[gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Bjarke Istrup Pedersen]

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

Hey everybody.

I have been thinking about this for the past few days, and haven't
been able to come up with an answer to why there isn't a "man" USE
flag for people to enable man pages getting installed.

My idea is to make a global use flag, that are on as default for every
profile, and that way give people the choice to disable installation
of man pages with packages.

Not everybody needs the man pages, but installing them as default is
good, but currently, there is no way to deselect them.

What do you think?

Thanks,
Bjarke
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC+e6KO+Ewtpi9rLERAn78AJ4p0x74VXKA5PRGOTVBlSVxV/RBvQCgoD+V
hQlx0CSsEHLcxIgC9ot/A2Q=
=Z4kn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 535 bytes --]


10.8.2005, 14:09:46, Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:

> Not everybody needs the man pages, but installing them as default is
> good, but currently, there is no way to deselect them.

> What do you think?

I think you should read 'man make.conf' (FEATURES="noman nodoc noinfo") ;p

-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature ;)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 452 bytes --]

On Wednesday 10 August 2005 14:09, Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:
> I have been thinking about this for the past few days, and haven't
> been able to come up with an answer to why there isn't a "man" USE
> flag for people to enable man pages getting installed.
FEATURES="noman" disable man page installation.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
(Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM)

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Daniel Drake]

Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:
> Hey everybody.
> 
> I have been thinking about this for the past few days, and haven't
> been able to come up with an answer to why there isn't a "man" USE
> flag for people to enable man pages getting installed.

FEATURES="noman" ?

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Michael Cummings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 333 bytes --]

(not directed at dsd in particular, just the last one in my inbox
to reply :) That's great and all that its in features for the
installation, but what about packages with optional dependencies based
on doc and man?


On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:20:04 +0100
Daniel Drake <dsd@gentoo.org> wrote:
> FEATURES="noman" ?
> 
> Daniel

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 10 August 2005 09:10 am, Michael Cummings wrote:
> (not directed at dsd in particular, just the last one in my inbox
> to reply :) That's great and all that its in features for the
> installation, but what about packages with optional dependencies based
> on doc and man?

in that case we're screwed because there are plans to make people use 
INSTALL_MASK and drop the FEATURES no{man,doc,info}
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 556 bytes --]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:10:39 -0400 Michael Cummings
<mcummings@gentoo.org> wrote:
| (not directed at dsd in particular, just the last one in my inbox
| to reply :) That's great and all that its in features for the
| installation, but what about packages with optional dependencies based
| on doc and man?

Join in the quest to get FEATURES added to the expand list! Bug #82513.

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


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 678 bytes --]

On Wednesday 10 August 2005 15:10, Michael Cummings wrote:
> That's great and all that its in features for the
> installation, but what about packages with optional dependencies based
> on doc and man?
Well there was a request time ago to add FEATURES (or at least a subset of 
them) to USE_EXPAND so to be able to add dependencies for test for example 
(instead of using the test useflag.
The problem to have packages behavior changing wrt FEATURES, tho, made the 
idea bail out iirc.

I still hope for that to go on someday.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
(Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM)

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 10 August 2005 09:19 am, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:10:39 -0400 Michael Cummings
>
> <mcummings@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | (not directed at dsd in particular, just the last one in my inbox
> | to reply :) That's great and all that its in features for the
> | installation, but what about packages with optional dependencies based
> | on doc and man?
>
> Join in the quest to get FEATURES added to the expand list! Bug #82513.

last i heard, that is not going to happen
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 640 bytes --]

On Wednesday 10 August 2005 15:16, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> in that case we're screwed because there are plans to make people use
> INSTALL_MASK and drop the FEATURES no{man,doc,info}
The problem is that noman and noinfo doesn't just avoid installing man pages 
and info cru^Wstuff, they also avoid man and info gzipping and info cache 
updates (that takes *hell* of time).
So I think it's still the case to leave no* stuff there for now. Also because 
INSTALL_MASK seems really a dirt hack...

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
(Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM)

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Jason Stubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 692 bytes --]

On Wednesday 10 August 2005 22:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:10:39 -0400 Michael Cummings
>
> <mcummings@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | (not directed at dsd in particular, just the last one in my inbox
> | to reply :) That's great and all that its in features for the
> | installation, but what about packages with optional dependencies based
> | on doc and man?
>
> Join in the quest to get FEATURES added to the expand list! Bug #82513.

Personally, I think adding FEATURES to USE_EXPAND is terrible. Portage 
features are not ebuild features. How much do you like C code that has 
#ifdef's for the compiler being used? It's the same thing.

