[gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 689 bytes --]


During the server profile discussion, it became clear that we could clean up 
the base profiles a bit. This is unrelated to the profile versions, as the 
change would affect all versions (well, at least without bigger changes). 

What I suggested and what djc and kensington supported was: 

* move setting USE=dri and USE=cups from default/linux/make.defaults to 
targets/desktop/make.defaults

* remove setting USE=pppd in default/linux/make.defaults, instead have it 
default to on in net-dialup/capi4k-utils (the only place where it is used)

Opinions?

Cheers, A

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 651 bytes --]

On Friday 18 January 2013 15:49:38 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> During the server profile discussion, it became clear that we could clean
> up the base profiles a bit. This is unrelated to the profile versions, as
> the change would affect all versions (well, at least without bigger
> changes).
> 
> What I suggested and what djc and kensington supported was:
> 
> * move setting USE=dri and USE=cups from default/linux/make.defaults to
> targets/desktop/make.defaults
> 
> * remove setting USE=pppd in default/linux/make.defaults, instead have it
> default to on in net-dialup/capi4k-utils (the only place where it is used)

+1
-mike

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Davide Pesavento]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
<dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> During the server profile discussion, it became clear that we could clean up
> the base profiles a bit. This is unrelated to the profile versions, as the
> change would affect all versions (well, at least without bigger changes).
>
> What I suggested and what djc and kensington supported was:
>
> * move setting USE=dri and USE=cups from default/linux/make.defaults to
> targets/desktop/make.defaults
>
> * remove setting USE=pppd in default/linux/make.defaults, instead have it
> default to on in net-dialup/capi4k-utils (the only place where it is used)
>
> Opinions?
>

+1

Thanks,
Davide

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Andreas K. Huettel schrieb:
> * move setting USE=dri and USE=cups from default/linux/make.defaults to
> targets/desktop/make.defaults

I would prefer to keep USE=dri in the default profile.
If you want to move VIDEO_CARDS that would be fine with me though.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Patrick McLean]

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

On 18/01/13 02:02 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Andreas K. Huettel schrieb:
>> * move setting USE=dri and USE=cups from default/linux/make.defaults to targets/desktop/make.defaults
> 
> I would prefer to keep USE=dri in the default profile. If you want to move VIDEO_CARDS that would be fine with me though.

USE=dri is usually only relevant on desktops, why enable it on all profiles?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=ryu6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Ciaran McCreesh]

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

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 15:18:25 -0800
Patrick McLean <chutzpah@gentoo.org> wrote:
> USE=dri is usually only relevant on desktops, why enable it on all
> profiles?

This question only matters if you expect there to be non-desktops where
there are packages installed that IUSE dri.

- -- 
Ciaran McCreesh

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlD52OMACgkQ96zL6DUtXhECCgCgkfNiAX7Z7M3piVUN21Hj/KAy
kwsAoMPZISStAtGjk2uXtPT3FbOYox6W
=uz0E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Patrick McLean schrieb:
> > I would prefer to keep USE=dri in the default profile. If you want to move VIDEO_CARDS that
would be fine with me though.
>
> USE=dri is usually only relevant on desktops, why enable it on all
profiles?

Because it should be enabled when the respective packages are installed,
and not depending on the profile the user has selected.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Markos Chandras]

On 18 January 2013 23:29, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
<chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Patrick McLean schrieb:
>> > I would prefer to keep USE=dri in the default profile. If you want to move VIDEO_CARDS that
> would be fine with me though.
>>
>> USE=dri is usually only relevant on desktops, why enable it on all
> profiles?
>
> Because it should be enabled when the respective packages are installed,
> and not depending on the profile the user has selected.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
>
>

Hell, as discussed, the base profile should contain the absolute
minimal flags, and "dri" does not appear to be one of these.
Having graphics support on such a profile is not expected. IMHO it
should be moved to the desktop profile

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Aaron W. Swenson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1176 bytes --]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:55:07PM +0000, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 18 January 2013 23:29, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> <chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Patrick McLean schrieb:
> > > I would prefer to keep USE=dri in the default profile. If you
> > > want to move VIDEO_CARDS that would be fine with me though.
> > >
> > > USE=dri is usually only relevant on desktops, why enable it on
> > > all profiles?
> >
> > Because it should be enabled when the respective packages are
> > installed, and not depending on the profile the user has selected.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> >
> >
> 
> Hell, as discussed, the base profile should contain the absolute
> minimal flags, and "dri" does not appear to be one of these.
> Having graphics support on such a profile is not expected. IMHO it
> should be moved to the desktop profile
> 

++ If the base profile is to become our server profile, it should not
have graphics related USE flags enabled.

