[gentoo-dev] [RFC] some global useflags

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] some global useflags

[Markus Meier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1666 bytes --]

server                        16
logrotate                     10
gsm                           9
custom-cflags                 9
kontact                       8
openmp                        8
plasma                        7
html                          7
demo                          7
smp                           6
icu                           6
editor                        6
multislot                     6
nautilus                      6
audacious                     6
tools                         6
qt3support                    6
dxr3                          6
music                         5
smtp                          5
fax                           5
bsf                           5
irc                           5
mp4                           5
clisp                         5
nfs                           5
pcsc-lite                     5
zvbi                          5
http                          5
web                           5


logrotate: Adds support for the app-admin/logrotate log rotation program

kontact: Enable support for the KDE personal information manager
(kde-base/kdepim*)

openmp: Build support for the OpenMP (support parallel computing),
requires >=sys-devel/gcc-4.2 built with USE="openmp"

plasma: Build optional plasma widgets that require kde-base/libplasma

smp: Enable support for multiprocessors or multicore systems

bsf: Enable support for Apache Bean Scripting Framework (dev-java/bsf)


what should we do about custom-cflags? should this be global like
"Use CFLAGS from /etc/make.conf rather than the default package CFLAGS
(not supported)"


Markus

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] some global useflags

[Ciaran McCreesh]

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

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:36:32 +0200
Markus Meier <maekke@gentoo.org> wrote:
> server                        16

Already been discussed, can't be done.

> logrotate                     10

Already been discussed. Will no doubt descend into the same long
argument that happens every time this comes up.

> custom-cflags                 9

Shouldn't be there at all.

> multislot                     6

Utterly illegal, needs to die.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] some global useflags

[Steve Long]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:36:32 +0200
> Markus Meier <maekke@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> server                        16
> 
> Already been discussed, can't be done.
>
What does it break?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] some global useflags

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 530 bytes --]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:53:14 +0100
Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:36:32 +0200
> > Markus Meier <maekke@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> server                        16
> > 
> > Already been discussed, can't be done.
> >
> What does it break?

Have a look at, for example, [1], where Mike already gave you an
answer one of the previous times we discussed it.

[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/47096/focus=47179

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] some global useflags

[Robin H. Johnson]

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

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 05:43:38PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Utterly illegal, needs to die.
Why? I don't agree that it needs to be the global useflags, but I don't
consider it illegal either.

It's defined by toolchain.eclass and toolchain-binutils.eclass, and
deliberately in a very careful manner, such that USE=-multislot and
USE=multislot do NOT conflict. There are no other uses in the tree.

For binutils, it simply enables slotting entirely.
For gcc, it moves the slot down from the major version to the minor version.

In both cases, which one gets called is controlled by the relevant *-config
utility. It's pretty handy when you are trying to figure out a gcc or binutils
bug in the minor versions.

Definitions:
toolchain-binutils:
if use multislot ; then
    SLOT="${CTARGET}-${BVER}"
elif is_cross ; then
    SLOT="${CTARGET}"
else
    SLOT="0"
fi

toolchain.eclass:
if use multislot ; then 
    SLOT="${CTARGET}-${GCC_CONFIG_VER}"
elif is_crosscompile; then 
    SLOT="${CTARGET}-${GCC_BRANCH_VER}"
else 
    SLOT="${GCC_BRANCH_VER}"
fi   

Packages where used:
sys-devel/binutils
sys-devel/binutils-hppa64
sys-devel/binutils-nios2
sys-devel/gcc
sys-devel/gcc-nios2
sys-devel/kgcc64

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 329 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] some global useflags

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 542 bytes --]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:47:06 -0700
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 05:43:38PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Utterly illegal, needs to die.
>
> Why? I don't agree that it needs to be the global useflags, but I
> don't consider it illegal either.