-- 
Jason Stubbs

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1021 bytes --]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:24:54 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Wednesday 10 August 2005 22:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:10:39 -0400 Michael Cummings
| >
| > <mcummings@gentoo.org> wrote:
| > | (not directed at dsd in particular, just the last one in my inbox
| > | to reply :) That's great and all that its in features for the
| > | installation, but what about packages with optional dependencies
| > | based on doc and man?
| >
| > Join in the quest to get FEATURES added to the expand list! Bug
| > #82513.
| 
| Personally, I think adding FEATURES to USE_EXPAND is terrible.
| Portage features are not ebuild features. How much do you like C code
| that has #ifdef's for the compiler being used? It's the same thing.

Then please introduce TESTDEPEND, MANDEPEND and INFODEPEND instead.

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


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Simon Stelling]

Jason Stubbs wrote:
> Personally, I think adding FEATURES to USE_EXPAND is terrible. Portage 
> features are not ebuild features. How much do you like C code that has 
> #ifdef's for the compiler being used? It's the same thing.

what wrong with #ifdef __cplusplus__? ;)

-- 
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
blubb@gentoo.org
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 10 August 2005 11:24 am, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 August 2005 22:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:10:39 -0400 Michael Cummings
> >
> > <mcummings@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > | (not directed at dsd in particular, just the last one in my inbox
> > | to reply :) That's great and all that its in features for the
> > | installation, but what about packages with optional dependencies based
> > | on doc and man?
> >
> > Join in the quest to get FEATURES added to the expand list! Bug #82513.
>
>  How much do you like C code that has
> #ifdef's for the compiler being used? It's the same thing.

i'll take
#ifdef __x86_64__
over
use amd64
any day
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Georgi Georgiev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1279 bytes --]

maillog: 10/08/2005-17:14:59(+0200): Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò types
> On Wednesday 10 August 2005 15:16, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > in that case we're screwed because there are plans to make people use
> > INSTALL_MASK and drop the FEATURES no{man,doc,info}
> The problem is that noman and noinfo doesn't just avoid installing man pages 
> and info cru^Wstuff, they also avoid man and info gzipping and info cache 
> updates (that takes *hell* of time).
> So I think it's still the case to leave no* stuff there for now. Also because 
> INSTALL_MASK seems really a dirt hack...

Speaking of INSTALL_MASK, I have a little issue with it. It doesn't
allow me to avoid package collisions by adding this to /etc/portage/bashrc:

case "${PN}" in
<snip>
	Test-Simple)
	export INSTALL_MASK="/usr/share/man"
	;;
esac

and I do have FEATURES=collision-protect

Is there some workaround for what I am trying to do? And what I am
trying to do is avoid collisions on man pages installed both by
dev-lang/perl and a dev-perl/some_module.

-- 
\    Georgi Georgiev   \  When all else fails, try Kate Smith.         \
 /    chutz@gg3.net     /                                               /
\   +81(90)2877-8845   \                                               \

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 472 bytes --]

On Wednesday 10 August 2005 17:31, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Then please introduce TESTDEPEND, MANDEPEND and INFODEPEND instead.

TESTDEPEND!? Are there numbers how many packages are affected and what 
dependencies are in question, which are usually not available on every box 
anyways? This getting too finegrained/complicated imho. :] On the other hand 
I never understood the "noman" feature flag. Having a manpages use flag makes 
more sense imho.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1053 bytes --]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:06:30 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Wednesday 10 August 2005 17:31, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Then please introduce TESTDEPEND, MANDEPEND and INFODEPEND instead.
| 
| TESTDEPEND!? Are there numbers how many packages are affected and
| what dependencies are in question, which are usually not available on
| every box anyways?

There are a fair number of packages with heavy test dependencies which
aren't usually installed. Typical examples of things that need to be
pulled in are unit test frameworks (eg cppunit), extra archive formats
(eg zip support) and extra debug-related libraries.

Personally I prefer the DEPEND="features_test? ( blah )" approach. This
also lets us use it in SRC_URL -- some packages have really huge test
data archives that we shouldn't really be downloading for people who
don't need them.

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


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 900 bytes --]

On Wednesday 10 August 2005 18:06, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> TESTDEPEND!? Are there numbers how many packages are affected and what
> dependencies are in question, which are usually not available on every box
> anyways?
Just look at how much packages there are which has a "test" useflag to add 
dependencies. There are quite a few.

