[gentoo-dev] Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[gentoo-dev] Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1146 bytes --]

This is undocumented and unofficial, so feel free to utterly ignore it
and commit whatever the heck you want.

The 'doc' and 'examples' (yay for consistency!) USE flags are intended
for use where building documentation or examples would take a long
time, introduce new dependencies or otherwise be an inconvenience to
many users.

For example, if libiamafish comes with a half dozen small example
source files and a few pages of HTML, just install them. If, however,
libiamafish requires, say, doxygen to generate its documentation, or
comes with several megabytes of examples in a separate tarball, then
you should consider a USE flag.

Explanation: a USE flag for trivial stuff that isn't in /etc, doesn't
slow anything down, doesn't introduce any dep bloat and generally
doesn't change anything noticeable isn't a USE flag that's giving the
user any meaningful choice or making things easier for arch teams. You
do not get bonus points for using more USE flags.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Stuart Herbert]

Hi Ciaran,

On 3/4/06, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Explanation: a USE flag for trivial stuff that isn't in /etc, doesn't
> slow anything down, doesn't introduce any dep bloat and generally
> doesn't change anything noticeable isn't a USE flag that's giving the
> user any meaningful choice or making things easier for arch teams. You
> do not get bonus points for using more USE flags.

Another point of view are servers, where there's simply no need to
have docs installed on each and every box in a rack.  There's no need
to install what a user doesn't need, and having doc and example USE
flags more widely supported means that Gentoo does a better job of
respecting the choice of users.

Best regards,
Stu

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Dan Armak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1689 bytes --]

On Saturday 04 March 2006 17:15, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Hi Ciaran,
>
> On 3/4/06, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Explanation: a USE flag for trivial stuff that isn't in /etc, doesn't
> > slow anything down, doesn't introduce any dep bloat and generally
> > doesn't change anything noticeable isn't a USE flag that's giving the
> > user any meaningful choice or making things easier for arch teams. You
> > do not get bonus points for using more USE flags.
>
> Another point of view are servers, where there's simply no need to
> have docs installed on each and every box in a rack.  There's no need
> to install what a user doesn't need, and having doc and example USE
> flags more widely supported means that Gentoo does a better job of
> respecting the choice of users.

I agree with Ciaran. IMO the convenience of having docs outweighs the modest 
amount of diskspace/clutter they need (average of 50 MB on my average server,  
when then rest of the installed packages take at least an order of magnitude 
more). 

If you're concerned about diskspace you can filter out /usr/share/doc 
entirely, so users do have the choice. The problem here is that the docs USE 
flag is off by default. Making more packages use the flag would install less 
docs. Has anyone actually complained that too many docs are installed by 
default? It's true that some users/situations don't need them, but most do, 
especially as long as we don't have separate server profiles.

-- 
Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE)
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD  0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 944 bytes --]

On Saturday 04 March 2006 16:43, Dan Armak wrote:
> If you're concerned about diskspace you can filter out /usr/share/doc
> entirely, so users do have the choice. The problem here is that the docs
> USE flag is off by default. Making more packages use the flag would install
> less docs. Has anyone actually complained that too many docs are installed
> by default? It's true that some users/situations don't need them, but most
> do, especially as long as we don't have separate server profiles.

I have seen quite a few bugs about that and actually have filed one¹, rotting  
in bugzilla, myself. I definitely do not care about a few hundred KB 
documentation per ebuild, but some install a lot of documentation and 
accumulated it's a lot of wasted space. Filtering out /usr/share/doc as a 
whole is no choice, when you usually want it, but a fair share not.


Carsten


[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116658

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Dan Armak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1258 bytes --]

On Saturday 04 March 2006 18:00, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Saturday 04 March 2006 16:43, Dan Armak wrote:
> > If you're concerned about diskspace you can filter out /usr/share/doc
> > entirely, so users do have the choice. The problem here is that the docs
> > USE flag is off by default. Making more packages use the flag would
> > install less docs. Has anyone actually complained that too many docs are
> > installed by default? It's true that some users/situations don't need
> > them, but most do, especially as long as we don't have separate server
> > profiles.
>
> I have seen quite a few bugs about that and actually have filed one¹,
> rotting in bugzilla, myself. I definitely do not care about a few hundred
> KB documentation per ebuild, but some install a lot of documentation and
> accumulated it's a lot of wasted space. Filtering out /usr/share/doc as a
> whole is no choice, when you usually want it, but a fair share not.