It's illegal. Generated metadata must be constant and can't vary based
upon user configuration, because if it does the package manager will
show the wrong information at --pretend time. See bug #24439, for
example.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] some global useflags

[Marius Mauch]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:19:27 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:47:06 -0700
> "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 05:43:38PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Utterly illegal, needs to die.
> >
> > Why? I don't agree that it needs to be the global useflags, but I
> > don't consider it illegal either.
> 
> It's illegal. Generated metadata must be constant and can't vary based
> upon user configuration, because if it does the package manager will
> show the wrong information at --pretend time.

There are also other issues, e.g. it breaks the generation of the
@installed package set as the installed slots can't be found in the
tree. As portage-2.2 makes increased use of slot atoms internally for
vdb handling we got a few bugreports simply due to the cache constraint
violation by USE=multislot.

Marius

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [RFC] some global useflags

[Steve Long]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Steve Long wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > Markus Meier wrote:
>> >> server                        16
>> > 
>> > Already been discussed, can't be done.
>> >
>> What does it break?
> 
> Have a look at, for example, [1], where Mike already gave you an
> answer one of the previous times we discussed it.
>
I'm aware of the prior discussion.
Re-read it, and tell me what it breaks, if you can.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [RFC] some global useflags

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 425 bytes --]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:06:40 +0100
Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> > Have a look at, for example, [1], where Mike already gave you an
> > answer one of the previous times we discussed it.
> >
> I'm aware of the prior discussion.
> Re-read it, and tell me what it breaks, if you can.

Well, which part of the previous times it's been explained to you didn't
you understand?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [RFC] some global useflags

[Steve Long]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:06:40 +0100
> Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Have a look at, for example, [1], where Mike already gave you an
>> > answer one of the previous times we discussed it.
>> >
>> I'm aware of the prior discussion.
>> Re-read it, and tell me what it breaks, if you can.
> 
> Well, which part of the previous times it's been explained to you didn't
> you understand?
> 
No one has ever given me a technical reason. I thought you might have light
to shed; clearly not.

Please don't reply to my posts if you don't have any actual information to
add; I realise you like long fruitless mail 'discussions', and apparently
have lots of time for them, but I don't, and I don't enjoy reading them
either. This kind of one-liner with zero content, and no intent but to
insult, should simply be binned without sending imo.

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] some global useflags

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1651 bytes --]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 13:22:09 +0100
Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:

> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:06:40 +0100
> > Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > Have a look at, for example, [1], where Mike already gave you an
> >> > answer one of the previous times we discussed it.
> >> >
> >> I'm aware of the prior discussion.
> >> Re-read it, and tell me what it breaks, if you can.
> > 
> > Well, which part of the previous times it's been explained to you
> > didn't you understand?
> > 
> No one has ever given me a technical reason. I thought you might have
> light to shed; clearly not.
> 
> Please don't reply to my posts if you don't have any actual
> information to add; I realise you like long fruitless mail
> 'discussions', and apparently have lots of time for them, but I
> don't, and I don't enjoy reading them either. This kind of one-liner
> with zero content, and no intent but to insult, should simply be
> binned without sending imo.

Okay, Steve, stop.  I don't think you realize it, but you are trolling
this list.  Every second post is you and Ciaran bitching at each other
or you complaining about every single thing we do that you
don't personally like.  We appreciate your input, but please respect our
right to do things the way we think is best for us, even if they aren't
aligned to your personal preferences.


-- 
gcc-porting,                                      by design, by neglect
treecleaner,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] some global useflags

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 588 bytes --]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:36:32 +0200
Markus Meier <maekke@gentoo.org> wrote:

> html                          7
> editor                        6
> tools                         6
> music                         5
> http                          5
> web                           5

All way too general and mean different things on different packages.