> On the other 
> hand I never understood the "noman" feature flag. Having a manpages use
> flag makes more sense imho.
Not for me. We don't have an useflag for USER documentation (doc useflag 
should relate with API doc afaik). Also, most of the packages doesn't provide 
options to enable/disable man pages, and this would require "use man || rm 
-rf ${D}/usr/share/man" in quite every ebuild, that sucks great.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
(Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM)

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 799 bytes --]

On Wednesday 10 August 2005 18:19, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Just look at how much packages there are which has a "test" useflag to add
> dependencies. There are quite a few.

I counted 7 - seven - packages and toolchain-binutils.eclass. That's not even 
a thousandth part of the tree. Come on, hardcode the dependency (the test use 
flag sucks) and keep quite. There are bigger issues with Portage than that. 

> Not for me. We don't have an useflag for USER documentation (doc useflag
> should relate with API doc afaik). Also, most of the packages doesn't
> provide options to enable/disable man pages, and this would require "use
> man || rm -rf ${D}/usr/share/man" in quite every ebuild, that sucks great.

You could put that in an base.eclass or whereever.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 10 August 2005 01:07 pm, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 August 2005 18:19, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> > Just look at how much packages there are which has a "test" useflag to
> > add dependencies. There are quite a few.
>
> I counted 7 - seven - packages and toolchain-binutils.eclass. That's not
> even a thousandth part of the tree. Come on, hardcode the dependency (the
> test use flag sucks) and keep quite.

sorry, but there's no chance in hell i'm gonna hardcode the dejagnu dependency

> > Not for me. We don't have an useflag for USER documentation (doc useflag
> > should relate with API doc afaik). Also, most of the packages doesn't
> > provide options to enable/disable man pages, and this would require "use
> > man || rm -rf ${D}/usr/share/man" in quite every ebuild, that sucks
> > great.
>
> You could put that in an base.eclass or whereever.

oh, you mean like portage ?
-mike

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 274 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 13:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> sorry, but there's no chance in hell i'm gonna hardcode the dejagnu dependency

Phew! Glad to hear that :)

./Brix
-- 
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 903 bytes --]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:07:31 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Wednesday 10 August 2005 18:19, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
| > Just look at how much packages there are which has a "test" useflag
| > to add dependencies. There are quite a few.
| 
| I counted 7 - seven - packages and toolchain-binutils.eclass. That's
| not even a thousandth part of the tree. Come on, hardcode the
| dependency (the test use flag sucks) and keep quite. There are bigger
| issues with Portage than that. 

You didn't count very well... And you're only picking up the ones
that're using USE=test, not the ones that have unlisted test
dependencies, forced optional dependencies or tests disabled to avoid
the dep.

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


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 216 bytes --]

On Wednesday 10 August 2005 19:26, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> oh, you mean like portage ?

Eh? Of course in $D, not global. I see no reason for "noman" being feature 
flag. Don't care about it though.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 10 August 2005 02:13 pm, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 August 2005 19:26, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > oh, you mean like portage ?
>
> Eh? Of course in $D, not global. I see no reason for "noman" being feature
> flag. Don't care about it though.

i mean your suggestion of adding it to base.eclass so as to cover as many 
packages as possible seems like a hack to work around not simply putting it 
in portage itself ...

personally i dislike base.eclass, but that's just me
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 813 bytes --]

On Wednesday 10 August 2005 19:45, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> You didn't count very well... And you're only picking up the ones

Don't know what should be wrong with

find . -iname "*\.ebuild" -exec grep -H IUSE {} \; | grep test

> that're using USE=test, not the ones that have unlisted test
> dependencies, forced optional dependencies or tests disabled to avoid
> the dep.

I answered Diego. You put TESTDEPEND on the table, so it's your job to come up 
with numbers. ;p Moreover not the number of packages count, but the 
additional dependencies. When you come up with a lot of uncommon dependencies 
I'd weigh it not as unimportant. I'd also like to point out that I'm not 
completely against this, but that I'd rather like to see Portage bugs fixed 
before we add new features.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 10 August 2005 02:25 pm, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 August 2005 19:45, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > that're using USE=test, not the ones that have unlisted test
> > dependencies, forced optional dependencies or tests disabled to avoid
> > the dep.
>
> I answered Diego. You put TESTDEPEND on the table, so it's your job to come
> up with numbers. ;p Moreover not the number of packages count, but the
> additional dependencies. When you come up with a lot of uncommon
> dependencies I'd weigh it not as unimportant.

