Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de>]

* Noack, Sebastian <S.Noack@AUTOonline.de> schrieb:

<snip>

> Is a need to have dozens of lines in your /etc/portage/package.use 
> a simple approach? Maybe it is, if for you, simplicity means only 
> "less number of lines of code in the core of the application". 
> But wasn't you the one who told me that quantity isn't the same like 
> complexity? Well you could say that only source code and scripts 
> contain logic and therefore numbers of lines in the config files 
> doesn't means complexity, but what do I do by the config files of 
> portage actually? I use them for example to instruct portage to 
> enable useflag A but not for ebuild and useflag B but just for 
> ebuild b. Do you claim that this is no logic?

No, that's just quantity of information. Linear data, just like an
list of addresses or phone numbers. There are no rules in it.

The rules just exist in your mind, not in the portage system.
And if you like to modelize them, it should be done separately 
on top of portage.

Okay, let's assume for a while, we've got your additional rules
in the portage system. Someone has to make the decision about 
which frontends to prefer over others. If it's you, then you'll 
be happy with that, since you'll most likely decide the way you
like, but others may be very unhappy with your decisions. On the
other hand, with anyone else making this decision, there's plenty
risk, you'll be unhappy with his decision.

I see big flamewars coming on that. 
Remember the sunrise affair(s) ? 

<snip>

> > Rember: we started with the thesis, "grandma wants graphical
> > frontends whereever possible". This is in fact not an technical
> > issue, instead a matter of personal taste, or lets say, an individual
> > system configuration. Grandma wants to click, okay, so she should
> > use graphical applications. She's not interested what sits behind,
> > she just wants to have a buch of applications. And she also doesn't
> > wann have anything to do with emerge and useflags. She just wants
> > to have a choice between a bunch of end-user applications.
> > That's the job of an Grandma-(sub-)distro.
> 
> That was never the point where "we" started. That was just the point,
> you used to confuse this discussion. 

Maybe I missed something, but this was the first posting I read on
that topic. 

> The grandma scenario should just be a funny example for a requirement 
> of such a advanced portage syntax I could really need on my own systems 
> and I'm not female, but male and not 80 but 18 years old. ;)

IMHO an bad chosen one, as I take such examples seriously.

<snip>

> I know that my proposed syntax isn't a perfect solution. But I think the
> current state of portage isn't a perfect solution, too. And I hoped when
> I started this thread, that we will find together a good solution.

IMHO, the problem isn't yet defined cleanly enough to have a chance
on an good solution.


cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
 	http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
	http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list