[gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 136 bytes --]

Hello

Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491

Thanks


[-- Attachment #1.2: 2011-02-13-libgphoto-2.4.10.en.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 486 bytes --]

Title: Change on CAMERAS handling in libgphoto2-2.4.10
Author: Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2011-02-13
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: <media-libs/libgphoto2-2.4.10

In order to not violate package manager handling (http://bugs.gentoo.org/346491),
selective cameras build logic has been modified in libgphoto2-2.4.10 to build all
when CAMERAS is set to "*", nothing if empty and only the ones specified otherwise.


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 551 bytes --]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:03:41 +0100
Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491

CAMERAS=* shouldn't be legal. Since the strict IUSE stuff was dropped
from EAPI 4, and since IUSE isn't complete in any EAPI, there's no way
of implementing it correctly.

If you want to default to enabling a whole load of stuff, but allowing
users to override that, then you do it by listing things explicitly in
profiles.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 682 bytes --]

El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 17:09 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:03:41 +0100
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
> 
> CAMERAS=* shouldn't be legal. Since the strict IUSE stuff was dropped
> from EAPI 4, and since IUSE isn't complete in any EAPI, there's no way
> of implementing it correctly.
> 
> If you want to default to enabling a whole load of stuff, but allowing
> users to override that, then you do it by listing things explicitly in
> profiles.
> 

Will CC the rest of the team for thinking about this then

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 960 bytes --]

On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 17:09 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:03:41 +0100
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
> 
> CAMERAS=* shouldn't be legal. Since the strict IUSE stuff was dropped
> from EAPI 4, and since IUSE isn't complete in any EAPI, there's no way
> of implementing it correctly.
> 
> If you want to default to enabling a whole load of stuff, but allowing
> users to override that, then you do it by listing things explicitly in
> profiles.
> 

Wouldn't be any shorter way to build all CAMERAS? We don't want to
default to enabling all, with the new way of handling this, if CAMERAS
is not set or is empty, nothing will be built but, if CAMERAS="*"
shouldn't be used, what should we use instead of having to manually add
all of them to make.conf (from a user point of view)

Thanks

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 599 bytes --]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 20:31:23 +0100
Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Wouldn't be any shorter way to build all CAMERAS? We don't want to
> default to enabling all, with the new way of handling this, if CAMERAS
> is not set or is empty, nothing will be built but, if CAMERAS="*"
> shouldn't be used, what should we use instead of having to manually
> add all of them to make.conf (from a user point of view)

Why not specify all the CAMERAS you know about as being on by default in
the profile? Users who care enough can override this with an explicit
subset.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 816 bytes --]

On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 19:34 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 20:31:23 +0100
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Wouldn't be any shorter way to build all CAMERAS? We don't want to
> > default to enabling all, with the new way of handling this, if CAMERAS
> > is not set or is empty, nothing will be built but, if CAMERAS="*"
> > shouldn't be used, what should we use instead of having to manually
> > add all of them to make.conf (from a user point of view)
> 
> Why not specify all the CAMERAS you know about as being on by default in
> the profile? Users who care enough can override this with an explicit
> subset.
> 

If rest of gnome team agrees, I think we could go with, but I still fail
to see what is the "technical" problem on allowing CAMERAS="*" to be
used :-|

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Matthew Summers]

On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Why not specify all the CAMERAS you know about as being on by default in
> the profile? Users who care enough can override this with an explicit
> subset.
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh

This is how ALSA_CARDS and LCD_DEVICES are handled now. Its likely
that there are other examples too. It does provide for nice defaults
and easy user choice by override.

How many CAMERAs are we talking here, like 20 or 200?

-- 
Matthew W. Summers

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 610 bytes --]

On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 14:00 -0600, Matthew Summers wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Why not specify all the CAMERAS you know about as being on by default in
> > the profile? Users who care enough can override this with an explicit
> > subset.
> > --
> > Ciaran McCreesh
> 
> This is how ALSA_CARDS and LCD_DEVICES are handled now. Its likely
> that there are other examples too. It does provide for nice defaults
> and easy user choice by override.
> 
> How many CAMERAs are we talking here, like 20 or 200?
> 

Around 60

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 861 bytes --]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:00:31 +0100
Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> If rest of gnome team agrees, I think we could go with, but I still
> fail to see what is the "technical" problem on allowing CAMERAS="*"
> to be used :-|

'cameras_*' isn't a valid use flag name, so the package mangler can't
just pass the * through to the ebuild, which means it has to expand the
value itself. But there's no complete list of every CAMERA value
anywhere, so it can't.