especially as we're talking about packages here that are in system

i hate fielding questions like 'why is blah blah package in system !?' ... i 
imagine forcing dejagnu on all Gentoo users would generate more of this
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1201 bytes --]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:25:10 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Wednesday 10 August 2005 19:45, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > You didn't count very well... And you're only picking up the ones
| 
| Don't know what should be wrong with
| 
| find . -iname "*\.ebuild" -exec grep -H IUSE {} \; | grep test

Check the cache instead.

| > that're using USE=test, not the ones that have unlisted test
| > dependencies, forced optional dependencies or tests disabled to
| > avoid the dep.
| 
| I answered Diego. You put TESTDEPEND on the table, so it's your job
| to come up with numbers. ;p

Check the bug. It explains the need.

| Moreover not the number of packages
| count, but the additional dependencies. When you come up with a lot
| of uncommon dependencies I'd weigh it not as unimportant. I'd also
| like to point out that I'm not completely against this, but that I'd
| rather like to see Portage bugs fixed before we add new features.

Uh, the way I suggested needs no portage changes.

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


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 342 bytes --]

On Wednesday 10 August 2005 20:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Check the cache instead.

My cache doesn't include the whole cvs tree, but I don't see what should be 
different.

> Uh, the way I suggested needs no portage changes.

My bad. I don't like the feature flag approach and would say a TDEPEND would 
be in order.


Carstem

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 441 bytes --]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:54:42 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| > Uh, the way I suggested needs no portage changes.
| 
| My bad. I don't like the feature flag approach and would say a
| TDEPEND would be in order.

Doesn't solve the SRC_URI problem.

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


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 174 bytes --]

On Wednesday 10 August 2005 21:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Doesn't solve the SRC_URI problem.

Point taken. Doesn't help that this expansion stuff is fugly, imho.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 10 August 2005 03:29 pm, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 August 2005 21:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Doesn't solve the SRC_URI problem.
>
> Point taken. Doesn't help that this expansion stuff is fugly, imho.

it is a bit on the fugly side but afaict, it's the best we got atm
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Jason Stubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1007 bytes --]

On Thursday 11 August 2005 00:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 August 2005 11:24 am, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 August 2005 22:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:10:39 -0400 Michael Cummings
> > >
> > > <mcummings@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > | (not directed at dsd in particular, just the last one in my inbox
> > > | to reply :) That's great and all that its in features for the
> > > | installation, but what about packages with optional dependencies
> > > | based on doc and man?
> > >
> > > Join in the quest to get FEATURES added to the expand list! Bug
> > > #82513.
> >
> >  How much do you like C code that has
> > #ifdef's for the compiler being used? It's the same thing.
>
> i'll take
> #ifdef __x86_64__
> over
> use amd64
> any day

I was referring to compiler version. Portage FEATURES are not a guaranteed 
part of an ebuild's "shell". Let me put it another way, should ebuilds 
handle NOCOLOR as well?

-- 
Jason Stubbs

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Jason Stubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1176 bytes --]

On Thursday 11 August 2005 00:31, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:24:54 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@gentoo.org>
>
> wrote:
> | On Wednesday 10 August 2005 22:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:10:39 -0400 Michael Cummings
> | >
> | > <mcummings@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | > | (not directed at dsd in particular, just the last one in my inbox
> | > | to reply :) That's great and all that its in features for the
> | > | installation, but what about packages with optional dependencies
> | > | based on doc and man?
> | >
> | > Join in the quest to get FEATURES added to the expand list! Bug
> | > #82513.
> |
> | Personally, I think adding FEATURES to USE_EXPAND is terrible.
> | Portage features are not ebuild features. How much do you like C code
> | that has #ifdef's for the compiler being used? It's the same thing.
>
> Then please introduce TESTDEPEND, MANDEPEND and INFODEPEND instead.

TESTDEPEND? Yes. This seems like the best solution as there is an ebuild 
phase for which it applies to. MAN and INFO? Don't like it so much. I don't 
have any solutions to offer at this stage, though.

