[gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 539 bytes --]

GLEP 29 covers grouping USE flags to simplify initial selection. The
short version is that it proposes USE="@DESKTOP @KDE foo bar".

An updated draft since the previous posting is attached. Updates are:
* clarify some of the wording
* explicitly state that comments are allowed in the group files.

Feedback encouraged.

[ GLEP people, please commit this updated version to CVS. ]

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, Sparc, Mips)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #1.2: glep-0029.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 5145 bytes --]

GLEP: 29
Title: USE flag groups
Version: $Revision: $
Author: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org>
Last-Modified: $Date: 2004/08/22 02:02:32 $
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 19-August-2004
Post-Date: 21-August-2004, 17-October-2004

Abstract
========

Currently, USE flags must be selected on a one-by-one basis, making it
time-consuming to set up make.conf appropriately for a machine's role.

Motivation
==========

Many packages have optional support for other packages (for example, the
Vim text editor can optionally support perl, python and ruby
interpreters). In Gentoo, these optional dependencies can be selected by
the user using USE flags. This allows a system appropriate for a given
environment to be built -- a server, for example, should not typically
have an X11 server or sound support, whereas both would be desirable on
most desktop systems.

With several hundred USE flags available, deciding upon which USE flags to
enable and which to disable can take a long time. This GLEP proposes a
mechanism for grouping USE flags to simplify selection.

Specification
=============

Group Specification
-------------------

A group shall consist of one or more USE flags. These groups are defined
in ``${PORTDIR}/profiles/use.groups``. It is proposed that uppercase names
only are used for groups to keep them visually distinct from normal USE
flags, although this should not be enforced programatically. The file
should be similar in format to the existing use.* files. In the following,
``SOME_GROUP`` and ``OTHER_GROUP`` are group names, and ``flag1`` through
``flag5`` are USE flag names:

::

	SOME_GROUP flag1 flag2 flag3
	OTHER_GROUP flag2 flag4

Groups may recursively include other groups. For consistency with GLEP 23
[1], it is proposed that group names are prefixed with an 'at' symbol (@):

::

	GROUP1 flag1
	GROUP2 flag2 flag3 @GROUP1
	GROUP3 flag4
	GROUP4 @GROUP2 @GROUP3 flag5

The same flag may end up being in a particular group more than once:

::

	GROUP1 flag1 flag2
	GROUP2 flag2 flag3
	GROUP3 @GROUP1 @GROUP2 flag3 flag4

As with similar files, comments may be included. Lines which begin with a
hash symbol (#) are comments.

::

	# This is a comment
	FOO bar baz fnord

Users may create their own groups using ``/etc/portage/use.groups``. This
file overrides the profile settings in the case of duplicates.

Group Descriptions
------------------

Groups shall have a textual description associated with them in the same
way as USE flags. The file ``${PORTDIR}/profiles/use.groups.desc``
contains these:

::

	# This is a comment
	DESKTOP Flags which are appropriate for most desktop systems
	RECOMMENDED Flags which should be enabled on almost all systems


Using Groups
------------

Groups may be used in ``/etc/make.conf``, ``/etc/portage/package.use`` and
other places where USE flags are normally specified. Again, the @ symbol
is used. For example, a ``make.conf`` for a desktop system might resemble:

::

	USE="@DESKTOP @KDE perl alsa dvd"

Additional Issues
-----------------

Groups should *not* generally contain negative USE flags, as this would
lead to confusion. Groups are intended to specify what will be enabled for
a given role, not what will be turned off. For example, if the @KDE group
disabled Gnome-related USE flags, and a user used ``USE="@GNOME @KDE"`` to
specify that they wanted both Gnome *and* KDE to be used where applicable,
chaos would ensue. However, for the sake of consistency, -flags should be
supported even if their use is strongly discouraged.

It is proposed that ``-@GROUP`` syntax should *not* be supported. Instead,
users wishing to turn most things off could use the ``-*`` USE syntax
along with a group (for example, @RECOMMENDED or @MINIMAL) which turned on
flags (for example, pam and readline) which should usually be used.