I agree that really large docs should be made USE-dependant. This is also 
consistent with Ciaran's orig post.

-- 
Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE)
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD  0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1196 bytes --]

On Saturday 04 March 2006 17:00, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Saturday 04 March 2006 16:43, Dan Armak wrote:
> > If you're concerned about diskspace you can filter out /usr/share/doc
> > entirely, so users do have the choice. The problem here is that the
> > docs USE flag is off by default. Making more packages use the flag
> > would install less docs. Has anyone actually complained that too many
> > docs are installed by default? It's true that some users/situations
> > don't need them, but most do, especially as long as we don't have
> > separate server profiles.
>
> I have seen quite a few bugs about that and actually have filed one¹,
> rotting in bugzilla, myself. I definitely do not care about a few
> hundred KB documentation per ebuild, but some install a lot of
> documentation and accumulated it's a lot of wasted space. Filtering out
> /usr/share/doc as a whole is no choice, when you usually want it, but a
> fair share not.
>
I guess some advanced /etc/portage/bashrc magic isn't enough for you? 
There are some neat tricks you can play with that.

Paul

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Carsten Lohrke]

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

On Monday 06 March 2006 17:39, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> I guess some advanced /etc/portage/bashrc magic isn't enough for you?
> There are some neat tricks you can play with that.

I consider this sort of ugly hack. And I don't see the point why everyone 
should do this, while a maintainer, even when the install script doesn't 
allow to omit doc processing, can - as the very least - add

use doc || rm -rf ${D}/usr/share/doc/${PF}/<foo>

at the end of src_install, when megabytes of api docs etc. get installed. The 
maintenance cost is zero.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Alec Warner]

> On Monday 06 March 2006 17:39, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> 
>>I guess some advanced /etc/portage/bashrc magic isn't enough for you?
>>There are some neat tricks you can play with that.
> 

While magic is great, it is also not for all end users.  bashrc magic is 
not officially supported by the Portage team, so while it's a powerful 
tool for some users, it's also quite volatile in terms of how it is 
sourced.  It should not be depended on.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Harald van Dijk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 218 bytes --]

On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 05:43:22PM +0200, Dan Armak wrote:
> Has anyone actually complained that too many docs are installed by 
> default?

Don't know about docs, but if examples count here too, see bug #111508.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[MIkey]

Stuart Herbert wrote:

> Another point of view are servers, where there's simply no need to
> have docs installed on each and every box in a rack.  There's no need
> to install what a user doesn't need, and having doc and example USE
> flags more widely supported means that Gentoo does a better job of
> respecting the choice of users.

Amen.  I use FEATURES="noinfo noman nodoc" and USE="-doc" on all of my
server installs.  My only desire is that there would be a way to turn them
off more completely - no texinfo, no perl man page generation, etc...  I
would also like to have them excluded from binary packages.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Ferris McCormick]

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

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, MIkey wrote:

> Stuart Herbert wrote:
>
>> Another point of view are servers, where there's simply no need to
>> have docs installed on each and every box in a rack.  There's no need
>> to install what a user doesn't need, and having doc and example USE
>> flags more widely supported means that Gentoo does a better job of
>> respecting the choice of users.
>
> Amen.  I use FEATURES="noinfo noman nodoc" and USE="-doc" on all of my
> server installs.  My only desire is that there would be a way to turn them
> off more completely - no texinfo, no perl man page generation, etc...