There were plans to fix this in EAPI 4 by requiring that IUSE be
accurate. That would have allowed the package mangler to use IUSE to
get a complete list of known CAMERAS and be able to expand * that way.
Unfortunately, that feature got dropped, and so in EAPI 4 you're still
allowed to make use of USE_EXPAND variables without making sure IUSE is
complete.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Duncan]

Ciaran McCreesh posted on Sun, 13 Feb 2011 20:17:09 +0000 as excerpted:

> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:00:31 +0100
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> If rest of gnome team agrees, I think we could go with, but I still
>> fail to see what is the "technical" problem on allowing CAMERAS="*" to
>> be used :-|
> 
> 'cameras_*' isn't a valid use flag name, so the package mangler can't
> just pass the * through to the ebuild, which means it has to expand the
> value itself. But there's no complete list of every CAMERA value
> anywhere, so it can't.

For sake of argument, what about the individuals, plus one called allknown, 
or majorcams, or some such?

Meanwhile, most USE_EXPAND work by expanding to all if the flag is unset.  
All or none, I believe it's worthwhile to keep USE_EXPAND behavior 
consistent, so unless we're going to change all the others to build none 
if they're unset, I'd say the package should build all possible if CAMERAS 
isn't set.

-- 
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 521 bytes --]

El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 18:03 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> Hello
> 
> Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
> 
> Thanks
> 

This is an updated news item for trying to cover Ciaran and Matthew
suggestions:
1. It doesn't ask people to use USE="*"
2. Before sending this, I would add all cameras to base/make.defaults as
already done for similar cases (like alsa, lcd devices and others)

Do you agree with this?

Thanks :-)

[-- Attachment #1.2: 2011-02-14-libgphoto-2.4.10.en.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 507 bytes --]

Title: Change on CAMERAS handling in libgphoto2-2.4.10
Author: Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2011-02-14
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: <media-libs/libgphoto2-2.4.10

In order to not violate package manager handling (http://bugs.gentoo.org/346491),
selective cameras build logic has been modified in libgphoto2-2.4.10 to build all
by default, nothing if CAMERAS variable is set to an empty value and only the ones
specified otherwise.


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Gilles Dartiguelongue]

Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:15 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 18:03 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > Hello
> > 
> > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> 
> This is an updated news item for trying to cover Ciaran and Matthew
> suggestions:
> 1. It doesn't ask people to use USE="*"
> 2. Before sending this, I would add all cameras to base/make.defaults as
> already done for similar cases (like alsa, lcd devices and others)
> 
> Do you agree with this?
> 
> Thanks :-)

no, adding all cameras is most likely a waste of time for maintainers,
it is prone to errors when cameras get added/removed which is already
complicated enough to maintain.

If someone really wants a non-null default, I suggest enabling the ptp2
camera driver (PTP support) which is available for most cameras out
there.

-- 
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org>
Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1480 bytes --]

El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:24 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:15 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> > El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 18:03 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > > Hello
> > > 
> > > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > 
> > 
> > This is an updated news item for trying to cover Ciaran and Matthew
> > suggestions:
> > 1. It doesn't ask people to use USE="*"
> > 2. Before sending this, I would add all cameras to base/make.defaults as
> > already done for similar cases (like alsa, lcd devices and others)
> > 
> > Do you agree with this?
> > 
> > Thanks :-)
> 
> no, adding all cameras is most likely a waste of time for maintainers,
> it is prone to errors when cameras get added/removed which is already
> complicated enough to maintain.
> 

What kind of errors will people see? As I have just tested, if I run:
 CAMERAS="bbhsgdd" emerge -pv media-libs/libgphoto2

I get no error (that would be equivalent to a camera that got removed on
a bump). 