Adding New Groups
-----------------

The actual groups to be created is beyond the scope of this GLEP, and any
group names contained herein should be treated as examples only. Creation
of new groups and changing a group's flags should be discussed on the
gentoo-dev mailing list as per existing policy for new global USE flags.

Rationale
=========

USE groups will simplify selecting an appropriate set of USE flags for a
system.

Reference Implementation
========================

TODO

Backwards Compatability
=======================

The user will not need to make any changes to keep their current setup.
Users who are not running a portage version which supports groups can
carry on using current syntax with no side-effects.

Some tools which work with make.conf and / or USE flags (for example,
``ufed``) will need to be updated to understand the new group syntax.

There is currently a dymanic list of USE flags available on the Gentoo
website [2]. For consistency, a similar list will be needed for USE
groups.

References
==========

.. [1] GLEP 23: Portage handling of ACCEPT_LICENSE
       (http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0023.html)
.. [2] http://www.gentoo.org/dyn/use-index.xml

Copyright
=========

This document has been placed in the public domain.

 vim: set tw=74 :

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Francesco Riosa]

The GLEP specify that:

--snip--
Additional Issues
-----------------

Groups should *not* generally contain negative USE flags, as this would
lead to confusion. Groups are intended to specify what will be enabled for
a given role, not what will be turned off. For example, if the @KDE group
disabled Gnome-related USE flags, and a user used ``USE="@GNOME @KDE"`` to
specify that they wanted both Gnome *and* KDE to be used where applicable,
chaos would ensue. However, for the sake of consistency, -flags should be
supported even if their use is strongly discouraged.

It is proposed that ``-@GROUP`` syntax should *not* be supported. Instead,
users wishing to turn most things off could use the ``-*`` USE syntax
along with a group (for example, @RECOMMENDED or @MINIMAL) which turned on
flags (for example, pam and readline) which should usually be used.
--/snip--

my two cents are to *allow* negative USE flags and parse them
*before* the additive ones.

This way we parse the USE variable twice.
- one to chose the negative flags and expanding negative group.
- then we parse it again adding all positives (that nullify negative ones)

example

::

    GROUP1 flag1 flag2
    GROUP2 flag2 flag3
    GROUP3 @GROUP1 -@GROUP2 flag2 flag3 flag4

it's the same as:

    GROUP1 flag1 flag2
    GROUP2 flag2 flag3
    GROUP3 @GROUP1 flag3 flag4

and GROUP3 may be expanded both in:

GROUP3 flag1 flag2 flag3 flag4
or
GROUP3 flag1 flag2 flag2 flag3 flag4


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 569 bytes --]

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:39:46 +0200 Francesco Riosa
<francesco@pnpitalia.it> wrote:
| The GLEP specify that:
| Groups should *not* generally contain negative USE flags, as this
| would lead to confusion.
|
| my two cents are to *allow* negative USE flags and parse them
| *before* the additive ones.

I'm against this, on the grounds that it's totally different from the
way everything else is handled USE-wise.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, Sparc, Mips)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Kurt Lieber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 764 bytes --]

On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 03:27:09PM +0100 or thereabouts, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> GLEP 29 covers grouping USE flags to simplify initial selection. The
> short version is that it proposes USE="@DESKTOP @KDE foo bar".
> 
> An updated draft since the previous posting is attached. Updates are:
> * clarify some of the wording
> * explicitly state that comments are allowed in the group files.
> 
> Feedback encouraged.

Sorry if this was discussed earlier, but why not support -@GROUP?  IMO,
negative USE flags are a key strength of the system and I'd hate to see
groupings drop that support.  I do understand the chaos that may ensue if
you support negative flags within a group, but I'd like the ability to use
negative groups.

My $.02.