>  I
> would also like to have them excluded from binary packages.
>

That can't be right can it?  You mean, like openoffice-bin, or like the 
ones you build yourself?  I know that I often build on one system, install 
on several, and when I do that, I really want them to be identical.  I 
think if you have your no-docs-of-any-kind option, you get your wish as to 
locally built packages, but if you really mean things like openoffice-bin, 
I doubt that any openoffice user would want it with absolutely no 
documentation.

Confused,
Ferris
- --
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFECcg1Qa6M3+I///cRAisAAKCnE4JMHq+wze8+Ghy6MEUtEyWqYACgqF1e
xy3lX0ZeBC6D5GraVIXbM0E=
=c9G5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[MIkey]

Ferris McCormick wrote:

>>  I
>> would also like to have them excluded from binary packages.
>>
> 
> That can't be right can it?  You mean, like openoffice-bin, or like the
> ones you build yourself?  I know that I often build on one system, install
> on several, and when I do that, I really want them to be identical.  I
> think if you have your no-docs-of-any-kind option, you get your wish as to
> locally built packages, but if you really mean things like openoffice-bin,
> I doubt that any openoffice user would want it with absolutely no
> documentation.

Yes, if I say -doc or specify FEATURES="nodoc", I don't want the docs in
there, binary package or not.  I want the behavior and results to be
consistent.  I am not talking about things like the internal openoffice
help documentation, I am talking about anything that goes
into /usr/share/doc, man pages, and info pages.

At my job we aim to eventually rid ourselves completely of MS products on
several thousand (local and remote) desktops and replace them with some
sort of thin linux client running the citrix metaframe client.  They will
be running in kiosk mode.  No user will have the ability to get to a window
manager and browse around in /usr/share/doc.  They don't even know what the
heck a man page is.

Generating package CDs to install the kiosks, using livecds in some cases,
and in other cases using terminal servers are all options on the table.  In
each of these scenarios, every KB counts.

I also generate installation CDs that can install or update any server type
in our farm for disaster recovery purposes.  Again, every KB counts...

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 698 bytes --]

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:04:11 -0600 MIkey <mikey@badpenguins.com> wrote:
| At my job we aim to eventually rid ourselves completely of MS
| products on several thousand (local and remote) desktops and replace
| them with some sort of thin linux client running the citrix metaframe
| client.  They will be running in kiosk mode.  No user will have the
| ability to get to a window manager and browse around
| in /usr/share/doc.  They don't even know what the heck a man page is.

Then you should use INSTALL_MASK, not a USE flag.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[MIkey]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:04:11 -0600 MIkey <mikey@badpenguins.com> wrote:
> | At my job we aim to eventually rid ourselves completely of MS
> | products on several thousand (local and remote) desktops and replace
> | them with some sort of thin linux client running the citrix metaframe
> | client.  They will be running in kiosk mode.  No user will have the
> | ability to get to a window manager and browse around
> | in /usr/share/doc.  They don't even know what the heck a man page is.
> 
> Then you should use INSTALL_MASK, not a USE flag.

Please excuse my ignorance, but what the heck is INSTALL_MASK and where is
it documented?  Can it exclude things from being included in binary
packages?

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Duncan]

MIkey posted <200603041818.k24IIJCS011711@gw.open-hosting.net>, excerpted
below,  on Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:18:22 -0600:

> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:04:11 -0600 MIkey <mikey@badpenguins.com> wrote:
>> | At my job we aim to eventually rid ourselves completely of MS
>> | products on several thousand (local and remote) desktops and replace
>> | them with some sort of thin linux client running the citrix metaframe
>> | client.  They will be running in kiosk mode.  No user will have the
>> | ability to get to a window manager and browse around
>> | in /usr/share/doc.  They don't even know what the heck a man page is.
>> 
>> Then you should use INSTALL_MASK, not a USE flag.
> 
> Please excuse my ignorance, but what the heck is INSTALL_MASK and where is
> it documented?  Can it exclude things from being included in binary
> packages?

