuild now that has
> the bad form.

Related to the question: I really hate it when ebuild start printing out use
flags here and there, because of the 

if use foo; then... 
use foo && ...

syntax. I guess [ "`use foo`" ] is at least cleaner in respect to output. It
would be great if "use" did not print anything, or if there was an alternate.
Right now, one would have to add ">/dev/null" after "use", if they want to keep
the output clean. Is the reason why using the output of "use foo" is not
preferred, because "use" will soon become silent?

> Thanks.
> 
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday 29 April 2004 03:33 pm, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- wrote:
> > > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Lars Strojny wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 18:20:48 +0100
> > > > Tom Wesley <tom.wesley@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > > > You can
> > > > >
> > > > >         if use nntp; then
> > > > >             epatch ${DISTDIR}/${nntp_patch}
> > > > >         fi
> > > >
> > > > I think
> > > > if [ "`use nntp`" ] ; then
> > > > is more elegant ;)
> > >
> > > Between the two, the first example is preferred.
> >
> > and by prefered he means 'do not use the following syntax anymore in ebuilds':
> > [ `use nntp` ]
> > [ "`use nntp`" ]
> > [ -z "`use nntp`" ]
> > [ -n "`use nntp`" ]

-- 
\    Georgi Georgiev   \  To love is good, love being difficult.       \
/     chutz@gg3.net    /                                               /
\   +81(90)6266-1163   \                                               \

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Apply patch depending on USE flag

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 29 April 2004 11:12 pm, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> maillog: 29/04/2004-22:27:22(-0400): Brett I. Holcomb types
>
> > For the sake of one who is doing ebuilds - why is the first form
> > preferred?  I'm curious.  I'm working on revising an ebuild now that has
> > the bad form.
>
> Related to the question: I really hate it when ebuild start printing out
> use flags here and there, because of the

which is *exactly* why we want to stop using the forms i cited :P

those forms require that use echo something in order for them to be true ... 
if we convert all the forms over to just:
use nntp
if use nntp ; then
then we can make 'use' stop echoing crap and then introduce a 'usev' for the 
case when we actually want `use` to echo something
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Apply patch depending on USE flag

[Drake Wyrm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1765 bytes --]

On Thu, 2004-04-29, 20:34:12 +0000, in
<200404292034.i3TKYCgi064017@mxsf15.cluster1.charter.net>,
brettholcomb@charter.net top-posted:
> > 
> > From: "Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.-" <msterret@coat.com> Date:
> > 2004/04/29 Thu PM 07:33:31 GMT To: Lars Strojny <lars@strojny.net>
> > CC: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Apply
> > patch depending on USE flag
> > 
> > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Lars Strojny wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 18:20:48 +0100 Tom Wesley
> > > <tom.wesley@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 18:18, Ajai Khattri wrote:
> > > > > I would like to have an ebuild apply a patch based on whether
> > > > > a USE flag is set or not - what is the standard way to do this
> > > > > in an ebuild? (Or is there some function already available to
> > > > > do it?).
> > > > 
> > > > You can
> > > > 
> > > >         if use nntp; then
> > > >             epatch ${DISTDIR}/${nntp_patch}
> > > >         fi
> > > 
> > > I think 
> > > if [ "`use nntp`" ] ; then
> > > is more elegant ;)
> > 
> > Between the two, the first example is preferred.
> > 
> Out of curiosity and because I'm doing some ebuilds and would like to
> do them correctly why is the first preferred?

I think that, eventually, they would like to phase out the requirement
that use() have any kind of output. Also, decide for yourself which
would be faster to determine and/or the more elegant solution:

1) the exit status of use()

2) the exit status of the `[` built-in after performing command
   substitution on the stdout from use()

-- 
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"?
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action.
  --Ghost in the Shell

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Apply patch depending on USE flag

[Drake Wyrm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1235 bytes --]

On Thu, 2004-04-29, 23:35:28 -0400, in <200404292335.28405.vapier@gentoo.org>, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 29 April 2004 11:12 pm, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> > maillog: 29/04/2004-22:27:22(-0400): Brett I. Holcomb types
> >
> > > For the sake of one who is doing ebuilds - why is the first form
> > > preferred?  I'm curious.  I'm working on revising an ebuild now that has
> > > the bad form.
> >
> > Related to the question: I really hate it when ebuild start printing out
> > use flags here and there, because of the
> 
> which is *exactly* why we want to stop using the forms i cited :P
> 
> those forms require that use echo something in order for them to be true ... 
> if we convert all the forms over to just:
> use nntp
> if use nntp ; then
> then we can make 'use' stop echoing crap and then introduce a 'usev' for the 
> case when we actually want `use` to echo something

We already have `use-with` and `use-enable` for that. Was the output
from `use` ever used in any context other than "[ `use foo` ]" and
friends?

