Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Alec Warner]

Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Hi Zac,
> 
> On 8/8/06, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Stuart Herbert wrote:
>> > Any chance of per-package USE defaults support?  That's much more
>> useful
>> > to me.
>>
>> Attached to bug 61732 there's a patch that implements this via a new
>> IUSE_DEFAULTS ebuild variable.  If people like that particular
>> implementation, then I'll update the patch so that it applies to
>> portage-2.1.1_pre.  Some might suggest that an EAPI bump is proper for
>> the addition of this type of functionality, but perhaps we can slide
>> it in without that extra annoyance.
>>
>> Zac
> 
> As a package maintainer, I'm happy :)  Is this going to cause problems
> for arch teams at all?
> 
> Best regards,
> Stu

I think we are doing both profile and ebuild default USE, so arches can
still turn stuff on and off and (probably) over-ride your ebuild defaults.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Zac Medico]

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

Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Any chance of per-package USE defaults support?  That's much more useful
> to me.

Attached to bug 61732 there's a patch that implements this via a new IUSE_DEFAULTS ebuild variable.  If people like that particular implementation, then I'll update the patch so that it applies to portage-2.1.1_pre.  Some might suggest that an EAPI bump is proper for the addition of this type of functionality, but perhaps we can slide it in without that extra annoyance.

Zac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFE2ONx/ejvha5XGaMRAhJPAKCE+xf2kDl/IpD/XDKzwONogUEIXwCg5e+2
PwPsRFyJMPtYvl2iwsrksso=
=mCJL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> schrieb:

<snip>

> Attached to bug 61732 there's a patch that implements this via 
> a new IUSE_DEFAULTS ebuild variable.

hmm, what do you do if there's a need for arch specific defaults ?

IMHO its better to have these defaults somewhere within the profile.
Maybe another package.use alike file, which is read first ? 

I did not yet had a deeper look the portage code, but maybe it's
enough to pull another file (coming somehow with the profile) 
through the same code which loads package.use.


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 403 bytes --]

On Tuesday 08 August 2006 16:28, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> hmm, what do you do if there's a need for arch specific defaults ?

not accounted for as we really havent found this to be a big deal

> IMHO its better to have these defaults somewhere within the profile.
> Maybe another package.use alike file, which is read first ?

not a chance ... the entire point is to have this in the ebuild itself
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 667 bytes --]

On Tuesday 08 August 2006 15:18, Zac Medico wrote:
> Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > Any chance of per-package USE defaults support?  That's much more useful
> > to me.
>
> Attached to bug 61732 there's a patch that implements this via a new
> IUSE_DEFAULTS ebuild variable.  If people like that particular
> implementation, then I'll update the patch so that it applies to
> portage-2.1.1_pre.  Some might suggest that an EAPI bump is proper for the
> addition of this type of functionality, but perhaps we can slide it in
> without that extra annoyance.

i'm really really partial to overloading IUSE here rather than introducing a 
new variable ...
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Stuart Herbert]

Hi Zac,

On 8/8/06, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > Any chance of per-package USE defaults support?  That's much more useful
> > to me.
>
> Attached to bug 61732 there's a patch that implements this via a new IUSE_DEFAULTS ebuild variable.  If people like that particular implementation, then I'll update the patch so that it applies to portage-2.1.1_pre.  Some might suggest that an EAPI bump is proper for the addition of this type of functionality, but perhaps we can slide it in without that extra annoyance.
>
> Zac

As a package maintainer, I'm happy :)  Is this going to cause problems
for arch teams at all?

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Jason Wever]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 469 bytes --]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 22:57:44 +0100
"Stuart Herbert" <stuart.herbert@gmail.com> wrote:

> As a package maintainer, I'm happy :)  Is this going to cause problems
> for arch teams at all?

I hope not.  I've been looking forward to this for arch specific
reasons (like if package foo fails to build with the perl use flag
enabled but only on arch bar, arch bar can mask it but no other arches
are affected).