INSTALL_MASK is similar to the CONFIG_PROTECT and CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK
portage variables in that it takes a list of directories (or files,
wildcarding is acceptable), settable in make.conf.  portage will still
package those files in binary packages, but won't install anything that
matches INSTALL_MASK.  Thus, you can stick /usr/doc and /usr/share/doc in
it, and snag anything that would be installed to them.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Thomas de Grenier de Latour]

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:18:22 -0600,
MIkey <mikey@badpenguins.com> wrote:

> Can it exclude things from being included in binary packages? 

AFAIK, no. But what you could use (with portage-2.1) is a hook 
function in /etc/portage/bashrc: 
  post_src_install() { rm -rf ${D}usr/share/doc ; }
This way, files will be deleted for real, before getting merged or
added to your binary package.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Simon Stelling]

Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
>   post_src_install() { rm -rf ${D}usr/share/doc ; }
> This way, files will be deleted for real, before getting merged or
> added to your binary package.

No, that function never gets executed with binary packages. You probably meant
post_pkg_preinst.

-- 
Kind Regards,

Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Member
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Thomas de Grenier de Latour]

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 23:04:22 +0100,
Simon Stelling <blubb@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> >   post_src_install() { rm -rf ${D}usr/share/doc ; }
> > This way, files will be deleted for real, before getting merged or
> > added to your binary package.
> 
> No, that function never gets executed with binary packages.

I know, but what i understand from MIkey's email is that he wants to
create some smaller binary packages, without the doc files inside.
Hence the choice of post_src_install.

If it was to do it at pre/post_pkg_preinst time, then INSTALL_MASK
would have done the trick anyway, no need for a hook function.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 04 March 2006 13:18, MIkey wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:04:11 -0600 MIkey <mikey@badpenguins.com> wrote:
> > | At my job we aim to eventually rid ourselves completely of MS
> > | products on several thousand (local and remote) desktops and replace
> > | them with some sort of thin linux client running the citrix metaframe
> > | client.  They will be running in kiosk mode.  No user will have the
> > | ability to get to a window manager and browse around
> > | in /usr/share/doc.  They don't even know what the heck a man page is.
> >
> > Then you should use INSTALL_MASK, not a USE flag.
>
> Please excuse my ignorance, but where is INSTALL_MASK documented?

nowhere of consequence
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[MIkey]

Mike Frysinger wrote:

>> > Then you should use INSTALL_MASK, not a USE flag.
>>
>> Please excuse my ignorance, but where is INSTALL_MASK documented?
> 
> nowhere of consequence
> -mike

Heh heh, same place as FEATURES="noinfo noman nodoc" ;)

Let me ask it this way.

Please excuse my ignorance, but where is INSTALL_MASK implemented?

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

MIkey wrote:
> Please excuse my ignorance, but where is INSTALL_MASK implemented?

ebuild.sh

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 258 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sunday 05 March 2006 14:53, MIkey wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > Then you should use INSTALL_MASK, not a USE flag.
> >>
> >> Please excuse my ignorance, but where is INSTALL_MASK documented?
> >
> > nowhere of consequence
>
> Heh heh, same place as FEATURES="noinfo noman nodoc" ;)

not really ... those are documented in make.conf
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[MIkey]

Mike Frysinger wrote:

>> Heh heh, same place as FEATURES="noinfo noman nodoc" ;)
> 
> not really ... those are documented in make.conf
> -mike

I have a nasty habit of always looking at make.conf.example instead of the
man page.  Plus, er, uh, I used FEATURES="noman" ;)  Yeah, thats my story
and I'm sticking to it.

Regardless, I would rather see noman/nodoc/noinfo implemented in USE flags,
so they can be applied package by package, implemented perhaps in something
like dodoc/doman/doinfo/dohtml.  In some cases I might actually want
documentation for specific packages...



-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Ferris McCormick]

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

On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, MIkey wrote:

> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
>>> Heh heh, same place as FEATURES="noinfo noman nodoc" ;)
>>
>> not really ... those are documented in make.conf
>> -mike
>
> I have a nasty habit of always looking at make.conf.example instead of the
> man page.  Plus, er, uh, I used FEATURES="noman" ;)  Yeah, thats my story
> and I'm sticking to it.
>
> Regardless, I would rather see noman/nodoc/noinfo implemented in USE flags,
> so they can be applied package by package, implemented perhaps in something
> like dodoc/doman/doinfo/dohtml.  In some cases I might actually want
> documentation for specific packages...
>
I hesitate to raise my head again, but why not use
FEATURES='-noman' emerge ...