--kurt

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Luke-Jr]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1284 bytes --]

On Monday 18 October 2004 1:20 pm, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 03:27:09PM +0100 or thereabouts, Ciaran McCreesh 
wrote:
> > GLEP 29 covers grouping USE flags to simplify initial selection. The
> > short version is that it proposes USE="@DESKTOP @KDE foo bar".
> >
> > An updated draft since the previous posting is attached. Updates are:
> > * clarify some of the wording
> > * explicitly state that comments are allowed in the group files.
> >
> > Feedback encouraged.
>
> Sorry if this was discussed earlier, but why not support -@GROUP?  IMO,
> negative USE flags are a key strength of the system and I'd hate to see
> groupings drop that support.  I do understand the chaos that may ensue if
> you support negative flags within a group, but I'd like the ability to use
> negative groups.

As someone else mentioned, people might put "@KDE -@GNOME" and wonder why X is 
missing... However, I would agree that -@GROUP can be useful and another 
workaround for the problem should be provided... Perhaps USE dependencies (eg 
USE=kde relies on USE=X for most archs) could solve this (and also take care 
of the grouping issue altogether), but that would add another level of 
complexity.
-- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Jochen Maes]

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

Luke-Jr wrote:

|On Monday 18 October 2004 1:20 pm, Kurt Lieber wrote:
|
|>On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 03:27:09PM +0100 or thereabouts, Ciaran McCreesh
|
|wrote:
|
|>>GLEP 29 covers grouping USE flags to simplify initial selection. The
|>>short version is that it proposes USE="@DESKTOP @KDE foo bar".
|>>
|>>An updated draft since the previous posting is attached. Updates are:
|>>* clarify some of the wording
|>>* explicitly state that comments are allowed in the group files.
|>>
|>>Feedback encouraged.
|>
|>Sorry if this was discussed earlier, but why not support -@GROUP?  IMO,
|>negative USE flags are a key strength of the system and I'd hate to see
|>groupings drop that support.  I do understand the chaos that may ensue if
|>you support negative flags within a group, but I'd like the ability to use
|>negative groups.
|
|
|As someone else mentioned, people might put "@KDE -@GNOME" and wonder 
why X is
|missing... However, I would agree that -@GROUP can be useful and another
|workaround for the problem should be provided... Perhaps USE 
dependencies (eg
|USE=kde relies on USE=X for most archs) could solve this (and also take 
care
|of the grouping issue altogether), but that would add another level of
|complexity.

I have to agree on Kurt and as having -@KDE and -@GNOME should imply 
that X isn't installed, there are other window managers who can be used 
also (in this example). If we do now -kde and -gnome, that wouldn't 
imply that X won't be installed right?

I think that people should have the option to do -@GROUP.

greetings

- --
"Defer no time, delays have dangerous ends"

~ Jochen Maes                     
~ Lead ppc/java                   
~ Lead ppc/documentation          
~ Gentoo Linux                       
~ http://dev.gentoo.org/~sejo/       
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBc8VsMXMsRNMHhmARAk90AKD0Fl0+J0TYZgwHvWg0N4+yM+SGygCguO6M
WuTZ2of5nZ00ReAa+drV8bo=
=B6R5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Jason Stubbs]

On Monday 18 October 2004 08:05, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:39:46 +0200 Francesco Riosa
>
> <francesco@pnpitalia.it> wrote:
> | The GLEP specify that:
> | Groups should *not* generally contain negative USE flags, as this
> | would lead to confusion.
> |
> | my two cents are to *allow* negative USE flags and parse them
> | *before* the additive ones.
>
> I'm against this, on the grounds that it's totally different from the
> way everything else is handled USE-wise.

I'm against the two cents (if necessary, I'll go into the 101 pitfalls) but 
I'm not against the negatives in groups. In fact, I think for USE flags they 
are actually required. For example,

@GAMING="music maps sounds cdinstall -nojoystick"

Then on negation, deal with it mathematically. For example,

-@GAMING == -music -maps -sounds -cdinstall nojoystick

From an implementation perspective, this seems clean and simple. From a 
maintainer's perspective, all reasonable functionality seems to be available. 
From a user's perspective, the result seems to intuitively match the intent. 
Having said that, I can't see negated USE flags every being useful within a 
group unless the USE flags themselves are negative.