-- 
gcc-porting,                                      by design, by neglect
treecleaner,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] [project] Re: [RFC] some global useflags

[Steve Long]

Ryan Hill wrote:
> Steve Long wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > Steve Long wrote:
>> >> > Have a look at, for example, [1], where Mike already gave you an
>> >> > answer one of the previous times we discussed it.
>> >> >
>> >> I'm aware of the prior discussion.
>> >> Re-read it, and tell me what it breaks, if you can.
>> > 
>> > Well, which part of the previous times it's been explained to you
>> > didn't you understand?
>> > 
>> No one has ever given me a technical reason. I thought you might have
>> light to shed; clearly not.
>> 
>> Please don't reply to my posts if you don't have any actual
>> information to add; I realise you like long fruitless mail
>> 'discussions', and apparently have lots of time for them, but I
>> don't, and I don't enjoy reading them either. This kind of one-liner
>> with zero content, and no intent but to insult, should simply be
>> binned without sending imo.
> 
> Okay, Steve, stop.  I don't think you realize it, but you are trolling
> this list.
That wasn't my intention; I added that comment simply to stop the flow of
one-line emails.

> Every second post is you and Ciaran bitching at each other 
I do wish one of you devs would pick him up on his behaviour _on the list_
one of these days.. instead it's _always_ me who gets the flak.

Or do you think his post was anything other than a "one-liner with zero
content, and no intent but to insult"?

> or you complaining about every single thing we do that you
> don't personally like.
Not complaining, simply pointing out better ways to do things; a technical
discussion iow. The reason that has been more difficult a discussion than
it should be is because of the unpleasant comments from McCreesh, Ferdy and
Leverton.

> We appreciate your input, but please respect our 
> right to do things the way we think is best for us, even if they aren't
> aligned to your personal preferences.
> 
I was never under the impression that Gentoo devs would do anything other
than whatever they wanted.

Can you tell me what a 'server' USE flag _breaks_?

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [project] Re: [RFC] some global useflags

[Alec Warner]

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 4:42 AM, Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>> Steve Long wrote:
>>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> > Steve Long wrote:
>>> >> > Have a look at, for example, [1], where Mike already gave you an
>>> >> > answer one of the previous times we discussed it.
>>> >> >
>>> >> I'm aware of the prior discussion.
>>> >> Re-read it, and tell me what it breaks, if you can.
>>> >
>>> > Well, which part of the previous times it's been explained to you
>>> > didn't you understand?
>>> >
>>> No one has ever given me a technical reason. I thought you might have
>>> light to shed; clearly not.
>>>
>>> Please don't reply to my posts if you don't have any actual
>>> information to add; I realise you like long fruitless mail
>>> 'discussions', and apparently have lots of time for them, but I
>>> don't, and I don't enjoy reading them either. This kind of one-liner
>>> with zero content, and no intent but to insult, should simply be
>>> binned without sending imo.
>>
>> Okay, Steve, stop.  I don't think you realize it, but you are trolling
>> this list.
> That wasn't my intention; I added that comment simply to stop the flow of
> one-line emails.
>
>> Every second post is you and Ciaran bitching at each other
> I do wish one of you devs would pick him up on his behaviour _on the list_
> one of these days.. instead it's _always_ me who gets the flak.
>
> Or do you think his post was anything other than a "one-liner with zero
> content, and no intent but to insult"?
>
>> or you complaining about every single thing we do that you
>> don't personally like.
> Not complaining, simply pointing out better ways to do things; a technical
> discussion iow. The reason that has been more difficult a discussion than
> it should be is because of the unpleasant comments from McCreesh, Ferdy and
> Leverton.

Not all things are technical in nature.

>
>> We appreciate your input, but please respect our
>> right to do things the way we think is best for us, even if they aren't
>> aligned to your personal preferences.
>>
> I was never under the impression that Gentoo devs would do anything other
> than whatever they wanted.
>
> Can you tell me what a 'server' USE flag _breaks_?
>

It breaks usability.  I realize that is hard to measure but we have
discussed this multiple times and have decided it is a Bad Idea for
users and a Bad Idea for us.  So it was not done.

-Alec

Re: [gentoo-dev] [project] Re: [RFC] some global useflags

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 290 bytes --]

Steve Long wrote:
> 
> Can you tell me what a 'server' USE flag _breaks_?
> 

Global use flags must behave the same way in all ebuilds where they are
used. The server use flag currently doesn't.

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/47164

Regards,
Petteri





[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]