In the case of a CAMERA addition, we would see it when bumping (as one
of them wouldn't be enabled automatically). It doesn't look to
complicate to maintain for me then :-/

> If someone really wants a non-null default, I suggest enabling the ptp2
> camera driver (PTP support) which is available for most cameras out
> there.
> 



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1151 bytes --]

El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 20:17 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:00:31 +0100
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > If rest of gnome team agrees, I think we could go with, but I still
> > fail to see what is the "technical" problem on allowing CAMERAS="*"
> > to be used :-|
> 
> 'cameras_*' isn't a valid use flag name, so the package mangler can't
> just pass the * through to the ebuild, which means it has to expand the
> value itself. But there's no complete list of every CAMERA value
> anywhere, so it can't.
> 
> There were plans to fix this in EAPI 4 by requiring that IUSE be
> accurate. That would have allowed the package mangler to use IUSE to
> get a complete list of known CAMERAS and be able to expand * that way.
> Unfortunately, that feature got dropped, and so in EAPI 4 you're still
> allowed to make use of USE_EXPAND variables without making sure IUSE is
> complete.
> 

Do you know if there are any plans on implementing it on a future EAPI?
I think being able to simply enable all of them with "*" would be
interesting (at least in the future)

Thanks for the information

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Gilles Dartiguelongue]

Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:34 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:24 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> > Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:15 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> > > El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 18:03 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > > > Hello
> > > > 
> > > > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> > > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > This is an updated news item for trying to cover Ciaran and Matthew
> > > suggestions:
> > > 1. It doesn't ask people to use USE="*"
> > > 2. Before sending this, I would add all cameras to base/make.defaults as
> > > already done for similar cases (like alsa, lcd devices and others)
> > > 
> > > Do you agree with this?
> > > 
> > > Thanks :-)
> > 
> > no, adding all cameras is most likely a waste of time for maintainers,
> > it is prone to errors when cameras get added/removed which is already
> > complicated enough to maintain.
> > 
> 
> What kind of errors will people see? As I have just tested, if I run:
>  CAMERAS="bbhsgdd" emerge -pv media-libs/libgphoto2
> 
> I get no error (that would be equivalent to a camera that got removed on
> a bump). 

I was talking about human error while adding stuff to appropriate files.
It happens already often enough with just the IUSE_EXPAND feature.

-- 
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org>
Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1832 bytes --]

El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:37 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:34 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> > El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:24 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> > > Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:15 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> > > > El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 18:03 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > > > > Hello
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> > > > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > This is an updated news item for trying to cover Ciaran and Matthew
> > > > suggestions:
> > > > 1. It doesn't ask people to use USE="*"
> > > > 2. Before sending this, I would add all cameras to base/make.defaults as
> > > > already done for similar cases (like alsa, lcd devices and others)
> > > > 
> > > > Do you agree with this?
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks :-)
> > > 
> > > no, adding all cameras is most likely a waste of time for maintainers,
> > > it is prone to errors when cameras get added/removed which is already
> > > complicated enough to maintain.
> > > 
> > 
> > What kind of errors will people see? As I have just tested, if I run:
> >  CAMERAS="bbhsgdd" emerge -pv media-libs/libgphoto2
> > 
> > I get no error (that would be equivalent to a camera that got removed on
> > a bump). 
> 
> I was talking about human error while adding stuff to appropriate files.
> It happens already often enough with just the IUSE_EXPAND feature.
> 

Then, as ebuild uses EAPI2, why don't enable all of them in ebuild
itself by default?
 for camera in ${IUSE_CAMERAS}; do
-	IUSE="${IUSE} cameras_${camera}"
+	IUSE="${IUSE} +cameras_${camera}"
 done

Looks to work as expected here and wouldn't be prone to human errors

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Pacho Ramos wrote:

> Title: Change on CAMERAS handling in libgphoto2-2.4.10

Too long. GLEP 42 allows a maximum of 44 characters for the title.

> In order to not violate package manager handling (http://bugs.gentoo.org/346491),
> selective cameras build logic has been modified in libgphoto2-2.4.10 to build all
> by default, nothing if CAMERAS variable is set to an empty value and only the ones
> specified otherwise.

