[gentoo-dev] USE flags

[gentoo-dev] USE flags

[Viktor Lakics]

Dear Gentooers,

Is there a place in gentoo documentation where there is a complete list of current USE flags and short descriptions what they mean? I am just a user, and I think the fantastic idea of a custumized linux system will only work if users can fully understand which USE flags are available what they mean, etc. 

I am just getting used to portage (even though I used binary distros for years) and sometimes I do not know what the advantages and consequences of a particular USE flag to be set... 

Appreciate for any help or pointers to do some RTFM.

Thanks:  Viktor

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags

[Martin Schlemmer]

On Sun, 2001-09-23 at 11:30, Viktor Lakics wrote:
> Dear Gentooers,
> 
> Is there a place in gentoo documentation where there is a complete list of current USE flags and short descriptions what they mean? I am just a user, and I think the fantastic idea of a custumized linux system will only work if users can fully understand which USE flags are available what they mean, etc. 
> 
> I am just getting used to portage (even though I used binary distros for years) and sometimes I do not know what the advantages and consequences of a particular USE flag to be set... 
> 
> Appreciate for any help or pointers to do some RTFM.
> 
> Thanks:  Viktor

bit difficult

try reading /etc/make.conf
and the Development HOWTO on www.gentoo.org

greets
MS

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags

[Karl Trygve Kalleberg]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 10:30:14AM +0100, Viktor Lakics wrote:
> Dear Gentooers,
> 

> Is there a place in gentoo documentation where there is a complete list
of current USE flags and short descriptions what they mean? I am just a
user, and I think the fantastic idea of a custumized linux system will
only work if users can fully understand which USE flags are available what
they mean, etc.

Agreed. We should be able to start maintaining such a list.

> I am just getting used to portage (even though I used binary distros for
> years) and sometimes I do not know what the advantages and consequences
> of a particular USE flag to be set...

Now this is very difficult to specify  succinctly enough. However, the
general gist of the consequences might very well be easy to specify.

Regards,

Karl T

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags

[Dan Armak]

Hi,

This is a bit of a black hole in Gentoo docs. Known issue. I remember someone 
on IRC saying he'd start the ball rolling on a new USE flag list, but I don't 
remember who it was.

-- 

Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team
Matan, Israel

[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: 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 --]

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

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

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 --]

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

[gentoo-dev] USE Flags

[Fabian Zeindl]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 222 bytes --]

Hi

I startet a discussion a time ago about new use flag explanations in
ebuilds:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/618

Can anyone tell me whether this is going to be implemented?

greetings
fabian

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Flags

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 646 bytes --]

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:38:53 +0100
Fabian Zeindl <fabian.zeindl@gmx.at> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> I startet a discussion a time ago about new use flag explanations in
> ebuilds:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/618
> 
> Can anyone tell me whether this is going to be implemented?

As I said, this has to be done in metadata.xml (and not in ebuilds) and
so far the DTD isn't changed. Paul, any news on this?

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Flags

[Markus Nigbur]

On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 14:00 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:38:53 +0100
> Fabian Zeindl <fabian.zeindl@gmx.at> wrote:
> 
> > Hi
> > 
> > I startet a discussion a time ago about new use flag explanations in
> > ebuilds:
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/618
> > 
> > Can anyone tell me whether this is going to be implemented?
> 
> As I said, this has to be done in metadata.xml (and not in ebuilds) and
> so far the DTD isn't changed. Paul, any news on this?
> 
> Marius
> 

That's one of those things that should be easy to establish and result
in a huge benefit for everyone. I'd probably the first who hacks
detailed descriptions for every flag my maintained packages have.

If the only thing that prevents the implementation from being realized,
is lack of time or lack of man power, feel free to contact me.

-- 
 (o_  Markus Nigbur
 //\  Gentoo Linux Developer
[ ]/_ http://www.gentoo.org
      GPG Fingerprint: 9E31 187A 6C78 210C F248  EDBB F2FB A77F 707D F8C1

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Flags

[Martin Schlemmer]

On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 14:23 +0100, Markus Nigbur wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 14:00 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:38:53 +0100
> > Fabian Zeindl <fabian.zeindl@gmx.at> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi
> > > 
> > > I startet a discussion a time ago about new use flag explanations in
> > > ebuilds:
> > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/618
> > > 
> > > Can anyone tell me whether this is going to be implemented?
> > 
> > As I said, this has to be done in metadata.xml (and not in ebuilds) and
> > so far the DTD isn't changed. Paul, any news on this?
> > 
> > Marius
> > 
> 
> That's one of those things that should be easy to establish and result
> in a huge benefit for everyone. I'd probably the first who hacks
> detailed descriptions for every flag my maintained packages have.
> 
> If the only thing that prevents the implementation from being realized,
> is lack of time or lack of man power, feel free to contact me.
> 

