[gentoo-dev] virtual/term?

[gentoo-dev] virtual/term?

[Donnie Berkholz]

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

Take a look at http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79112.

Basic idea is creating a virtual/term for terminal emulators, so things
that "require" one can depend on it. The only thing I'm aware of that
would use this capability is X, so I'm wondering whether anyone else
would use it.

Also, I need some response from term maintainers specifically, and
anyone else, on what they think of this.

Thanks,
Donnie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCMT5wXVaO67S1rtsRAgOfAKCvJxao9xvRg1J1Z2vGwoihS4qOBQCfYa0P
eOHAofQn+NNbF1wnbK29RzA=
=woJ+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/term?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 11 March 2005 01:45 am, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Basic idea is creating a virtual/term for terminal emulators, so things
> that "require" one can depend on it. The only thing I'm aware of that
> would use this capability is X, so I'm wondering whether anyone else
> would use it.

i dont think anything else could possibly benefit from such a virtual ... why 
not just remove the xterm DEPEND completely and be done with it ?
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/term?

[Donnie Berkholz]

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

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 11 March 2005 01:45 am, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> 
>>Basic idea is creating a virtual/term for terminal emulators, so things
>>that "require" one can depend on it. The only thing I'm aware of that
>>would use this capability is X, so I'm wondering whether anyone else
>>would use it.
> 
> 
> i dont think anything else could possibly benefit from such a virtual ... why 
> not just remove the xterm DEPEND completely and be done with it ?

Because as I said in the bug, it's expected to be part of an installed X
implementation. If upstream stops, so will I.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCMfexXVaO67S1rtsRAn/VAJ9+p3+obYFBJHmhH8GNKHLQhhJgjACguVim
pZtWy6q7nXrbMSUkVEdsfqY=
=qWs2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/term?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 11 March 2005 02:55 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Because as I said in the bug, it's expected to be part of an installed X
> implementation. If upstream stops, so will I.

if xterm is expected why virtualize it ? :)
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/term?

[Andrew D. Fant]

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

Mike Frysinger wrote:
| On Friday 11 March 2005 05:05 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
|
|>Mike Frysinger wrote:
|>| On Friday 11 March 2005 02:55 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
|>| if xterm is expected why virtualize it ? :)
|>
|>To stop the whining
|
|
| gotta love that ... well instead of adding cruft to every package,
what about
| adding it to xorg ?
| PDEPEND="|| ( xterm eterm aterm gnome-terminal ... )"
| it sucks but so does virtual/term ...

As much as it pains me, I must agree with Donnie. Adding a virtual/term
to current xterm functional equivalents may suck, but it sucks less than
~ trying to track and add all new equivalents that appear in the future
and add them to xorg.  Personally, I think one of the strengths of
Gentoo is its ability to cope with diverse prefered environments, and
that we ought to use virtuals wherever we can.  All that abstraction
stuff they talk about in CS lectures and such, you know :-)

Andy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCMg3+Oq80mJ2AvM0RAg6XAJ9BjxKM4mhbmsYEAAeWVrUe+g8UhACgnl0b
7U0HnHonFB9FYUiIkNv4fmA=
=f85q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/term?

[Donnie Berkholz]

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

Mike Frysinger wrote:
| On Friday 11 March 2005 02:55 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
|
|>Because as I said in the bug, it's expected to be part of an installed X
|>implementation. If upstream stops, so will I.
|
|
| if xterm is expected why virtualize it ? :)

To stop the whining
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCMhZBXVaO67S1rtsRApNWAKCXoUVHELey86gu0TE7OadDUa9OyACfV/z1
1QVoM/pqRv5kc407LNUfwVQ=
=+M1e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/term?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 11 March 2005 05:05 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> | On Friday 11 March 2005 02:55 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> |>Because as I said in the bug, it's expected to be part of an installed X
> |>implementation. If upstream stops, so will I.
> |
> | if xterm is expected why virtualize it ? :)
>
> To stop the whining

gotta love that ... well instead of adding cruft to every package, what about 
adding it to xorg ?
PDEPEND="|| ( xterm eterm aterm gnome-terminal ... )"
it sucks but so does virtual/term ...
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/term?