(FEATURES='-noman -noinfo -nodoc' USE='doc' emerge ...
for that matter.)?

I use that sort of thing for, say,
FEATURES='-distcc ccache' MAKEOPTS='-j2'emerge ...
on some specific occasions, and it does what it looks like it should do.

Regards,
Ferris
- --
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEC2IcQa6M3+I///cRAqknAKCLiN6lc6CjIJ+O1/0cMZk7epCxUwCeP8jf
GXLqlvnzw9c10IK5vtUNnto=
=bUOU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[MIkey]

Ferris McCormick wrote:

> I hesitate to raise my head again, but why not use
> FEATURES='-noman' emerge ...
> 
> (FEATURES='-noman -noinfo -nodoc' USE='doc' emerge ...
> for that matter.)?
> 
> I use that sort of thing for, say,
> FEATURES='-distcc ccache' MAKEOPTS='-j2'emerge ...
> on some specific occasions, and it does what it looks like it should do.

That is of course always an option.

But, I have a dream...  That some day, some way, I will be able to control
_everything_ I need relating to building and installing via USE flags and
package.use.

I don't think using _anything_ in the environment should ever be allowed
because there is no way to track it during upgrades or automated building
(catalyst, installing from pre-packaged binaries, for examples).  Not to
mention the environment is not exactly clean.  Keeping track of the myriad
of ways you can alter a package build/install is a headache, I would prefer
it all be done through one consistent interface...  From what I can tell,
the use of FEATURES="noman nodoc noinfo" is being deprecated anyway.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[John Mylchreest]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 260 bytes --]

OK sorry, all those Re:'s were really getting to me :)

-- 
Role:            Gentoo Linux Kernel Lead
Gentoo Linux:    http://www.gentoo.org
Public Key:      gpg --recv-keys 9C745515
Key fingerprint: A0AF F3C8 D699 A05A EC5C  24F7 95AA 241D 9C74 5515


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sunday 05 March 2006 17:38, MIkey wrote:
> Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > I hesitate to raise my head again, but why not use
> > FEATURES='-noman' emerge ...
> >
> > (FEATURES='-noman -noinfo -nodoc' USE='doc' emerge ...
> > for that matter.)?
> >
> > I use that sort of thing for, say,
> > FEATURES='-distcc ccache' MAKEOPTS='-j2'emerge ...
> > on some specific occasions, and it does what it looks like it should do.
>
> That is of course always an option.
>
> But, I have a dream...  That some day, some way, I will be able to control
> _everything_ I need relating to building and installing via USE flags and
> package.use.

or if we had per-package env files, FEATURES would be just fine
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1246 bytes --]

On Sunday 05 March 2006 23:38, MIkey wrote:
>
> That is of course always an option.
>
> But, I have a dream...  That some day, some way, I will be able to
> control _everything_ I need relating to building and installing via USE
> flags and package.use.
>
> I don't think using _anything_ in the environment should ever be
> allowed because there is no way to track it during upgrades or
> automated building (catalyst, installing from pre-packaged binaries,
> for examples).  Not to mention the environment is not exactly clean. 
> Keeping track of the myriad of ways you can alter a package
> build/install is a headache, I would prefer it all be done through one
> consistent interface...  From what I can tell, the use of
> FEATURES="noman nodoc noinfo" is being deprecated anyway.

Take a look at the options offered by a custom /etc/portage/bashrc. One 
can do almost anything there. You can have it read in configuration files 
and whatever. The documentation is kindof lacking, but most portage 
features could actually be removed in favour of a custom bashrc. It would 
just confuse the hell out of users.

