[gentoo-dev] Let's populate IUSE_IMPLICIT in the base profile

[gentoo-dev] Let's populate IUSE_IMPLICIT in the base profile

[Zac Medico]

Hi,

The council has approved [1] "Profile IUSE injection" [2] for inclusion
in EAPI 5, and in latest Portage we have experimental EAPI 5_pre2 [3]
which implements all of the approved features. So, now would be a good
time to start populating IUSE_IMPLICIT with whatever values may be
appropriate.

What values belong there? Some of the flags that appear in
profiles/base/use.mask might make good candidates, such as prefix and
selinux. How about other special flags like bootstrap, build, and test?

I've already populated the variables for the ARCH, ELIBC, KERNEL, and
USERLAND flags that we can probably all agree on [4] (oops, I screwed up
the commit message). The resulting injected list of IUSE_EFFECTIVE flags
looks like this:

alpha amd64 amd64-fbsd amd64-linux arm arm-linux elibc_AIX elibc_Cygwin
elibc_Darwin elibc_FreeBSD elibc_HPUX elibc_Interix elibc_NetBSD
elibc_OpenBSD elibc_SunOS elibc_Winnt elibc_glibc elibc_mintlib
elibc_uclibc hppa hppa-hpux ia64 ia64-hpux ia64-linux kernel_AIX
kernel_Cygwin kernel_Darwin kernel_FreeBSD kernel_HPUX kernel_Interix
kernel_NetBSD kernel_OpenBSD kernel_SunOS kernel_Winnt kernel_freemint
kernel_linux m68k m68k-mint mips ppc ppc-aix ppc-macos ppc-openbsd ppc64
ppc64-linux s390 sh sparc sparc-fbsd sparc-solaris sparc64-freebsd
sparc64-solaris userland_BSD userland_GNU x64-freebsd x64-macos
x64-openbsd x64-solaris x86 x86-cygwin x86-fbsd x86-freebsd x86-interix
x86-linux x86-macos x86-netbsd x86-openbsd x86-solaris x86-winnt

[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.pms/653
[2]
http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/doc/portage.html#package-ebuild-eapi-5_pre2-profile-iuse-injection
[3] http://blogs.gentoo.org/zmedico/2012/09/12/experimental-eapi-5_pre2/
[4]
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/profiles/base/make.defaults?view=log#rev1.84
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Let's populate IUSE_IMPLICIT in the base profile

[Mike Gilbert]

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The council has approved [1] "Profile IUSE injection" [2] for inclusion
> in EAPI 5, and in latest Portage we have experimental EAPI 5_pre2 [3]
> which implements all of the approved features. So, now would be a good
> time to start populating IUSE_IMPLICIT with whatever values may be
> appropriate.
>
> What values belong there? Some of the flags that appear in
> profiles/base/use.mask might make good candidates, such as prefix and
> selinux. How about other special flags like bootstrap, build, and test?
>

prefix and test make sense to me. I'm not so familiar with the others.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Let's populate IUSE_IMPLICIT in the base profile

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 27/09/12 11:57 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> The council has approved [1] "Profile IUSE injection" [2] for
>> inclusion in EAPI 5, and in latest Portage we have experimental
>> EAPI 5_pre2 [3] which implements all of the approved features.
>> So, now would be a good time to start populating IUSE_IMPLICIT
>> with whatever values may be appropriate.
>> 
>> What values belong there? Some of the flags that appear in 
>> profiles/base/use.mask might make good candidates, such as prefix
>> and selinux. How about other special flags like bootstrap, build,
>> and test?
>> 
> 
> prefix and test make sense to me. I'm not so familiar with the
> others.
> 

build is specifically for catalyst and/or for building the stages,
right?  If so, this one makes sense to me to add.

bootstrap I would guess is similar?  Unsure how that one is used at
present.  If IUSE_IMPLICIT would still allow the boostrapping tool to
set the use flag, i see no issues having it in the list.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlBkeLIACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAh/QEAvfgmEDRGykF+3OvSRJVD684J
z60BrRXTWBYwi0ngmkABAIrolomS0leqwqpt7iX9RhYvctwId1CClZZ7P88+Ms6L
=R1e4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Let's populate IUSE_IMPLICIT in the base profile