[Donnie Berkholz]

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

Andrew D. Fant wrote:
| As much as it pains me, I must agree with Donnie. Adding a virtual/term
| to current xterm functional equivalents may suck, but it sucks less
than ...

Yeah, and if it's agreed that the solution sucks more than the problem,
then we won't do it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCMjRPXVaO67S1rtsRAvZTAJ0aVLZjitdi8GX7C00MQLhkpu4OTACePF7M
aR2/3bUMa2HIC0rBGkFbGRA=
=PzLj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/term?

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 805 bytes --]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:	[Fri Mar 11 2005, 01:45:04AM EST]
> Take a look at http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79112.
> 
> Basic idea is creating a virtual/term for terminal emulators, so things
> that "require" one can depend on it. The only thing I'm aware of that
> would use this capability is X, so I'm wondering whether anyone else
> would use it.

That bug is complaining that xterm is installed, and requests that it
not be necessary.  I don't see how this leads to virtual/term,
though.  After all, they didn't request Gentoo to make sure there is
a terminal installed.

How about making a local USE "xterm" for xorg-x11, then adding it to
the default list?  Then such users can USE=-xterm and they'll be all
set.

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/term?

[Georgi Georgiev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1151 bytes --]

maillog: 11/03/2005-21:35:26(-0500): Aron Griffis types
> That bug is complaining that xterm is installed, and requests that it
> not be necessary.  I don't see how this leads to virtual/term,
> though.  After all, they didn't request Gentoo to make sure there is
> a terminal installed.
> 
> How about making a local USE "xterm" for xorg-x11, then adding it to
> the default list?  Then such users can USE=-xterm and they'll be all
> set.

Maybe use the "minimal" use flag :).

But seriously, the request is silly. I guess the user wouldn't have
complained if xterm was never split out of the main xorg-x11 ebuild.
After all, nobody has officially complained about useless stuff like
xman, xeyes, xedit, xcalc... being installed -- all part of the
official x distribution (from what I gather from another post in this
thread).

-- 
 )   Georgi Georgiev    ) phosflink: To flick a bulb on and off when    )
(     chutz@gg3.net    (  it burns out (as if, somehow, that will      (
 )  +81(90)6266-1163    ) bring it back to life). -- "Sniglets",        )
(  ------------------- (  Rich Hall & Friends urn                      (

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/term?

[Donnie Berkholz]

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

Aron Griffis wrote:
> That bug is complaining that xterm is installed, and requests that it
> not be necessary.  I don't see how this leads to virtual/term,
> though.  After all, they didn't request Gentoo to make sure there is
> a terminal installed.

You are correct that this wasn't the request. It was a potential
solution to that request that had previously been discussed among X
folks as a solution to the problem that people had another terminal
emulator and didn't want two.

> How about making a local USE "xterm" for xorg-x11, then adding it to
> the default list?  Then such users can USE=-xterm and they'll be all
> set.

I've already elaborated on how we provide a complete X implementation as
upstream does. We've just taken the liberty of splitting it out into two
separate ebuilds, one for xterm and one for everything else.

A terminal emulator is not considered an optional part of a complete X
implementation. I'm willing to deviate from that by saying any emulator
could be acceptable rather than just xterm, but perhaps that was a bad idea.

Thanks,
Donnie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCMmPSXVaO67S1rtsRAr85AJ4hvb344uTV2dg5gBcv0xO7gc04jACgjdCe
WIcWI0YClEULIKPtMNIrapk=
=SWM5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/term?