-- 
Jason Stubbs

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 10 August 2005 07:56 pm, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Thursday 11 August 2005 00:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 August 2005 11:24 am, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 10 August 2005 22:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:10:39 -0400 Michael Cummings
> > > >
> > > > <mcummings@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > | (not directed at dsd in particular, just the last one in my inbox
> > > > | to reply :) That's great and all that its in features for the
> > > > | installation, but what about packages with optional dependencies
> > > > | based on doc and man?
> > > >
> > > > Join in the quest to get FEATURES added to the expand list! Bug
> > > > #82513.
> > >
> > >  How much do you like C code that has
> > > #ifdef's for the compiler being used? It's the same thing.
> >
> > i'll take
> > #ifdef __x86_64__
> > over
> > use amd64
> > any day
>
> I was referring to compiler version. Portage FEATURES are not a guaranteed
> part of an ebuild's "shell". Let me put it another way, should ebuilds
> handle NOCOLOR as well?

no, but why should NOCOLOR affect how a package is built/installed ?  the 
point here is that we dont really care whether it's FEATURES or USE or what, 
as long as we have the ability to control DEPEND/SRC_URI/behavior in an 
ebuild depending on whether the user wants tests/manpages/etc...
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Jason Stubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2517 bytes --]

On Thursday 11 August 2005 09:04, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 August 2005 07:56 pm, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 August 2005 00:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 10 August 2005 11:24 am, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 10 August 2005 22:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:10:39 -0400 Michael Cummings
> > > > >
> > > > > <mcummings@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > > | (not directed at dsd in particular, just the last one in my
> > > > > | inbox to reply :) That's great and all that its in features for
> > > > > | the installation, but what about packages with optional
> > > > > | dependencies based on doc and man?
> > > > >
> > > > > Join in the quest to get FEATURES added to the expand list! Bug
> > > > > #82513.
> > > >
> > > >  How much do you like C code that has
> > > > #ifdef's for the compiler being used? It's the same thing.
> > >
> > > i'll take
> > > #ifdef __x86_64__
> > > over
> > > use amd64
> > > any day
> >
> > I was referring to compiler version. Portage FEATURES are not a
> > guaranteed part of an ebuild's "shell". Let me put it another way,
> > should ebuilds handle NOCOLOR as well?
>
> no, but why should NOCOLOR affect how a package is built/installed ?  the
> point here is that we dont really care whether it's FEATURES or USE or
> what, as long as we have the ability to control DEPEND/SRC_URI/behavior
> in an ebuild depending on whether the user wants tests/manpages/etc...

As well as having the option presented to the user in a unified way. ;)

Really, something along the lines of Carsten's base.eclass suggestion sounds 
best to me. The fact that ebuilds are find what are currently portage 
FEATUREs to be interesting implies in my mind that they either shouldn't be 
FEATUREs (noman, noinfo) or that the relation to ebuilds should be 
investigated further and dealt with appropriately (test, debug).

With noman and the like, how's the following for a solution? A lot of the 
ebuild functions contained within portage will be moving into the tree once 
signing is in. What about adding {pre,post}_src_{compile,install,...} hooks 
into portage that will live in the tree that USE="man" support can be 
implemented in globally? For those packages that have a specific interest, 
the USE flag will be available. Everything should be happy on the ebuild 
side of things. (On the U/I side of things, stuff can be done to cut down 
the noise.)

-- 
Jason Stubbs

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 11 August 2005 07:02 am, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Thursday 11 August 2005 09:04, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 August 2005 07:56 pm, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > I was referring to compiler version. Portage FEATURES are not a
> > > guaranteed part of an ebuild's "shell". Let me put it another way,
> > > should ebuilds handle NOCOLOR as well?
> >
> > no, but why should NOCOLOR affect how a package is built/installed ?  the
> > point here is that we dont really care whether it's FEATURES or USE or
> > what, as long as we have the ability to control DEPEND/SRC_URI/behavior
> > in an ebuild depending on whether the user wants tests/manpages/etc...
>
> With noman and the like, how's the following for a solution? A lot of the
> ebuild functions contained within portage will be moving into the tree once
> signing is in. What about adding {pre,post}_src_{compile,install,...} hooks
> into portage that will live in the tree that USE="man" support can be
> implemented in globally? For those packages that have a specific interest,
> the USE flag will be available. Everything should be happy on the ebuild
> side of things. (On the U/I side of things, stuff can be done to cut down
> the noise.)

so you're saying that the default ebuild.sh functions are going to be moving 
into the tree to a place which will be auto-sourced before the ebuild and its 
eclasses ?
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1279 bytes --]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 08:26:49 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Thursday 11 August 2005 07:02 am, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > With noman and the like, how's the following for a solution? A lot
> > of the ebuild functions contained within portage will be moving
> > into the tree once signing is in. What about adding
> > {pre,post}_src_{compile,install,...} hooks into portage that will
> > live in the tree that USE="man" support can be implemented in
> > globally? For those packages that have a specific interest, the USE
> > flag will be available. Everything should be happy on the ebuild
> > side of things. (On the U/I side of things, stuff can be done to
> > cut down the noise.)
> 
> so you're saying that the default ebuild.sh functions are going to be
> moving into the tree to a place which will be auto-sourced before the
> ebuild and its eclasses ?
> -mike

If you read it again you'll notice the {pre,post} part ;)
IIRC that's already in HEAD for /etc/portage/bashrc, so extending it to
$PORTDIR shouldn't be an issue.