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 27/09/12 12:02 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 27/09/12 11:57 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> 
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> The council has approved [1] "Profile IUSE injection" [2] for 
>>> inclusion in EAPI 5, and in latest Portage we have
>>> experimental EAPI 5_pre2 [3] which implements all of the
>>> approved features. So, now would be a good time to start
>>> populating IUSE_IMPLICIT with whatever values may be
>>> appropriate.
>>> 
>>> What values belong there? Some of the flags that appear in 
>>> profiles/base/use.mask might make good candidates, such as
>>> prefix and selinux. How about other special flags like
>>> bootstrap, build, and test?
>>> 
> 
>> prefix and test make sense to me. I'm not so familiar with the 
>> others.
> 
> 
> build is specifically for catalyst and/or for building the stages, 
> right?  If so, this one makes sense to me to add.
> 
> bootstrap I would guess is similar?  Unsure how that one is used
> at present.  If IUSE_IMPLICIT would still allow the boostrapping
> tool to set the use flag, i see no issues having it in the list.
> 

For the purposes of EAPI5 testing (overlays etc), would it make sense
to start with this list of flags within IUSE_IMPLICIT on
base/make.defaults now, and then based on consensus that list can be
trimmed or appended?

floppym's already requested 'prefix' so that his chromium tests with
EAPI5 don't fail or need an explicit 'prefix' in IUSE, for instance
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlBkkNAACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBy4wD/VvIH8xliB9j+bfUD35wZSeK+
CuBMh6wuy3hKQkufCM0A/iZFp+g7/tcXtRdQBxahojwhtaN7SnFpQkVJNzBdstUI
=BhP1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Let's populate IUSE_IMPLICIT in the base profile

[Zac Medico]

On 09/27/2012 10:45 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 27/09/12 12:02 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> On 27/09/12 11:57 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The council has approved [1] "Profile IUSE injection" [2] for 
>>>> inclusion in EAPI 5, and in latest Portage we have
>>>> experimental EAPI 5_pre2 [3] which implements all of the
>>>> approved features. So, now would be a good time to start
>>>> populating IUSE_IMPLICIT with whatever values may be
>>>> appropriate.
>>>>
>>>> What values belong there? Some of the flags that appear in 
>>>> profiles/base/use.mask might make good candidates, such as
>>>> prefix and selinux. How about other special flags like
>>>> bootstrap, build, and test?
>>>>
> 
>>> prefix and test make sense to me. I'm not so familiar with the 
>>> others.
> 
> 
>> build is specifically for catalyst and/or for building the stages, 
>> right?  If so, this one makes sense to me to add.
> 
>> bootstrap I would guess is similar?  Unsure how that one is used
>> at present.  If IUSE_IMPLICIT would still allow the boostrapping
>> tool to set the use flag, i see no issues having it in the list.
> 
> 
> For the purposes of EAPI5 testing (overlays etc), would it make sense
> to start with this list of flags within IUSE_IMPLICIT on
> base/make.defaults now, and then based on consensus that list can be
> trimmed or appended?

I would recommend to stay on the conservative side and only add ones
that we're sure we need for specific ebuilds. We can remove flags later,
but it's better if can avoid adding unneeded ones in the first place.

> floppym's already requested 'prefix' so that his chromium tests with
> EAPI5 don't fail or need an explicit 'prefix' in IUSE, for instance

I think it's pretty clear that the 'prefix' flag is special, so I would
go ahead and add it.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Let's populate IUSE_IMPLICIT in the base profile

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 771 bytes --]

On Thursday 27 September 2012 12:02:58 Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> build is specifically for catalyst and/or for building the stages,
> right?  If so, this one makes sense to me to add.

this is used in a few packages, but we should encourage trimming it rather 
than expanding.  i see that the kernel & gcc account for the most usage.

> bootstrap I would guess is similar?  Unsure how that one is used at
> present.  If IUSE_IMPLICIT would still allow the boostrapping tool to
> set the use flag, i see no issues having it in the list.

bootstrap is used by two packages (gcc and freebsd-lib).  in the gcc case, we 
should kill it.  so this is not a flag we should be encouraging at all.

file https://bugs.gentoo.org/440224 for killing both in gcc
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]