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1737 bytes --]

On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 19:36 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Aron Griffis wrote:
> > That bug is complaining that xterm is installed, and requests that it
> > not be necessary.  I don't see how this leads to virtual/term,
> > though.  After all, they didn't request Gentoo to make sure there is
> > a terminal installed.
> 
> You are correct that this wasn't the request. It was a potential
> solution to that request that had previously been discussed among X
> folks as a solution to the problem that people had another terminal
> emulator and didn't want two.
> 
> > How about making a local USE "xterm" for xorg-x11, then adding it to
> > the default list?  Then such users can USE=-xterm and they'll be all
> > set.
> 
> I've already elaborated on how we provide a complete X implementation as
> upstream does. We've just taken the liberty of splitting it out into two
> separate ebuilds, one for xterm and one for everything else.
> 
> A terminal emulator is not considered an optional part of a complete X
> implementation. I'm willing to deviate from that by saying any emulator
> could be acceptable rather than just xterm, but perhaps that was a bad idea.

Worth noticing here. The -default- X environment launches xterms,  and
will break without xterm.  This is the same for any and all tests that
are documented in "get X to work" things.  

So, if you are in that situation, xterm is not optional.  :-)

And frankly, I don't think you want to build in "find my xterm"  logic
in the X startup scripts.

//Spider

-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/term?

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1752 bytes --]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:	[Fri Mar 11 2005, 10:36:51PM EST]
> > How about making a local USE "xterm" for xorg-x11, then adding it to
> > the default list?  Then such users can USE=-xterm and they'll be all
> > set.
> 
> I've already elaborated on how we provide a complete X implementation as
> upstream does. We've just taken the liberty of splitting it out into two
> separate ebuilds, one for xterm and one for everything else.
> 
> A terminal emulator is not considered an optional part of a complete X
> implementation. I'm willing to deviate from that by saying any emulator
> could be acceptable rather than just xterm, but perhaps that was a bad idea.

virtual/term implies that gnome-terminal and konsole are a replacement
for xterm.  That is hard to swallow since they can be more easily
broken by library snafus.

Since your goal is to provide as complete an X implementation as
upstream, I think that in order to implement virtual/term you would
also need to create an "xterm" symlink to the current terminal
emulator.  That would require making the various virtual/terms
conflict with each other... probably not what anybody wants!

IMHO there are only two ways to solve this: 

    1. maintain the complete X distribution, PDEPEND on xterm, ignore
       the whining, or

    2. create some local USE flags for xorg-x11 that restrict the
       binaries installed.  One USE flag could control installation of
       xterm, another could prevent misc programs like oclock, xeyes,
       xbiff, xcalc, xedit, etc.

Choosing #1 is definitely ok, since there are Gentoo ways of solving
the problem, as one astute user mentioned in the bug report

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/term?

[Drake Wyrm]

I'm having a hard time figuring this out, so maybe somebody remembers.
Why was xterm pulled out of x11 in the first place?

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/term?

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 361 bytes --]

Drake Wyrm wrote:	[Sat Mar 12 2005, 12:47:49PM EST]
> Why was xterm pulled out of x11 in the first place?

So it can be updated without needing to rebuild all of X.  Same reason
that mozilla-launcher exists... so that you don't need to rebuild all
of mozilla/firefox/thunderbird to get an updated script.

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/term?

[Donnie Berkholz]

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

Aron Griffis wrote:
> Drake Wyrm wrote:	[Sat Mar 12 2005, 12:47:49PM EST]
> 
>>Why was xterm pulled out of x11 in the first place?
> 
> 
> So it can be updated without needing to rebuild all of X.  Same reason
> that mozilla-launcher exists... so that you don't need to rebuild all
> of mozilla/firefox/thunderbird to get an updated script.

Thanks, Aron, for the great reply.

X is moving in the direction of modularization, and this is one of the
initial steps. Take a look at
http://wiki.x.org/wiki/ModularizationWorkingGroup or
http://wiki.x.org/wiki/ModularizationProposal if you're interested in
getting involved or learning more about it.

The basic idea is that there's absolutely no reason things that are
almost completely unrelated (except for both involving X) should be
interdependent and forced to version themselves together.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCM1udXVaO67S1rtsRAlMDAKCPKzkWbo+++Ech+KNo2iG8n9eo6ACg/TNP
XAreZ/u+tEjEtvjDQlxpuOY=
=V2ih
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list