-- 
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"?
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action.
  --Ghost in the Shell

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Apply patch depending on USE flag

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 30 April 2004 02:25 am, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-04-29, 23:35:28 -0400, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> 
wrote:
> We already have `use-with` and `use-enable` for that. Was the output
> from `use` ever used in any context other than "[ `use foo` ]" and
> friends?

use_with and use_enable do completely different things

ive personally used the fact that use echos the flag when building 
packages ... for example, a package with a crapy build system:
for vid in `use sdl` `use X` `use opengl` `use svga` ; do
    make clean
    make VID=$vid
    mv binary ../binary.$vid
done
*much* more often the fact that the use flag is echoed is not used

we will continue to hunt down useless applications of [ "`use blah`" ] and the 
like in the portage tree so that we can transition to `usev` ... so stop 
trying to fight the machine ... i know I WILL NOT BE A ROBOT
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Apply patch depending on USE flag

[Drake Wyrm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1373 bytes --]

On Fri, 2004-04-30, 02:31:39 -0400, in
<200404300231.39292.vapier@gentoo.org>, Mike Frysinger
<vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Friday 30 April 2004 02:25 am, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> > We already have `use-with` and `use-enable` for that. Was the output
> > from `use` ever used in any context other than "[ `use foo` ]" and
> > friends?
> 
> ive personally used the fact that use echos the flag when building
> packages ... for example, a package with a crapy build system:
> for vid in `use sdl` `use X` `use opengl` `use svga` ; do
>     make clean
>     make VID=$vid
>     mv binary ../binary.$vid
> done

That's beautiful. Now, there's an example of elegance!
I imagine, though, that our USE flags and other developers' naming
schemes are just sufficiently divergent to make this sort of opportunity
rare.

> we will continue to hunt down useless applications of [ "`use blah`" ] and the 
> like in the portage tree so that we can transition to `usev` ... so stop 
> trying to fight the machine ... i know I WILL NOT BE A ROBOT

*blink* *blink*
This would be an example of something else. ;-)

I noticed the `useq()` function. Are we trying to phase out the use of
`use()` alltogether?

-- 
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"?
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action.
  --Ghost in the Shell

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Apply patch depending on USE flag

[sf]

Drake Wyrm wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-04-30, 02:31:39 -0400, in
> <200404300231.39292.vapier@gentoo.org>, Mike Frysinger
> <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>>On Friday 30 April 2004 02:25 am, Drake Wyrm wrote:
...
>>ive personally used the fact that use echos the flag when building
>>packages ... for example, a package with a crapy build system:
>>for vid in `use sdl` `use X` `use opengl` `use svga` ; do
>>    make clean
>>    make VID=$vid
>>    mv binary ../binary.$vid
>>done
> 
> 
> That's beautiful. Now, there's an example of elegance!

Beautiful? It is an example of code replication!

What about about the following?

for vid in sdl X opengl svga; do
     if use $vid; then
         make clean
         make VID=$vid
         mv binary ../binary.$vid
     fi
done


Regards

	Stephan


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Apply patch depending on USE flag

[Drake Wyrm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1044 bytes --]

On Fri, 2004-04-30, 14:18:39 +0200, in <4092441F.70205@b-i-t.de>, sf
<sf@b-i-t.de> wrote:
> Drake Wyrm wrote:
> >On Fri, 2004-04-30, 02:31:39 -0400, in
> ><200404300231.39292.vapier@gentoo.org>, Mike Frysinger
> ><vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> >>On Friday 30 April 2004 02:25 am, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> ...
> >>ive personally used the fact that use echos the flag when building
> >>packages ... for example, a package with a crapy build system:
> >>for vid in `use sdl` `use X` `use opengl` `use svga` ; do
> >>   make clean
> >>   make VID=$vid
> >>   mv binary ../binary.$vid
> >>done
> >
> >
> >That's beautiful. Now, there's an example of elegance!
> 
> Beautiful? It is an example of code replication!

Maybe. Then again, maybe I just get a kick out of seeing somebody do
something useful with anything I consider to be useless (e.g. the output
from `use`).

-- 
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"?
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action.
  --Ghost in the Shell

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Apply patch depending on USE flag

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 30 April 2004 03:48 am, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> I noticed the `useq()` function. Are we trying to phase out the use of
> `use()` alltogether?

that was an uniformed attempt by nick to handle the verbose problem ... i 
believe the opposite approach is better (use + usev instead of use + useq) 
since the *majority* of the time useq should be used ...

as for the example i gave, yes there is an effective solution to it, i just 
never thought of that ;)
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Apply patch depending on USE flag

[Jason Huebel]

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

Mike Frysinger wrote:
| and by prefered he means 'do not use the following syntax anymore in
ebuilds':
| [ `use nntp` ]
| [ "`use nntp`" ]
| [ -z "`use nntp`" ]
| [ -n "`use nntp`" ]
| -mike

So, is this still cool then? It isn't on your list of no-no's...

use nntp && epatch ${FILESDIR}/my-nifty-nntp.patch

Jason Huebel
Gentoo/amd64 Lead
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAlwOdbNgbbJup4jARAmrdAKCQVQqDlF94OsXIAmcka9yibiFMzQCggYkI
st1kz7rm2tDdk285vNZ5/zI=
=EmSD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Apply patch depending on USE flag

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 03 May 2004 10:44 pm, Jason Huebel wrote:
> So, is this still cool then? It isn't on your list of no-no's...
>
> use nntp && epatch ${FILESDIR}/my-nifty-nntp.patch

thats because that is very different from the ones i cited ... that's the way 
it should be done
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Apply patch depending on USE flag

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 05 May 2004 09:08 pm, Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
> For curiosity and learning - why are the forms below bad?  What do they do
> to an ebuild?

they 'work' because `use` echo's a string
if we change use to only return 0/1 (shell true/false), then those forms will 
all stop working
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list