Cheers,
-- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 578 bytes --]

On Tuesday 08 August 2006 19:46, Jason Wever wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 22:57:44 +0100
> "Stuart Herbert" <stuart.herbert@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As a package maintainer, I'm happy :)  Is this going to cause problems
> > for arch teams at all?
>
> I hope not.  I've been looking forward to this for arch specific
> reasons (like if package foo fails to build with the perl use flag
> enabled but only on arch bar, arch bar can mask it but no other arches
> are affected).

huh ?  i think you're thinking of per-package use.mask, not per-package use 
defaults
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1149 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 05:49:40PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 August 2006 15:18, Zac Medico wrote:
> > Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > > Any chance of per-package USE defaults support?  That's much more useful
> > > to me.
> >
> > Attached to bug 61732 there's a patch that implements this via a new
> > IUSE_DEFAULTS ebuild variable.  If people like that particular
> > implementation, then I'll update the patch so that it applies to
> > portage-2.1.1_pre.  Some might suggest that an EAPI bump is proper for the
> > addition of this type of functionality, but perhaps we can slide it in
> > without that extra annoyance.
> 
> i'm really really partial to overloading IUSE here rather than introducing a 
> new variable ...

Same here.

Upshot of reuse, it's cheaper from a char standpoint for the cache.

Plus, it saves us having to write an extra check to repoman to verify 
that IUSE_DEFAULTS stated flags are all in IUSE ;)

Does require an EAPI bump for it, but there is enough stuff sitting 
around that requires an EAPI bump, probably worthwhile to roll a glep 
for it and do it in one shot.
~harring

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Jason Wever]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 240 bytes --]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 19:56:01 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> huh ?  i think you're thinking of per-package use.mask, not
> per-package use defaults

Oh yeah good call.

-- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Kevin F. Quinn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 992 bytes --]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 17:49:40 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday 08 August 2006 15:18, Zac Medico wrote:
> > Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > > Any chance of per-package USE defaults support?  That's much more
> > > useful to me.
> >
> > Attached to bug 61732 there's a patch that implements this via a new
> > IUSE_DEFAULTS ebuild variable.  If people like that particular
> > implementation, then I'll update the patch so that it applies to
> > portage-2.1.1_pre.  Some might suggest that an EAPI bump is proper
> > for the addition of this type of functionality, but perhaps we can
> > slide it in without that extra annoyance.
> 
> i'm really really partial to overloading IUSE here rather than
> introducing a new variable ...

You mean by doing something like:

IUSE="alpha +beta gamma"

meaning beta is default-on?

Could do the same thing in per-package use.mask (although "mask"
becomes a misnomer at that point).


-- 
Kevin F. Quinn

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package USE defaults

[Thomas de Grenier de Latour]

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 12:18:10 -0700,
Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > Any chance of per-package USE defaults support?  That's much more
> > useful to me.
> 
> Attached to bug 61732 there's a patch that implements this via a new
> IUSE_DEFAULTS ebuild variable.

I see USE_ORDER becomes "...:pkg:conf:iuse_defaults:..." in your
patch.  Have you considered using "...:pkg:iuse_defaults:conf:..."
instead?  Imo, the feature would better this way, because: 

 - one would still benefit of the package defaults when using a
make.conf with USE="-* ...".  This would be a good thing especially
when a "+foo" default has been used to replace an old IUSE="nofoo".

 - one would get the "best" flags everywhere when a global flag, for
instance a library flag, which is good in general (and thus that people
set in their make.conf) is just not the best alternative in the context
of one particular package. 

And also, it just sounds more logical/intuitive to me that some
per-package defaults are only overridable at a per-package level.

Sure, this may also complicates life of a user who don't want "libfoo"
at all, if the "libfoo" flag is set per-default in 20 packages he uses.
But i would expect this won't happen; flags which are good defaults in
general would rather stay in make.defaults i guess.

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