-- 
Mr. Aaron W. Swenson
Gentoo Linux Developer
Email : titanofold@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 2C00 7719 4F85 FB07 A49C 0E31 5713 AA03 D1BB FDA0
GnuPG ID : D1BBFDA0

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 230 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Markos Chandras schrieb:
> On 18 January 2013 23:29, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> <chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Because it should be enabled when the respective packages are
>> installed, and not depending on the profile the user has selected.
> Hell, as discussed, the base profile should contain the absolute
> minimal flags, and "dri" does not appear to be one of these.
> Having graphics support on such a profile is not expected. IMHO it
> should be moved to the desktop profile
>

If you have an absolute minimal system, then none of your packages will
have the dri flag. So it won't hurt. If you remove the dri flag from the
default profile, this will break users' setups for no good reason.

Moving to EAPI=1 USE defaults would be an alternative if the dri flag is
deemed unacceptable for the default profile, but in my opinion a
pointless exercise as it would change precisely zero systems.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 741 bytes --]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 23:58:22 +0000
"Aaron W. Swenson" <titanofold@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Hell, as discussed, the base profile should contain the absolute
> > minimal flags, and "dri" does not appear to be one of these.
> > Having graphics support on such a profile is not expected. IMHO it
> > should be moved to the desktop profile
> > 
> 
> ++ If the base profile is to become our server profile, it should not
> have graphics related USE flags enabled.

...but that's not how USE flags work. It doesn't matter if you enable
monkeys in the base profile, since the only people who are affected are
people who install monkey-related packages. It doesn't affect server
users. "Minimal" is irrelevant.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Aaron W. Swenson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1609 bytes --]

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 01:02:04AM +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Markos Chandras schrieb:
> > On 18 January 2013 23:29, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> > <chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> Because it should be enabled when the respective packages are
> >> installed, and not depending on the profile the user has selected.
> > Hell, as discussed, the base profile should contain the absolute
> > minimal flags, and "dri" does not appear to be one of these.
> > Having graphics support on such a profile is not expected. IMHO it
> > should be moved to the desktop profile
> >
> 
> If you have an absolute minimal system, then none of your packages will
> have the dri flag. So it won't hurt. If you remove the dri flag from the
> default profile, this will break users' setups for no good reason.
> 
> Moving to EAPI=1 USE defaults would be an alternative if the dri flag is
> deemed unacceptable for the default profile, but in my opinion a
> pointless exercise as it would change precisely zero systems.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> 
> 

And now I'm going to reverse my original vote. The only packages that
have the `dri' USE flag are in the x11-{drivers,libs} categories. As
such, it doesn't matter very much whether or not `dri' is in the base
profile. Better to leave it than remove it seeing as Chí-Thanh says,
it will have less of an impact on the users.

-- 
Mr. Aaron W. Swenson
Gentoo Linux Developer
Email : titanofold@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 2C00 7719 4F85 FB07 A49C 0E31 5713 AA03 D1BB FDA0
GnuPG ID : D1BBFDA0

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 230 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina]

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

On 01/18/2013 07:02 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>> On 18 January 2013 23:29, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
>> <chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> Because it should be enabled when the respective packages are
>>> installed, and not depending on the profile the user has selected.
>> Hell, as discussed, the base profile should contain the absolute
>> minimal flags, and "dri" does not appear to be one of these.
>> Having graphics support on such a profile is not expected. IMHO it
>> should be moved to the desktop profile
>>
> 
> If you have an absolute minimal system, then none of your packages will
> have the dri flag. So it won't hurt. If you remove the dri flag from the
> default profile, this will break users' setups for no good reason.
> 
> Moving to EAPI=1 USE defaults would be an alternative if the dri flag is
> deemed unacceptable for the default profile, but in my opinion a
> pointless exercise as it would change precisely zero systems.

