[gentoo-dev] Invitation for discussion

[gentoo-dev] Invitation for discussion

[Lina Pezzella]

Two topics:

1) possibility of creating a 'carbon' use flag
2) creation of a baselayout virtual.

Currently, the baselayout package is fairly linux-specific.  It does 
contain files such as runscript.sh, that are needed for projects such as 
MacOS and BSD.  The suggestion here is to create a baselayout virtual so 
that we can keep separate baselayout packages.

Any input/suggestions on these two subjects would be greatly appreciated.

--j4rg0n
Gentoo-MacOS Ebuild Co-Lead

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Invitation for discussion

[Cory Visi]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:15:35PM -0400, Lina Pezzella wrote:
> Two topics:
> 
> 1) possibility of creating a 'carbon' use flag
> 2) creation of a baselayout virtual.
> 
> Currently, the baselayout package is fairly linux-specific.  It does 
> contain files such as runscript.sh, that are needed for projects such as 
> MacOS and BSD.  The suggestion here is to create a baselayout virtual so 
> that we can keep separate baselayout packages.
> 
> Any input/suggestions on these two subjects would be greatly appreciated.

I'd like to see baselayout and rc-scripts separated. This would at least 
address the runscript.sh issue. Secondly, the rc-scripts doesn't need to 
married to the baselayout. Separating sysvinit from baselayout is another 
good step, which has happened already. In order to get rc-scripts 
separated, we probably need to separate the basic config files in /etc 
(not /etc/init.d or /etc/conf.d) and package them with baselayout.

Would this eliminate the need for a baselayout virtual?

-Cory

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Invitation for discussion

[Erik Swanson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 695 bytes --]


On Jul 25, 2004, at 7:15 PM, Lina Pezzella wrote:

> Two topics:
>
> 1) possibility of creating a 'carbon' use flag

Just a thought, but  wouldn't 'carbon' be overly specific and later 
necessitate the creation of a 'cocoa' use flag?
My understanding is that naming use flags after specific libraries is 
only to facilitate toggling of the dependency on said library, which is 
invalid for this particular flag because all macos systems have both 
the carbon and cocoa libraries present.
Perhaps a either a more generic name along the lines of 'osxgui' or a 
more specific name like 'cocoabindings' should be considered, depending 
on what you intend the flag to actually do.

---
Erik Swanson

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Invitation for discussion

[Mamoru KOMACHI]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1521 bytes --]

Hi,

At Sun, 25 Jul 2004 19:40:21 -0700,
Erik Swanson wrote:

> On Jul 25, 2004, at 7:15 PM, Lina Pezzella wrote:
> 
> > Two topics:
> >
> > 1) possibility of creating a 'carbon' use flag
> 
> Just a thought, but  wouldn't 'carbon' be overly specific and later 
> necessitate the creation of a 'cocoa' use flag?
> My understanding is that naming use flags after specific libraries is 
> only to facilitate toggling of the dependency on said library, which is 
> invalid for this particular flag because all macos systems have both 
> the carbon and cocoa libraries present.

I don't think so. Having a library doesn't mean you want to enable
support for the library. For example, you might have both GTK+2 and
GTK+1 (for whatever dependency) and don't want to enable GTK+1.
Another example is ncurses USE flag. ncurses is in system profile
so all Gentoo systems have ncurses, but you may or may not want
enable ncurses support for your system.

> Perhaps a either a more generic name along the lines of 'osxgui' or a 
> more specific name like 'cocoabindings' should be considered, depending 
> on what you intend the flag to actually do.

One thing I had in mind was enabling carbon interface for emacs.  It
is just like we enable Xaw3d interface, GTK+2 inteface, or motif
interface with Xaw3d, gtk and motif USE flags, respectively (so I
didn't see any problem creating carbon USE flag). FYI, this was
discussed two weeks ago in gentoo-osx list (as a local USE flag at
that time).

--
Mamoru KOMACHI <usata@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Invitation for discussion

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 941 bytes --]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 01:50:59 +0900 Mamoru KOMACHI <usata@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| > > 1) possibility of creating a 'carbon' use flag
| > 
| > Perhaps a either a more generic name along the lines of 'osxgui' or
| > a more specific name like 'cocoabindings' should be considered,
| > depending on what you intend the flag to actually do.
| 
| One thing I had in mind was enabling carbon interface for emacs.  It
| is just like we enable Xaw3d interface, GTK+2 inteface, or motif
| interface with Xaw3d, gtk and motif USE flags, respectively (so I
| didn't see any problem creating carbon USE flag). FYI, this was
| discussed two weeks ago in gentoo-osx list (as a local USE flag at
| that time).