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] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 11 August 2005 09:40 am, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 08:26:49 -0400
>
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 August 2005 07:02 am, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > With noman and the like, how's the following for a solution? A lot
> > > of the ebuild functions contained within portage will be moving
> > > into the tree once signing is in. What about adding
> > > {pre,post}_src_{compile,install,...} hooks into portage that will
> > > live in the tree that USE="man" support can be implemented in
> > > globally? For those packages that have a specific interest, the USE
> > > flag will be available. Everything should be happy on the ebuild
> > > side of things. (On the U/I side of things, stuff can be done to
> > > cut down the noise.)
> >
> > so you're saying that the default ebuild.sh functions are going to be
> > moving into the tree to a place which will be auto-sourced before the
> > ebuild and its eclasses ?
> > -mike
>
> If you read it again you'll notice the {pre,post} part ;)
> IIRC that's already in HEAD for /etc/portage/bashrc, so extending it to
> $PORTDIR shouldn't be an issue.

and if *you* read it again you'll notice that he said moving a lot of ebuild 
functions out of ebuild.sh *and* adding new {pre,post} hooks

personally i dont think bashrc is appropriate for this ...
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 907 bytes --]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:03:13 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Thursday 11 August 2005 09:40 am, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > If you read it again you'll notice the {pre,post} part ;)
> > IIRC that's already in HEAD for /etc/portage/bashrc, so extending
> > it to $PORTDIR shouldn't be an issue.
> 
> and if *you* read it again you'll notice that he said moving a lot of
> ebuild functions out of ebuild.sh *and* adding new {pre,post} hooks

new*, do*, emake, ...
NOT src_*, pkg_* or dyn_*, use, has, ...

Basically the helper scripts should go in the tree, but the stuff
that's tied to portage internals stays in portage.
The list isn't final yet though.

though.

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] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too

[Jason Stubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2448 bytes --]

On Thursday 11 August 2005 21:26, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 11 August 2005 07:02 am, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 August 2005 09:04, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 10 August 2005 07:56 pm, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > > I was referring to compiler version. Portage FEATURES are not a
> > > > guaranteed part of an ebuild's "shell". Let me put it another way,
> > > > should ebuilds handle NOCOLOR as well?
> > >
> > > no, but why should NOCOLOR affect how a package is built/installed ? 
> > > the point here is that we dont really care whether it's FEATURES or
> > > USE or what, as long as we have the ability to control
> > > DEPEND/SRC_URI/behavior in an ebuild depending on whether the user
> > > wants tests/manpages/etc...
> >
> > With noman and the like, how's the following for a solution? A lot of
> > the ebuild functions contained within portage will be moving into the
> > tree once signing is in. What about adding
> > {pre,post}_src_{compile,install,...} hooks into portage that will live
> > in the tree that USE="man" support can be implemented in globally? For
> > those packages that have a specific interest, the USE flag will be
> > available. Everything should be happy on the ebuild side of things. (On
> > the U/I side of things, stuff can be done to cut down the noise.)
>
> so you're saying that the default ebuild.sh functions are going to be
> moving into the tree to a place which will be auto-sourced before the
> ebuild and its eclasses ?

As Marius said, the list of what be moved isn't finalized yet. Essentially, 
the goal is to move anything that is not affected by portage version into 
the tree. What I was suggesting was extra hooks that would essentially 
allow ebuild devs to modify ebuilds at the abstract level, such as adding a 
"noman", "noinfo" or "nostaticlibs" to all ebuilds.

This is merely a suggestion, however. Putting aside my general dislike of 
USE_EXPAND, adding FEATURES to it means that all portage versions (and 
replacements) are required to have a global FEATURES setting and must have 
a certain subset of FEATURES available that must each provide a specific 
function. I'm not really attached to the solution I suggested; I'm just 
looking for a way to get rid of those "must"s. Portage currently has no 
idea what anything in USE or USE_EXPAND is or what it does. It needs to be 
kept that way.

-- 
Jason Stubbs

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