I agree completely, if removing USE=dri from base will mess with users
let's just not do it.  For minimalists it will have no effect anyway.

+1 (to the moves everyone agrees on and not moving dri) and thanks for
all your hard work on this.

- -Zero
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=RRAI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Ben de Groot]

On 19 January 2013 04:49, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> During the server profile discussion, it became clear that we could clean up
> the base profiles a bit. This is unrelated to the profile versions, as the
> change would affect all versions (well, at least without bigger changes).
>
> What I suggested and what djc and kensington supported was:
>
> * move setting USE=dri and USE=cups from default/linux/make.defaults to
> targets/desktop/make.defaults

As said by others, dri can stay in the default base profile, as it
only affects things when X is specifically installed, in which case
dri would be a good default to have.

I'm not sure whether we need to keep cups at all. I haven't printed
anything from my personal PC or laptop in years. And I'm sure I'm not
the only one. So I'm voting for dropping cups useflag from all
profiles. If some people think it is necessary, maybe it can be moved
up to the more complete desktop profiles for gnome and kde. For a
simple non-gnome/kde desktop, I see no need for cups to be enabled by
default at all. Since this may be an unexpected change for some, let's
only drop it from the new 13.0 profiles.

> * remove setting USE=pppd in default/linux/make.defaults, instead have it
> default to on in net-dialup/capi4k-utils (the only place where it is used)

+1

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I'm not sure whether we need to keep cups at all. I haven't printed
> anything from my personal PC or laptop in years. And I'm sure I'm not
> the only one.

Won't repeat my previous email, but this is the kind of situation
where a "popularity contest" application would really help us.

Maybe a forum poll?

The suggestion that few people actually print anything ever really
seems "out of touch" to me, but it could easily be
cultural/generational/etc, and maybe I'm the one who is out of touch.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Ian Stakenvicius]

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

On 19/01/13 05:33 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> I'm not sure whether we need to keep cups at all. I haven't
>> printed anything from my personal PC or laptop in years. And I'm
>> sure I'm not the only one.
> 
> The suggestion that few people actually print anything ever really 
> seems "out of touch" to me, but it could easily be 
> cultural/generational/etc, and maybe I'm the one who is out of
> touch.

I'll add to this bikeshed..

I'll agree (as i believe most will) that the days are going where
everyone has a printer linked to their computer.  However, I also hold
the opinion that many (if not the majority) have access to a printer
when necessary, either via their network or (in the case of laptops)
via accessing a colleague's network.

We could certainly disable/remove cups from the default profiles, and
thus drop printing support -- but do we really want to put users into
a situation that they will have to rebuild a bunch of stuff for those
cases when the -do- want to print something?  I think opt-out on this
one is still a better option; if you *know* the install will never
need to print (or act as a print server), USE="-cups" is easy enough
to set.

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

iF4EAREIAAYFAlD68kMACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDaqAEAn89GvjNHOs8khpbu7wyKiuyv
oYRBXZjhdi2Z0WNhk1cBALaT8gwMuTTJStuEHbcHZnxztgKoxczf6RNXhq4W09ZN
=J2tZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Philip Webb]

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I'm not sure whether we need to keep cups at all.
> I haven't printed anything from my personal PC or laptop in years.

As a user, I'ld say this wb a very unpopular move with some of us.
I rarely use my 2nd-hand 1995 printer, but sometimes it is essential :
eg I now need to print letters to  2  friends abroad who don't have e-mail
& occasionally I need to print forms downloaded from the Internet
for tax purposes or to get mail-in refunds on things I bought.
I don't have access to an office printer
& when last asked, my neighbour reported his printer "broken".

Please continue to support Cups.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,   Philip Webb
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|   Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'   purslowatchassdotutorontodotca

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Aaron W. Swenson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1293 bytes --]

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 03:53:25PM -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > I'm not sure whether we need to keep cups at all.
> > I haven't printed anything from my personal PC or laptop in years.
> 
> As a user, I'ld say this wb a very unpopular move with some of us.
> I rarely use my 2nd-hand 1995 printer, but sometimes it is essential :
> eg I now need to print letters to  2  friends abroad who don't have e-mail
> & occasionally I need to print forms downloaded from the Internet
> for tax purposes or to get mail-in refunds on things I bought.
> I don't have access to an office printer
> & when last asked, my neighbour reported his printer "broken".
> 
> Please continue to support Cups.
> 

We're only discussing whether or not to have the `cups' USE flag in
the base profile, not the package itself.