As for general processing, I'd think that what would be most intuitive given 
the current scheme of things is that things are expanded in place. Hence,

Given,
@KDE="kde qt arts X"
@GNOME="gnome gtk esd X"
then,
USE="-@KDE @GNOME"
becomes
USE="-kde -qt -arts -X gnome gtk esd X"
becomes
USE="gnome gtk esd X"

Similarly,
USE="@KDE -@GNOME"
becomes
USE="kde qt arts X -gnome -gtk -esd -X"
becomes
USE="kde qt arts"

Sure the second case may seem strange to the new user at first, but I'm sure 
that documentation and support will handle it just as it does the users that 
try to USE="-xfree".

BTW, may as well keep the grouping discussion here. In fact, it might be best 
to remove grouping from the ACCEPT_LICENSE GLEP so as to get the rest of it 
finalized. See how time goes, I guess...

Regards,
Jason Stubbs

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1625 bytes --]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:41:37 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| I'm against the two cents (if necessary, I'll go into the 101
| pitfalls) but I'm not against the negatives in groups. In fact, I
| think for USE flags they are actually required. For example,
| 
| @GAMING="music maps sounds cdinstall -nojoystick"

Really, I see -flags in @GROUPS as only being necessary because of
people using no* flags. *shrug* I don't really like the idea too much
because of the confusion that it'll no doubt cause, but I'm not against
sticking them in and telling developers not to use them :)

| Then on negation, deal with it mathematically. For example,
| 
| -@GAMING == -music -maps -sounds -cdinstall nojoystick

Yeah, workable. I bet it'll confuse the hell out of users who do
USE="@GNOME -@KDE" though, since they'll end up getting USE="-X"...

Ah, well... Unless someone screams, I'll send out another draft which
allows -@GROUPS and explains how they work, along with some big fat
nasty warning about how @GNOME -@KDE doesn't do what you think and a
requirement that any document that talks about @GROUPS makes this really
frickin' clear.

| BTW, may as well keep the grouping discussion here. In fact, it might
| be best to remove grouping from the ACCEPT_LICENSE GLEP so as to get
| the rest of it finalized. See how time goes, I guess...

You aiming for .51 on that? Personally I don't see the LICENCE stuff
being usable without some form of grouping...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, Sparc, Mips)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Peter Ruskin]

On Monday 18 October 2004 14:41, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> USE="@KDE -@GNOME"
> becomes
> USE="kde qt arts X -gnome -gtk -esd -X"
> becomes
> USE="kde qt arts"

I still don't see the need for all this grouping stuff, but if we're 
going to get it, will USE="@KDE -@GNOME" gtk work - I mean, wil it 
result in USE="kde qt arts gtk"?

-- 
Peter
========================================================================
Gentoo Linux: Portage 2.0.50-r11. kernel-2.6.8-gentoo-r9.
i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3200+.  gcc(GCC): 3.3.4.
KDE: 3.3.1.    Qt: 3.3.3.
========================================================================

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 629 bytes --]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:23:08 +0100 Peter Ruskin
<Peter.Ruskin@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
| On Monday 18 October 2004 14:41, Jason Stubbs wrote:
| > USE="@KDE -@GNOME"
| > becomes
| > USE="kde qt arts X -gnome -gtk -esd -X"
| > becomes
| > USE="kde qt arts"
| 
| I still don't see the need for all this grouping stuff, but if we're 
| going to get it, will USE="@KDE -@GNOME" gtk work - I mean, wil it 
| result in USE="kde qt arts gtk"?