Paul

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[MIkey]

Paul de Vrieze wrote:

> Take a look at the options offered by a custom /etc/portage/bashrc. One
> can do almost anything there. You can have it read in configuration files
> and whatever. The documentation is kindof lacking, but most portage
> features could actually be removed in favour of a custom bashrc. It would
> just confuse the hell out of users.

What versions of portage implement that?

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 751 bytes --]

On Monday 06 March 2006 18:11, MIkey wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > Take a look at the options offered by a custom /etc/portage/bashrc. One
> > can do almost anything there. You can have it read in configuration files
> > and whatever. The documentation is kindof lacking, but most portage
> > features could actually be removed in favour of a custom bashrc. It would
> > just confuse the hell out of users.
>
> What versions of portage implement that?

The hooks to all ebuild functions are only implemented in later prereleases. 
General bashrc has been supported for a long time. Any current portage 
version supports it.

Paul

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

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Edward Catmur]

On Sun, 2006-03-05 at 14:35 -0600, MIkey wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> Regardless, I would rather see noman/nodoc/noinfo implemented in USE flags,
> so they can be applied package by package, implemented perhaps in something
> like dodoc/doman/doinfo/dohtml.  In some cases I might actually want
> documentation for specific packages...

no{man,doc,info} is implemented within ebuild.sh, so you can
use /etc/portage/bashrc to set FEATURES="noman" on a per-package basis.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Ferris McCormick]

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

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, MIkey wrote:

> Ferris McCormick wrote:
>
>>>  I
>>> would also like to have them excluded from binary packages.
>>>
>>
>> That can't be right can it?  You mean, like openoffice-bin, or like the
>> ones you build yourself?  I know that I often build on one system, install
>> on several, and when I do that, I really want them to be identical.  I
>> think if you have your no-docs-of-any-kind option, you get your wish as to
>> locally built packages, but if you really mean things like openoffice-bin,
>> I doubt that any openoffice user would want it with absolutely no
>> documentation.
>
> Yes, if I say -doc or specify FEATURES="nodoc", I don't want the docs in
> there, binary package or not.  I want the behavior and results to be
> consistent.  I am not talking about things like the internal openoffice
> help documentation, I am talking about anything that goes
> into /usr/share/doc, man pages, and info pages.
>

I misinterpreted what you wrote.  I thought you meant "physically included 
in the package," not "installed from a binary package."  I just completely read 
what looks like a reasonable request and turned it into nonsense without 
thinking about it, I guess.

Regards,
Ferris
- --
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFECeluQa6M3+I///cRArbCAKChFkOo8JVxW8eFbjh5++Jk387omQCcDZRR
sofHhKeCBKhJuG3d60ZtyLo=
=XCXt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[MIkey]

Ferris McCormick wrote:

> I misinterpreted what you wrote.  I thought you meant "physically included
> in the package," not "installed from a binary package."  I just completely
> read what looks like a reasonable request and turned it into nonsense
> without thinking about it, I guess.

I am not so sure you misinterpreted me, because when I specify -doc and
emerge -B a package, I don't want docs installed OR in the binary package
that is generated.  I want the behavior of USE flags to be consistent.  If
I set -ssl and generate a binary package for apache2, the packaged up
libraries should not link with ssl libraries.  The same should apply with
-doc.

What I would really like is the same capability with info and man pages. 
Currently the only way to exclude them is use the unsupported, undocumented
FEATURES="noman noinfo" hack, which if I am not mistaken does not remove
them from binary packages.