"The text body should be wrapped at 72 characters" says GLEP 42.

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2051 bytes --]

El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:40 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:37 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> > Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:34 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> > > El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:24 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> > > > Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:15 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> > > > > El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 18:03 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > > > > > Hello
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> > > > > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is an updated news item for trying to cover Ciaran and Matthew
> > > > > suggestions:
> > > > > 1. It doesn't ask people to use USE="*"
> > > > > 2. Before sending this, I would add all cameras to base/make.defaults as
> > > > > already done for similar cases (like alsa, lcd devices and others)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Do you agree with this?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks :-)
> > > > 
> > > > no, adding all cameras is most likely a waste of time for maintainers,
> > > > it is prone to errors when cameras get added/removed which is already
> > > > complicated enough to maintain.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > What kind of errors will people see? As I have just tested, if I run:
> > >  CAMERAS="bbhsgdd" emerge -pv media-libs/libgphoto2
> > > 
> > > I get no error (that would be equivalent to a camera that got removed on
> > > a bump). 
> > 
> > I was talking about human error while adding stuff to appropriate files.
> > It happens already often enough with just the IUSE_EXPAND feature.
> > 
> 
> Then, as ebuild uses EAPI2, why don't enable all of them in ebuild
> itself by default?
>  for camera in ${IUSE_CAMERAS}; do
> -	IUSE="${IUSE} cameras_${camera}"
> +	IUSE="${IUSE} +cameras_${camera}"
>  done
> 
> Looks to work as expected here and wouldn't be prone to human errors

Bleh, forget it, it is a headache to disable cameras then :-S

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 771 bytes --]

El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:41 +0100, Ulrich Mueller escribió:
> >>>>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> 
> > Title: Change on CAMERAS handling in libgphoto2-2.4.10
> 
> Too long. GLEP 42 allows a maximum of 44 characters for the title.
> 
> > In order to not violate package manager handling (http://bugs.gentoo.org/346491),
> > selective cameras build logic has been modified in libgphoto2-2.4.10 to build all
> > by default, nothing if CAMERAS variable is set to an empty value and only the ones
> > specified otherwise.
> 
> "The text body should be wrapped at 72 characters" says GLEP 42.
> 
> Ulrich
> 

This should fix these issues. Also tells ptp2 is the default as talked
here because it looks like the best option. 

OK with this?

[-- Attachment #1.2: 2011-02-14-libgphoto-2.4.10.en.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 522 bytes --]

Title: Change on CAMERAS in libgphoto2-2.4.10
Author: Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2011-02-14
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: <media-libs/libgphoto2-2.4.10

In order to not violate package manager handling, selective cameras 
build logic has been modified in libgphoto2-2.4.10 to build 'ptp2' by 
default, nothing if CAMERAS variable is set to an empty value and only 
the ones specified otherwise.

See http://bugs.gentoo.org/346491 for reference.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Gilles Dartiguelongue]

Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:42 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:40 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:37 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> > > Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:34 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> > > > El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:24 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> > > > > Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:15 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> > > > > > El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 18:03 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > > > > > > Hello
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> > > > > > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This is an updated news item for trying to cover Ciaran and Matthew
> > > > > > suggestions:
> > > > > > 1. It doesn't ask people to use USE="*"
> > > > > > 2. Before sending this, I would add all cameras to base/make.defaults as
> > > > > > already done for similar cases (like alsa, lcd devices and others)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Do you agree with this?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > no, adding all cameras is most likely a waste of time for maintainers,
> > > > > it is prone to errors when cameras get added/removed which is already
> > > > > complicated enough to maintain.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > What kind of errors will people see? As I have just tested, if I run:
> > > >  CAMERAS="bbhsgdd" emerge -pv media-libs/libgphoto2
> > > > 
> > > > I get no error (that would be equivalent to a camera that got removed on
> > > > a bump). 
> > > 
> > > I was talking about human error while adding stuff to appropriate files.
> > > It happens already often enough with just the IUSE_EXPAND feature.
> > > 
> > 
> > Then, as ebuild uses EAPI2, why don't enable all of them in ebuild
> > itself by default?
> >  for camera in ${IUSE_CAMERAS}; do
> > -	IUSE="${IUSE} cameras_${camera}"
> > +	IUSE="${IUSE} +cameras_${camera}"
> >  done
> > 
> > Looks to work as expected here and wouldn't be prone to human errors
> 
> Bleh, forget it, it is a headache to disable cameras then :-S

and it didn't work when I tried it as I said in the bug report, I guess
it depends on the version of portage and I haven't checked other PMs.