I don't believe we need it in the base profile. The only people who
would enable it are those that are setting up a print server or those
who are setting up a desktop, in which case they would want to use the
desktop profile.

-- 
Mr. Aaron W. Swenson
Gentoo Linux Developer
Email : titanofold@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 2C00 7719 4F85 FB07 A49C 0E31 5713 AA03 D1BB FDA0
GnuPG ID : D1BBFDA0

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 230 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Brian Dolbec]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1845 bytes --]

On Sat, 2013-01-19 at 21:04 +0000, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 03:53:25PM -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > I'm not sure whether we need to keep cups at all.
> > > I haven't printed anything from my personal PC or laptop in years.
> > Please continue to support Cups.
> > 
> 
> We're only discussing whether or not to have the `cups' USE flag in
> the base profile, not the package itself.
> 
> I don't believe we need it in the base profile. The only people who
> would enable it are those that are setting up a print server or those
> who are setting up a desktop, in which case they would want to use the
> desktop profile.
> 

+1 for moving it to desktop


To further add to this bikeshed!  Something no-one has added so far is
that there is a very easy to use tool to use when you change profiles.

enalyze rebuild use

It is part of gentoolkit.  I first created it to help fix a new users
bungled install.  But it works perfect for changing profiles with
different use flag defaults.  In order to keep your installed packages
settings the same, run this immediately after the change, look over
and/or edit the file created to your liking, then replace the existing
pacakage.use

PROBLEM SOLVED! 

NO default USE flag changes will break your system.

Same can be done for keyword changes done in profiles

enalyze rebuild keywords

So, for the new 13.0 profiles, please add this to the recommended steps
for migrating profiles.  It should greatly reduce the number of bugs and
forum threads complaining about breakage.  

Yeah, I know, there will still be some that don't read instructions and
continue to break their shit and complain to us it's our fault.
-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[James Cloos]

> This question only matters if you expect there to be non-desktops where
> there are packages installed that IUSE dri.

I'd note that there is no correlation between the use of the "desktop"
profiles and the use of an X11 or wayland server on any given box.

The (gui) world is much more than gnome+kde.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Aaron W. Swenson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 860 bytes --]

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 07:40:56PM -0500, James Cloos wrote:
> > This question only matters if you expect there to be non-desktops where
> > there are packages installed that IUSE dri.
> 
> I'd note that there is no correlation between the use of the "desktop"
> profiles and the use of an X11 or wayland server on any given box.
> 
> The (gui) world is much more than gnome+kde.
> 
> -JimC

That's why there's a base desktop profile and desktop/{gnome,kde}
profiles.

Moving `dri' to the base desktop profile is sensible in that we
recommend any user who will be running a GUI use the desktop
profile. Those who aim for a minimalist profile will enable the flag
themselves.

-- 
Mr. Aaron W. Swenson
Gentoo Linux Developer
Email : titanofold@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 2C00 7719 4F85 FB07 A49C 0E31 5713 AA03 D1BB FDA0
GnuPG ID : D1BBFDA0

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 230 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1117 bytes --]


Summarizing this thread:

> * move setting USE=dri from default/linux/make.defaults to
> targets/desktop/make.defaults

+1 by dilfridge, djc, kensington, vapier, pesa, hwoarang
chitanh, titanofold, zerochaos wants to keep this in default profile

===> done because it's still 2:1 (see remark at bottom)

> * move setting USE=cups from default/linux/make.defaults to
> targets/desktop/make.defaults

+1 by dilfridge, djc, kensington, vapier, pesa, titanofold, dolsen

===> done, pretty much unanimous

> * remove setting USE=pppd in default/linux/make.defaults, instead have it
> default to on in net-dialup/capi4k-utils (the only place where it is used)

+1 by dilfridge, djc, kensington, vapier, pesa, yngwin

===> done, pretty much unanimous

We definitely need a better way to come to a consensus about such decisions. 
Distilling everyone's intent out of the bikeshedding is a pain. I'll come up 
with a separate e-mail about this and some suggestions soon... (or do it 
yourself, but PLEASE start a separate thread!)