Yeah, gvim's in the same boat here. It can build against carbon, gtk+-2,
gtk+-1.2 or motif.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Invitation for discussion

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 537 bytes --]

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 22:15:35 -0400 Lina Pezzella <j4rg0n@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| 1) possibility of creating a 'carbon' use flag

Don't forget to use.mask it on every other arch.

Does this look like I'm just sending yet another email which mentions
use.mask because I'm trying to subtly persuade people to actually use
the thing rather than sticking in lots of ugly arch? () hacks?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Invitation for discussion

[Alastair Tse]

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


On 25 Jul 2004, at 22:15, Lina Pezzella wrote:

> Two topics:
>
> 1) possibility of creating a 'carbon' use flag

Do you mean a local or a global useflag? What packages need the 
'carbon' use flag?

Usually the progression of a useflag is to have it local, and then when 
enough packages support it we promote it to a global useflag.

Cheers,
- --
Alastair 'liquidx' Tse
  >> Gentoo Developer (Python/GNOME/CJK/PDA/Bluetooth)
  >> http://www.liquidx.net/ | http://dev.gentoo.org/~liquidx/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFBBS8fOM4cezkHFPYRAnMKAKCFF72ByUM643ficoAQXiQVIvgrOgCgnMK/
ZMnJ2fJbSgjKixChzvekJPA=
=/aFs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Invitation for discussion

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 26 July 2004 12:50 pm, Mamoru KOMACHI wrote:
> I don't think so. Having a library doesn't mean you want to enable
> support for the library. For example, you might have both GTK+2 and
> GTK+1 (for whatever dependency) and don't want to enable GTK+1.
> Another example is ncurses USE flag. ncurses is in system profile
> so all Gentoo systems have ncurses, but you may or may not want
> enable ncurses support for your system.

although i agree with you on the point you're trying to make, your example 
with GTK USE flags is wrong

gtk == enable GTK support
gtk2 == use GTK2 instead of GTK1 when possible

gtk != use GTK1
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Invitation for discussion

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 623 bytes --]

> although i agree with you on the point you're trying to make, your example 
> with GTK USE flags is wrong
> 
> gtk == enable GTK support
> gtk2 == use GTK2 instead of GTK1 when possible
That always kind of bugged me.  If I wanted to go w/ strictly gtk2 libs,
the arrangement of those flags limits me to having to package mask the
gtk1 libs, which is kind of a sucky approach.

I understand that this setup is in use now, so we can't just go and
change their meaning spur of the moment- that said, I'd suspect a lot of
users haven't picked up on the gtk != use gtk1 libs (I know I didn't
originally).
~Brian

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Invitation for discussion

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1686 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:21:52 -0500
Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > gtk == enable GTK support
> > gtk2 == use GTK2 instead of GTK1 when possible
> That always kind of bugged me.  If I wanted to go w/ strictly gtk2
> libs, the arrangement of those flags limits me to having to package
> mask the gtk1 libs, which is kind of a sucky approach.
> 
> I understand that this setup is in use now, so we can't just go and
> change their meaning spur of the moment- that said, I'd suspect a lot
> of users haven't picked up on the gtk != use gtk1 libs (I know I
> didn't originally).


Too bad.
The other way would have lead to ordering problems and conflicts, which
are even worse that the current ambiguous setup is.

Face it, I want to tear the gtk2 USE flag out.  I wouldn't be happier to
provide only Gtk+2.x support, and grab the legacy stuff, throw it on the
lawn and burn it.

The flag appeared as a choice for applications that decided to slowly
convert and add both UI's to the code,  instead of branching a major
version with a new toolkit dependency.   Unfortunately your solution
wouldn't have solved that.  I thought of it at the time.


However, I hope that in a year or so we will be able to drop the gtk2
USE flag, as more and more projects have matured, and that gtk+1.x is
legacy and not supported, and haven't been supported for at least 3
years does add some heat to the issue. :)

But for the moment, If you know you have used gtk2?   incorrectly to
select the gtk+ dependency... Well, this is the time to fix it... 


//Spider


-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Invitation for discussion

[Jeremy Maitin-Shepard]

Spider <spider@gentoo.org> writes:

> [snip]

> However, I hope that in a year or so we will be able to drop the gtk2
> USE flag, as more and more projects have matured, and that gtk+1.x is
> legacy and not supported, and haven't been supported for at least 3
> years does add some heat to the issue. :)

> [snip]

I still build Mozilla (Mozilla Firefox) with GTK1 support because the
last time I checked, there were focus problems with GTK2 Mozilla.

-- 
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list