Yes. It'll also result in USE="-X"...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, Sparc, Mips)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Peter Ruskin]

On Monday 18 October 2004 17:57, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:23:08 +0100 Peter Ruskin
>
> <Peter.Ruskin@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> | On Monday 18 October 2004 14:41, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> | > USE="@KDE -@GNOME"
> | > becomes
> | > USE="kde qt arts X -gnome -gtk -esd -X"
> | > becomes
> | > USE="kde qt arts"
> |
> | I still don't see the need for all this grouping stuff, but if
> | we're going to get it, will USE="@KDE -@GNOME" gtk work - I mean,
> | wil it result in USE="kde qt arts gtk"?
>
> Yes. It'll also result in USE="-X"...

Well, that's a bit scary and not exactly intuitive.  I'm already seeing 
lots of doubled-up use flags when I use the -v switch with emerge (e.g. 
-debug -debug) and that leads to my having less confidence in the 
professional management of the Gentoo project.

-- 
Peter
========================================================================
Gentoo Linux: Portage 2.0.50-r11. kernel-2.6.8-gentoo-r9.
i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3200+.  gcc(GCC): 3.3.4.
KDE: 3.3.1.    Qt: 3.3.3.
========================================================================

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1100 bytes --]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:12:19 +0100 Peter Ruskin
<Peter.Ruskin@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
| > | I still don't see the need for all this grouping stuff, but if
| > | we're going to get it, will USE="@KDE -@GNOME" gtk work - I mean,
| > | wil it result in USE="kde qt arts gtk"?
| >
| > Yes. It'll also result in USE="-X"...
| 
| Well, that's a bit scary and not exactly intuitive.

Which is why I'm discouraging -@GROUPS for people who don't know what
they're doing. Although, if you understand how it works, it's entirely
obvious...

|  I'm already
| seeing lots of doubled-up use flags when I use the -v switch with
| emerge (e.g. -debug -debug)

That's a 2.0.50 bug that doesn't exist in 2.0.51, and it's purely
cosmetic. The USE flags are being doubled up because they're specified
twice.

|  and that leads to my having less
| confidence in the professional management of the Gentoo project.

I believe I speak for all of us when I say "huh?".

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, Sparc, Mips)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 495 bytes --]

On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 21:12 +0100, Peter Ruskin wrote:
> Well, that's a bit scary and not exactly intuitive.  I'm already seeing 
> lots of doubled-up use flags when I use the -v switch with emerge (e.g. 
> -debug -debug) and that leads to my having less confidence in the 
> professional management of the Gentoo project.

professional management?

You're new here, aren't you? ;]

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Operational/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Kurt Lieber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 744 bytes --]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 09:19:14PM +0100 or thereabouts, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Which is why I'm discouraging -@GROUPS for people who don't know what
> they're doing. Although, if you understand how it works, it's entirely
> obvious...

This is a key point.  I would hope that we don't make architectural
decisions that cater to those users who don't know what they're doing.
Gentoo has historically been a distro targeted at users who *do* know what
they're doing.

That's not to say we can't help those who are newer to linux (perhaps
warning messages or something if -@GROUP is used?) but the functionality
should assume a savvy user.

That's purely my opinion and it's bound to piss at least one person off.
Let the flames begin.

--kurt

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Peter Ruskin]

On Monday 18 October 2004 21:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> |  and that leads to my having less
> | confidence in the professional management of the Gentoo project.
>
> I believe I speak for all of us when I say "huh?".

I didn't of course mean professional as opposed to amateur, but rather 
the first listed definition in the Concise Oxford Dictionary:
  a vocation or calling, esp. one that involves some branch of advanced
  learning or science.

So by professional I was implying having skill or competence.

Anyway, I know what I meant.

-- 
Peter
========================================================================
Gentoo Linux: Portage 2.0.50-r11. kernel-2.6.8-gentoo-r9.
i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3200+.  gcc(GCC): 3.3.4.
KDE: 3.3.1.    Qt: 3.3.3.
========================================================================

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Duncan]

Peter Ruskin posted <200410190126.07099.Peter.Ruskin@dsl.pipex.com>,
excerpted below,  on Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:26:07 +0100:

> On Monday 18 October 2004 21:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> |  and that leads to my having less
>> | confidence in the professional management of the Gentoo project.
>>
>> I believe I speak for all of us when I say "huh?".
> 
> I didn't of course mean professional as opposed to amateur, but rather the
> first listed definition in the Concise Oxford Dictionary:
>   a vocation or calling, esp. one that involves some branch of advanced
>   learning or science.
> 
> So by professional I was implying having skill or competence.