Sounds more like a PITA to me, but I wont object out of that
principal :]


-- 
Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa



-- 
---------------------[ Ciphire Signature ]----------------------
From: azarah@gentoo.org signed email body (911 characters)
Date: on 09 March 2005 at 17:10:07 UTC
To:   gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
----------------------------------------------------------------
: Ciphire has secured this email against identity theft.
: Free download at www.ciphire.com. The garbled lines
: below are the sender's verifiable digital signature.
----------------------------------------------------------------
00fAAAAAEAAADvLS9CjwMAAJwCAAIAAgACACB7uSEw2LFL3NuryZGYWUsof7Q/tx
E4+O9JsxJt/XxMogEAZGGYatxzZc1MLH8GOZZyfMg+7EkaltudrG0sKpmA8UIHm/
QDEMHaJ3IfyvY5QoKPUc7trl3FBhFiXwni0Fsrjg==
------------------[ End Ciphire Signed Message ]----------------

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Flags

[Fabian Zeindl]

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

Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 14:23 +0100, Markus Nigbur wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 14:00 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:38:53 +0100
>>>Fabian Zeindl <fabian.zeindl@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi
>>>>
>>>>I startet a discussion a time ago about new use flag explanations in
>>>>ebuilds:
>>>>http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/618
>>>>
>>>>Can anyone tell me whether this is going to be implemented?
>>>
>>>As I said, this has to be done in metadata.xml (and not in ebuilds) and
>>>so far the DTD isn't changed. Paul, any news on this?
>>>
>>>Marius
>>>
>>
>>That's one of those things that should be easy to establish and result
>>in a huge benefit for everyone. I'd probably the first who hacks
>>detailed descriptions for every flag my maintained packages have.
>>
>>If the only thing that prevents the implementation from being realized,
>>is lack of time or lack of man power, feel free to contact me.
>>
>
>
> Sounds more like a PITA to me, but I wont object out of that
> principal :]

What's a PITA?

fabian

--
Musik kann nicht illegal sein: www.fairsharing.de

I prefer signed/encrypted Mail:
http://stud3.tuwien.ac.at/~e0327380/pub_key.asc
Fingerprint: CFE8 38A7 0BC4 3CB0 E454  FA8D 04F9 B3B6 E02D 25BA

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Flags

[Benno Schulenberg]

Fabian Zeindl wrote:
> Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > Sounds more like a PITA to me, but I wont object out of that
> > principal :]
>
> What's a PITA?

Ask Spanky.  :)

Or try http://www.ucc.ie/cgi-bin/acronym/acro.html.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Flags

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 09 March 2005 01:19 pm, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> Fabian Zeindl wrote:
> > Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > > Sounds more like a PITA to me, but I wont object out of that
> > > principal :]
> >
> > What's a PITA?
>
> Ask Spanky.  :)

i know where you sleep buckaroo bob

> Or try http://www.ucc.ie/cgi-bin/acronym/acro.html.

i prefer `emerge wtf && wtf pita`
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Flags

[Benno Schulenberg]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 March 2005 01:19 pm, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> > Fabian Zeindl wrote:
> > > What's a PITA?
> >
> > Ask Spanky.  :)
>
> i know where you sleep buckaroo bob

You took offence?  I apologize.  I had no intent to offend anyone.

But come on, Mike, it was you who made a few risqué remarks lately; 
I think you should be ready and able to stomach one.

Benno

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Flags

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 10 March 2005 01:25 pm, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 09 March 2005 01:19 pm, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> > > Fabian Zeindl wrote:
> > > > What's a PITA?
> > >
> > > Ask Spanky.  :)
> >
> > i know where you sleep buckaroo bob
>
> You took offence?  I apologize.  I had no intent to offend anyone.

sorry, i forgot the </joke> in my reply
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Flags

[Drake Wyrm]

At 2005-03-10T13:37:02-0500, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 10 March 2005 01:25 pm, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 09 March 2005 01:19 pm, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> > > > Fabian Zeindl wrote:
> > > > > What's a PITA?
> > > >
> > > > Ask Spanky.  :)
> > >
> > > i know where you sleep buckaroo bob
> >
> > You took offence?  I apologize.  I had no intent to offend anyone.
> 
> sorry, i forgot the </joke> in my reply

I would have thought that inherent in using the phrase "buckaroo bob".