Try a du -ksh /usr/share/doc /usr/share/man /usr/share/info and you might
get an idea of why the feature might be desirable:

132M    /usr/share/doc
5.7M    /usr/share/info
56M     /usr/share/man

Most of those are compressed, which means they take even _more_ space in a
binary package.  It adds up.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Ferris McCormick]

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

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, MIkey wrote:

> Ferris McCormick wrote:
>
>> I misinterpreted what you wrote.  I thought you meant "physically included
>> in the package," not "installed from a binary package."  I just completely
>> read what looks like a reasonable request and turned it into nonsense
>> without thinking about it, I guess.
>
> I am not so sure you misinterpreted me, because when I specify -doc and
> emerge -B a package, I don't want docs installed OR in the binary package
> that is generated.  I want the behavior of USE flags to be consistent.  If
> I set -ssl and generate a binary package for apache2, the packaged up
> libraries should not link with ssl libraries.  The same should apply with
> -doc.
>

That happens now, I believe.  The following should all install the same 
thing:
 	USE='-doc' emerge    blah
 	USE='-doc' emerge -b blah
 	USE='-doc' emerge -B blah ; emerge -k blah
    USE='-doc' emerge blah; quickpkg blah; emerge -C blah; emerge -k blah 
Assuming all dependencies are satisfied.
(The binary package is built from the image which is going to be 
installed and carries the USE flags with it. If the docs aren't there, 
they're not there.  Or at least, the binary package carries the '-doc' 
use flag along with it so the docs won't be installed.)

What won't install the same is this sequence:
 	USE='doc'  emerge -B  blah
 	USE='-doc' emerge -k  blah
'emerge -k' uses the USE flags the package was built with.

Example:  Back to ciaranm's original proposal.  If I
 	USE='-doc' emerge -B xorg-x11
I am never going to be able to decide I wanted USE='doc' after all and 
pull the docs from the binary package.  Documentation for xorg-x11 is in a 
separate source file, and with USE='-doc', that file is never even 
fetched.  So,
 	USE='doc' emerge -k xorg-x11
cannot install docs.  Concrete example (from a live system):
 	emerge -pkv rubygems
[binary   R   ] dev-ruby/rubygems-0.8.11  USE="-examples"
 	USE='examples' emerge -pkv rubygems
[binary   R   ] dev-ruby/rubygems-0.8.11  USE="-examples"

Or am I still missing something?

> What I would really like is the same capability with info and man pages.
> Currently the only way to exclude them is use the unsupported, undocumented
> FEATURES="noman noinfo" hack, which if I am not mistaken does not remove
> them from binary packages.
>
> Try a du -ksh /usr/share/doc /usr/share/man /usr/share/info and you might
> get an idea of why the feature might be desirable:
>
> 132M    /usr/share/doc
> 5.7M    /usr/share/info
> 56M     /usr/share/man
>
> Most of those are compressed, which means they take even _more_ space in a
> binary package.  It adds up.
>

Regards,
Ferris
- --
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFECfz8Qa6M3+I///cRAnqrAKDj5ZhOlKKt5MWnqpEZlReUad8CnwCfQDbu
vAQJZ2Lzi8hnOqLMfL8Rc68=
=48Q+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Patrick Börjesson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2228 bytes --]

On 2006-03-04 20:47, Ferris McCormick uttered these thoughts:
> On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, MIkey wrote:
> 
> > Ferris McCormick wrote:
> >
> >> I misinterpreted what you wrote.  I thought you meant "physically included
> >> in the package," not "installed from a binary package."  I just completely
> >> read what looks like a reasonable request and turned it into nonsense
> >> without thinking about it, I guess.
> >
> > I am not so sure you misinterpreted me, because when I specify -doc and
> > emerge -B a package, I don't want docs installed OR in the binary package
> > that is generated.  I want the behavior of USE flags to be consistent.  If
> > I set -ssl and generate a binary package for apache2, the packaged up
> > libraries should not link with ssl libraries.  The same should apply with
> > -doc.
> >
> 
> That happens now, I believe.  The following should all install the same 
> thing:
>  	USE='-doc' emerge    blah
>  	USE='-doc' emerge -b blah
>  	USE='-doc' emerge -B blah ; emerge -k blah
>     USE='-doc' emerge blah; quickpkg blah; emerge -C blah; emerge -k blah 
> Assuming all dependencies are satisfied.
> (The binary package is built from the image which is going to be 
> installed and carries the USE flags with it. If the docs aren't there, 
> they're not there.  Or at least, the binary package carries the '-doc' 
> use flag along with it so the docs won't be installed.)