I think you are digging a hole faster than you can climb out of it! <g> 
Maybe you better just apologize and leave it at that.  (And I had written
more, but thought better of it and decided I better just leave this at
this! <g>)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
Benjamin Franklin



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Peter Ruskin]

On Tuesday 19 October 2004 10:49, Duncan wrote:
> > I didn't of course mean professional as opposed to amateur, but
> > rather the first listed definition in the Concise Oxford
> > Dictionary:
> >   a vocation or calling, esp. one that involves some branch of
> > advanced learning or science.
> >
> > So by professional I was implying having skill or competence.
>
> I think you are digging a hole faster than you can climb out of it!
> <g> Maybe you better just apologize and leave it at that.  (And I had
> written more, but thought better of it and decided I better just
> leave this at this! <g>)

You're right Duncan, I just tried digging upwards and it doesn't work :)

I withdraw my comments (which were not meant to cause offence).
-- 
Peter
========================================================================
Gentoo Linux: Portage 2.0.50-r11. kernel-2.6.8-gentoo-r9.
i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3200+.  gcc(GCC): 3.3.4.
KDE: 3.3.1.    Qt: 3.3.3.
========================================================================

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1045 bytes --]

On Tuesday 19 October 2004 02:26, Peter Ruskin wrote:
> On Monday 18 October 2004 21:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > |  and that leads to my having less
> > | confidence in the professional management of the Gentoo project.
> >
> > I believe I speak for all of us when I say "huh?".
>
> I didn't of course mean professional as opposed to amateur, but rather
> the first listed definition in the Concise Oxford Dictionary:
>   a vocation or calling, esp. one that involves some branch of advanced
>   learning or science.

It has not much to do with professionalism as with the lack of a marketing 
department. Gentoo is a work in progress and we don't have the resources 
to fix totally innocent buglets in old version, just because that looks 
better (The functionality is correct).

In any case, the management of an open source project has not much to do 
with the management as performed within regular companies.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 953 bytes --]

On Monday 18 October 2004 15:30, Jochen Maes wrote:

>
> I have to agree on Kurt and as having -@KDE and -@GNOME should imply
> that X isn't installed, there are other window managers who can be used
> also (in this example). If we do now -kde and -gnome, that wouldn't
> imply that X won't be installed right?
>
> I think that people should have the option to do -@GROUP.

I agree that the problem is with the example, not with the features. The 
example however exposes some issues. For example the point what a 
negation of a group means. Does it mean that the elements of the group 
are undefined? (And thus allowing higher level definitions to come 
through similar to not having a useflag in make.conf) or does it mean 
that the useflag is negated? Maybe it should be specifyable what negation 
means on a useflag basis.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Jason Stubbs]

On Tuesday 19 October 2004 00:34, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | BTW, may as well keep the grouping discussion here. In fact, it might
> | be best to remove grouping from the ACCEPT_LICENSE GLEP so as to get
> | the rest of it finalized. See how time goes, I guess...
>
> You aiming for .51 on that? Personally I don't see the LICENCE stuff
> being usable without some form of grouping...

Not a chance for 2.0.51 final as that should be out in a few hours. You're 
probably right on the LICENSE stuff being unmanageable without groups. It'll 
first go into a 2.0.52_preX and possibly be backported to a 2.0.51pX.

Regards,
Jason Stubbs

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Luke-Jr]

On Wednesday 20 October 2004 1:55 pm, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 October 2004 00:34, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > | BTW, may as well keep the grouping discussion here. In fact, it might
> > | be best to remove grouping from the ACCEPT_LICENSE GLEP so as to get
> > | the rest of it finalized. See how time goes, I guess...
> >
> > You aiming for .51 on that? Personally I don't see the LICENCE stuff
> > being usable without some form of grouping...
>
> Not a chance for 2.0.51 final as that should be out in a few hours. You're
> probably right on the LICENSE stuff being unmanageable without groups.
> It'll first go into a 2.0.52_preX and possibly be backported to a 2.0.51pX.