-- 
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] USE Flags

[Daniel Goller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1406 bytes --]

Fabian Zeindl wrote:
> Martin Schlemmer wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 14:23 +0100, Markus Nigbur wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 14:00 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:38:53 +0100
>>>> Fabian Zeindl <fabian.zeindl@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> I startet a discussion a time ago about new use flag explanations in
>>>>> ebuilds:
>>>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/618
>>>>>
>>>>> Can anyone tell me whether this is going to be implemented?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I said, this has to be done in metadata.xml (and not in ebuilds) and
>>>> so far the DTD isn't changed. Paul, any news on this?
>>>>
>>>> Marius
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's one of those things that should be easy to establish and result
>>> in a huge benefit for everyone. I'd probably the first who hacks
>>> detailed descriptions for every flag my maintained packages have.
>>>
>>> If the only thing that prevents the implementation from being realized,
>>> is lack of time or lack of man power, feel free to contact me.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sounds more like a PITA to me, but I wont object out of that
>> principal :]
>
>
> What's a PITA?

Pain In The Hintern

>
> fabian
>
> --
> Musik kann nicht illegal sein: www.fairsharing.de
>
> I prefer signed/encrypted Mail:
> http://stud3.tuwien.ac.at/~e0327380/pub_key.asc
> Fingerprint: CFE8 38A7 0BC4 3CB0 E454  FA8D 04F9 B3B6 E02D 25BA


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Flags

[Daniel Goller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1406 bytes --]

Fabian Zeindl wrote:
> Martin Schlemmer wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 14:23 +0100, Markus Nigbur wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 14:00 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:38:53 +0100
>>>> Fabian Zeindl <fabian.zeindl@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> I startet a discussion a time ago about new use flag explanations in
>>>>> ebuilds:
>>>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/618
>>>>>
>>>>> Can anyone tell me whether this is going to be implemented?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I said, this has to be done in metadata.xml (and not in ebuilds) and
>>>> so far the DTD isn't changed. Paul, any news on this?
>>>>
>>>> Marius
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's one of those things that should be easy to establish and result
>>> in a huge benefit for everyone. I'd probably the first who hacks
>>> detailed descriptions for every flag my maintained packages have.
>>>
>>> If the only thing that prevents the implementation from being realized,
>>> is lack of time or lack of man power, feel free to contact me.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sounds more like a PITA to me, but I wont object out of that
>> principal :]
>
>
> What's a PITA?

Pain In The Hintern

>
> fabian
>
> --
> Musik kann nicht illegal sein: www.fairsharing.de
>
> I prefer signed/encrypted Mail:
> http://stud3.tuwien.ac.at/~e0327380/pub_key.asc
> Fingerprint: CFE8 38A7 0BC4 3CB0 E454  FA8D 04F9 B3B6 E02D 25BA


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Flags

[Thomas de Grenier de Latour]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:00:28 +0100
Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:38:53 +0100
> Fabian Zeindl <fabian.zeindl@gmx.at> wrote:
> 
> > Hi
> > 
> > I startet a discussion a time ago about new use flag
> > explanations in ebuilds:
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/618
> > 
> > Can anyone tell me whether this is going to be implemented?
> 
> As I said, this has to be done in metadata.xml (and not in
> ebuilds) and so far the DTD isn't changed. Paul, any news on
> this?

I've put a possible implementation on bug #84884, which doesn't
uses metadata.xml, but instead extends use.local.desc semantics
(meaning that it's no more only for flags that are not global,
but also to override global descriptions on a per-package basis).
The advantage of this approach is that it's simple, both to
implement and to use.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Flags

[Fabian Zeindl]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 828 bytes --]

Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> I've put a possible implementation on bug #84884, which doesn't
> uses metadata.xml, but instead extends use.local.desc semantics
> (meaning that it's no more only for flags that are not global,
> but also to override global descriptions on a per-package basis).
> The advantage of this approach is that it's simple, both to
> implement and to use.

Hm, thank you, that's what I love about gentoo: It's so fresh and new
that the developers accept proposals instead of saying "we don't do
that, because we never did that this way!" :-)

I hope many developers will use this...

thanks!
fabian

--
Musik kann nicht illegal sein: www.fairsharing.de

I prefer signed/encrypted Mail:
http://stud3.tuwien.ac.at/~e0327380/pub_key.asc
Fingerprint: CFE8 38A7 0BC4 3CB0 E454  FA8D 04F9 B3B6 E02D 25BA

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Flags

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 776 bytes --]

On Wednesday 09 March 2005 14:00, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:38:53 +0100
>
> Fabian Zeindl <fabian.zeindl@gmx.at> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I startet a discussion a time ago about new use flag explanations in
> > ebuilds:
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/618
> >
> > Can anyone tell me whether this is going to be implemented?
>
> As I said, this has to be done in metadata.xml (and not in ebuilds) and
> so far the DTD isn't changed. Paul, any news on this?

Sorry for the "very" late answer. I'm working too much on my Ph.D. thesis to 
have followed -dev very well. I'll add some nice tag to support this.

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] USE Flags

[Thomas de Grenier de Latour]

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:01:18 +0100
Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I'll add some nice tag to support this.