It seems that INSTALL_MASK works only at merge time, so that if you
build a package at one machine (with INSTALL_MASK set to f.ex.
/usr/share/doc) and install it on the same machine, you get the expected
behaviour. But the INSTALL_MASK:ed directories and their contents are
still present in the binary package since they're not filtered out until
the merge-step. So if you then want to merge this package on a different
machine, and forget to set INSTALL_MASK you still get everything
originally present under /usr/share/doc installed. 

One might argue that INSTALL_MASK should apply for
binary-package-building also, but so is not the case at the moment. 


Regards,
Patrick Börjesson

-- 
/  ()  The ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against HTML Email
\  /\   and proprietary formats.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Ned Ludd]

On Sun, 2006-03-05 at 14:16 +0100, Patrick Börjesson wrote:
[snip]

> It seems that INSTALL_MASK works only at merge time, so that if you
> build a package at one machine (with INSTALL_MASK set to f.ex.
> /usr/share/doc) and install it on the same machine, you get the expected
> behaviour. But the INSTALL_MASK:ed directories and their contents are
> still present in the binary package since they're not filtered out until
> the merge-step. So if you then want to merge this package on a different
> machine, and forget to set INSTALL_MASK you still get everything
> originally present under /usr/share/doc installed. 
> 
> One might argue that INSTALL_MASK should apply for
> binary-package-building also, but so is not the case at the moment. 


http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81025

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Duncan]

Stuart Herbert posted
<b38c6f4c0603040715r2455faedy36e4dca4c06fb8c2@mail.gmail.com>, excerpted
below,  on Sat, 04 Mar 2006 15:15:30 +0000:

> On 3/4/06, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Explanation: a USE flag for trivial stuff that isn't in /etc, doesn't
>> slow anything down, doesn't introduce any dep bloat and generally
>> doesn't change anything noticeable isn't a USE flag that's giving the
>> user any meaningful choice or making things easier for arch teams. You
>> do not get bonus points for using more USE flags.
> 
> Another point of view are servers, where there's simply no need to
> have docs installed on each and every box in a rack.  There's no need
> to install what a user doesn't need, and having doc and example USE
> flags more widely supported means that Gentoo does a better job of
> respecting the choice of users.

You are correct -- a server doesn't need all that stuff, and indeed,
shouldn't have it, particularly examples, as that's just more stuff
that might be exploitable in some way.  However, the standard answer there
is that users should use INSTALL_MASK for docs and examples and the like
on servers.  That's more dependable than a USE flag that may or may not be
there, and leaves the USE flags for the egregious cases, as  Ciaran
suggested, thus effectively giving the user a tri-state control instead of
forcing a binary-state control where it doesn't really fit.  (Note that
INSTALL_MASK files are still created, so someone INSTALL_MASKING will want
to negate the appropriate USE flags as well, to avoid the non-trivial
merge-time processing case.)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 344 bytes --]

On Saturday 04 March 2006 02:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> This is undocumented and unofficial, so feel free to utterly ignore it
> and commit whatever the heck you want.
>
> The 'doc' and 'examples' (yay for consistency!)

Don't now, if I guess right what you want to say, but there's no plural of 
documentation afaik. ;p


Carsten

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 572 bytes --]

On Saturday 04 March 2006 17:02, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Saturday 04 March 2006 02:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > This is undocumented and unofficial, so feel free to utterly ignore
> > it and commit whatever the heck you want.
> >
> > The 'doc' and 'examples' (yay for consistency!)
>
> Don't now, if I guess right what you want to say, but there's no plural
> of documentation afaik. ;p

Documentation is uncountable. So no singular or plural ;-)

Paul

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gratuitous useflaggery (doc and examples)

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 330 bytes --]

On Monday 06 March 2006 17:49, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> Documentation is uncountable. So no singular or plural ;-)

Uh, that was meant ironic, considering Ciaran's remarks to others, that they 
should know about this or that, leading to the one or the other inflaming 
thread. But thanks for the explanation. ;)


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]