How do you figure LICENSE stuff being unmanageable? Wasn't part of it to have 
unACCEPTed LICENSEs prompt for approval on emerging?
-- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 713 bytes --]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:54:36 +0000 Luke-Jr <luke-jr@utopios.org> wrote:
| > Not a chance for 2.0.51 final as that should be out in a few hours.
| > You're probably right on the LICENSE stuff being unmanageable
| > without groups. It'll first go into a 2.0.52_preX and possibly be
| > backported to a 2.0.51pX.
| 
| How do you figure LICENSE stuff being unmanageable? Wasn't part of it
| to have unACCEPTed LICENSEs prompt for approval on emerging?

Portage should never rely upon being interactive. The option's there for
those who explicitly ask for it.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, Sparc, Mips)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Tom Wesley]

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

On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 17:57 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:23:08 +0100 Peter Ruskin
> <Peter.Ruskin@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> | On Monday 18 October 2004 14:41, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> | > USE="@KDE -@GNOME"
> | > becomes
> | > USE="kde qt arts X -gnome -gtk -esd -X"
> | > becomes
> | > USE="kde qt arts"
> | 
> | I still don't see the need for all this grouping stuff, but if we're 
> | going to get it, will USE="@KDE -@GNOME" gtk work - I mean, wil it 
> | result in USE="kde qt arts gtk"?
> 
> Yes. It'll also result in USE="-X"...
> 

Would USE="-@GNOME @KDE" result in USE="-X"?
From rom present USE behaviour it seems to be parsed left-to-right, so would
not.  Just a point for my own clarification...

-- 
Tom Wesley <tom@tomaw.org>

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Luke-Jr]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 888 bytes --]

On Wednesday 20 October 2004 3:57 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:54:36 +0000 Luke-Jr <luke-jr@utopios.org> wrote:
> | > Not a chance for 2.0.51 final as that should be out in a few hours.
> | > You're probably right on the LICENSE stuff being unmanageable
> | > without groups. It'll first go into a 2.0.52_preX and possibly be
> | > backported to a 2.0.51pX.
> |
> | How do you figure LICENSE stuff being unmanageable? Wasn't part of it
> | to have unACCEPTed LICENSEs prompt for approval on emerging?
>
> Portage should never rely upon being interactive. The option's there for
> those who explicitly ask for it.

On a slightly different topic, is there any chance for an option to have 
Portage prompt to ignore a mask and (possibly) add the 
neccesary /etc/portage/package.{unmask,keywords}?
-- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE Flag Grouping) Updates

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1119 bytes --]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:39:05 +0100 Tom Wesley <tom@tomaw.org> wrote:
| On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 17:57 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:23:08 +0100 Peter Ruskin
| > <Peter.Ruskin@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
| > | On Monday 18 October 2004 14:41, Jason Stubbs wrote:
| > | > USE="@KDE -@GNOME"
| > | > becomes
| > | > USE="kde qt arts X -gnome -gtk -esd -X"
| > | > becomes
| > | > USE="kde qt arts"
| > | 
| > | I still don't see the need for all this grouping stuff, but if
| > | we're going to get it, will USE="@KDE -@GNOME" gtk work - I mean,
| > | wil it result in USE="kde qt arts gtk"?
| > 
| > Yes. It'll also result in USE="-X"...
| > 
| 
| Would USE="-@GNOME @KDE" result in USE="-X"?

No. It'd result in USE="X".

| From rom present USE behaviour it seems to be parsed left-to-right, so
| would not.  Just a point for my own clarification...

Yup. Think of the @STUFF as macro expansion, plus a bit of clever
trickery to handle -@BLAH.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, Sparc, Mips)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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