I'm sorry to insist, but is there something wrong with using
use.local.desc, as i've proposed in bug #84884? I don't understand
the rational for choosing metadata.xml. In my opinion, it makes
this detailed description less likely to be written (more
complex syntax, whereas the one of .desc file is already
well-known), and less likely to be read (lack of user tools
whereas there are plently for use.local.desc, which would need at
most small trivial changes, if any). 

Also, take the following scenario:

 - use.local.desc has: 
"cat/pkgA:foo - adds support for libfoo as a replacement of \
libbar. Do not enable it but if you really know what you do."

 - then comes cat/pkgB, which also support libfoo:
"cat/pkgB:foo - adds support for libfoo, for playing .foo files"

 - And more packages start supporting libfoo, thus "foo" becomes 
a global flag:
"foo - adds support for libfoo"
With the "metadata.xml" approach, that will require moving the
existing descriptions from use.local.desc to the various xml
files.  At the contrary, with the "keep it in use.local.desc"
approach, no additional work is required... 


So could someone explain me that choice?

Thanks,

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Flags

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2012 bytes --]

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:21:39 +0100
Thomas de Grenier de Latour <degrenier@easyconnect.fr> wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:01:18 +0100
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > I'll add some nice tag to support this.
> 
> I'm sorry to insist, but is there something wrong with using
> use.local.desc, as i've proposed in bug #84884? I don't understand
> the rational for choosing metadata.xml. In my opinion, it makes
> this detailed description less likely to be written (more
> complex syntax, whereas the one of .desc file is already
> well-known), and less likely to be read (lack of user tools
> whereas there are plently for use.local.desc, which would need at
> most small trivial changes, if any). 
> 
> Also, take the following scenario:
> 
>  - use.local.desc has: 
> "cat/pkgA:foo - adds support for libfoo as a replacement of \
> libbar. Do not enable it but if you really know what you do."
> 
>  - then comes cat/pkgB, which also support libfoo:
> "cat/pkgB:foo - adds support for libfoo, for playing .foo files"
> 
>  - And more packages start supporting libfoo, thus "foo" becomes 
> a global flag:
> "foo - adds support for libfoo"
> With the "metadata.xml" approach, that will require moving the
> existing descriptions from use.local.desc to the various xml
> files.  At the contrary, with the "keep it in use.local.desc"
> approach, no additional work is required... 
> 
> 
> So could someone explain me that choice?

Well, nothing has been finalised so far (no tool support for either
solution), and thinking about it we might even use both solutions:
use.local.desc for package-specific short descriptions (like at the
moment) and metadata.xml for longer detailed descriptions if required,
similar to <longdescription>.
Opinions?

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Flags

[Thomas de Grenier de Latour]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:11:28 +0100
Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org> wrote:

> (no tool support for either solution)

Well, actually i've put some bits of code in the bugreport I've
mentioned above, so there is tool support for the use.local.desc
solution (equery and emerge). That was more to demonstrate how
easy it was to implement tho, and i agree it's not the only point
of the discussion.

> use.local.desc for package-specific short descriptions (like at
> the moment) and metadata.xml for longer detailed descriptions
> if required

That sounds like a good idea. So, to summarize (just to check
i've understood your proposal):

 - users should know when a flag is really a must-have for a
given package, or is at the contrary not advised, things like
that. That kind of quick hints, warnings, and other answers to
obvious questions like "Is DVD support by mplayer better with the
'dvdread' flag?" only require short notes (one sentence) in
general.  But what is important is that they get written whenever
there is something to say about a flag which is not already in
use.desc (because package-specific), and that they are easily
accessible for the user.  Here, use.local.desc seems better,
because there is no such thing as an "echo >>" to drop a quick
note somewhere, and because it doesn't require complex code or
access to multiple files to get optionaly displayed by emerge in
pretend mode.

 - user might sometimes wonder what is the "libfoo" that the "foo"
flag description ("add support for libfoo") talks about. That may
require a long description (one paragraphe), which don't need to
be in use.local.desc.  Metadata.xml is fine here, since anyway
that's the kind of things you write using a text editor. 

That raises on more question tho: if someone wants to write a
long description for a global flag, where does he do it?

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Flags

[Thomas de Grenier de Latour]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:56:01 +0100
Thomas de Grenier de Latour <degrenier@easyconnect.fr> wrote:

> <snip> 
> and because it doesn't require complex code or access to
> multiple files to get optionaly displayed by emerge in pretend
> mode.

Oh, i've just found out this portage_metadata module that is in
CVS HEAD, and how it is already used to display maintainership
infos in 'emerge -p -vv' mode... So I discard my statements about
complexity of the integration of flags descriptions from
metadata.xml into emerge output, because it would actually be
really easy too.

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