-- 
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org>
Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 327 bytes --]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:07:44 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> For sake of argument, what about the individuals, plus one called
> allknown, or majorcams, or some such?

Breaks USE deps, and makes conditionals much harder to write. Maybe not
an issue here, but sucky in general.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 315 bytes --]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:42:35 +0100
Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Bleh, forget it, it is a headache to disable cameras then :-S

You should be able to -* them out... -* is fine (assuming Portage
handles it) since we know what the null set is; it's just * that's the
problem.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 466 bytes --]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:35:42 +0100
Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Do you know if there are any plans on implementing it on a future
> EAPI? I think being able to simply enable all of them with "*" would
> be interesting (at least in the future)

It *was* in EAPI 4, since it's necessary to make [use(+)] deps work
properly on USE_EXPANDed flags. It got taken out when people got sick
of waiting for Portage to implement it.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 545 bytes --]

El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 13:19 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:42:35 +0100
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Bleh, forget it, it is a headache to disable cameras then :-S
> 
> You should be able to -* them out... -* is fine (assuming Portage
> handles it) since we know what the null set is; it's just * that's the
> problem.
> 

Yeah, portage handles it, but thought -* also had the same problem,
thanks for clarifying, anyway, latest approach on only enable ptp2 by
default looks fine for me 

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1338 bytes --]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:33:52 +0100
Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > You should be able to -* them out... -* is fine (assuming Portage
> > handles it) since we know what the null set is; it's just * that's
> > the problem.
> 
> Yeah, portage handles it, but thought -* also had the same problem,
> thanks for clarifying, anyway, latest approach on only enable ptp2 by
> default looks fine for me 

No, -* is fine, so long as Portage doesn't pass it through literally.

The problem, specifically, is that things like this are totally legal
and are done by some packages:

    IUSE="linguas_en linguas_fr"

    if use linguas_de ; then

    if has linguas_de $LINGUAS ; then

    if has linguas_de $USE ; then

So if you were to set LINGUAS="*", there would have to be some magic
way for the package mangler to know that linguas_de exists, even if
there's no mention of it anywhere in any user config files or in IUSE
(and no, the desc files aren't a complete list either).

The reason for this, historically, was that IUSE was used purely for
display purposes by Portage, whilst USE was worked out from everything
in config files, regardless of whether or not the ebuild claimed to use
it. That meant there was absolutely nothing stopping you from making
IUSE incomplete...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1493 bytes --]

El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 13:41 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:33:52 +0100
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > You should be able to -* them out... -* is fine (assuming Portage
> > > handles it) since we know what the null set is; it's just * that's
> > > the problem.
> > 
> > Yeah, portage handles it, but thought -* also had the same problem,
> > thanks for clarifying, anyway, latest approach on only enable ptp2 by
> > default looks fine for me 
> 
> No, -* is fine, so long as Portage doesn't pass it through literally.
> 
> The problem, specifically, is that things like this are totally legal
> and are done by some packages:
> 
>     IUSE="linguas_en linguas_fr"
> 
>     if use linguas_de ; then
> 
>     if has linguas_de $LINGUAS ; then
> 
>     if has linguas_de $USE ; then
> 
> So if you were to set LINGUAS="*", there would have to be some magic
> way for the package mangler to know that linguas_de exists, even if
> there's no mention of it anywhere in any user config files or in IUSE
> (and no, the desc files aren't a complete list either).
> 
> The reason for this, historically, was that IUSE was used purely for
> display purposes by Portage, whilst USE was worked out from everything
> in config files, regardless of whether or not the ebuild claimed to use
> it. That meant there was absolutely nothing stopping you from making
> IUSE incomplete...
> 

Ah, thanks for the explanation. Regards

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]