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Andreas K. Huettel schrieb:
>
> Summarizing this thread:
>
>> * move setting USE=dri from default/linux/make.defaults to
>> targets/desktop/make.defaults
>
> +1 by dilfridge, djc, kensington, vapier, pesa, hwoarang
> chitanh, titanofold, zerochaos wants to keep this in default profile
>
> ===> done because it's still 2:1 (see remark at bottom)

I must say that I am unhappy about this. The packages in question should
not be built with dri disabled unless you really *really* know what you
are doing.

> We definitely need a better way to come to a consensus about such decisions.
> Distilling everyone's intent out of the bikeshedding is a pain. I'll
come up
> with a separate e-mail about this and some suggestions soon... (or do it
> yourself, but PLEASE start a separate thread!)

2:1 after two days on -devel and no indication that the number of
developers chiming in would be used for decision making.
If consensus was not required for this decision, then why bother
reaching it at all?


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn schrieb:
>>> * move setting USE=dri from default/linux/make.defaults to
>>> targets/desktop/make.defaults
>> +1 by dilfridge, djc, kensington, vapier, pesa, hwoarang
>> chitanh, titanofold, zerochaos wants to keep this in default profile
>>
>> ===> done because it's still 2:1 (see remark at bottom)

Also you didn't count yngwin


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
<chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Andreas K. Huettel schrieb:
>>
>> Summarizing this thread:
>>
>>> * move setting USE=dri from default/linux/make.defaults to
>>> targets/desktop/make.defaults
>>
>> +1 by dilfridge, djc, kensington, vapier, pesa, hwoarang
>> chitanh, titanofold, zerochaos wants to keep this in default profile
>>
>> ===> done because it's still 2:1 (see remark at bottom)
>
> I must say that I am unhappy about this. The packages in question should
> not be built with dri disabled unless you really *really* know what you
> are doing.

++

It seemed like most who were knowledgeable suggested disabling dri was
a bad move.  I think it is required for kernel-modesetting among other
things.  Why would somebody install xorg and not use dri?

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Ben de Groot]

On 20 January 2013 23:22, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
<chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Andreas K. Huettel schrieb:
>>> * move setting USE=dri from default/linux/make.defaults to
>>> targets/desktop/make.defaults
>
> I must say that I am unhappy about this. The packages in question should
> not be built with dri disabled unless you really *really* know what you
> are doing.

It seems to me this is an obvious case where sane useflag defaults
need to be set by the packages involved. We no longer need to rely on
global profiles for this.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Ben de Groot schrieb:
> On 20 January 2013 23:22, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> <chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Andreas K. Huettel schrieb:
>>>> * move setting USE=dri from default/linux/make.defaults to
>>>> targets/desktop/make.defaults
>> I must say that I am unhappy about this. The packages in question should
>> not be built with dri disabled unless you really *really* know what you
>> are doing.
> It seems to me this is an obvious case where sane useflag defaults
> need to be set by the packages involved. We no longer need to rely on
> global profiles for this.
>

Yes, I mentioned this in another post already. We can use EAPI=1 IUSE
defaults instead. But this will not change any systems so I fail to see
the point behind this. This will only move clutter from profiles into
ebuilds.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Brian Dolbec]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 679 bytes --]

On Sun, 2013-01-20 at 10:30 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:

> It seemed like most who were knowledgeable suggested disabling dri was
> a bad move.  I think it is required for kernel-modesetting among other
> things.  Why would somebody install xorg and not use dri?
> 
> Rich
> 

Since I'm not so knowledgeable about it, I didn't vote on this specific
issue.

But, doesn't your point above very strongly suggest that IUSE=+dri
should be set on those pkgs irregardless of where/if the dri USE flag
should be set in some profile.  With that in place, then moving it to
the desktop profile from the base wouldn't be bad, would it?
-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Brian Dolbec schrieb:
> But, doesn't your point above very strongly suggest that IUSE=+dri
> should be set on those pkgs irregardless of where/if the dri USE flag
> should be set in some profile.

We can either set it in the base profile, then there is no need for
IUSE="+dri". Or we can set it in every single ebuild that has the dri
flag. I prefer the former because it reduces our maintenance burden.

> With that in place, then moving it to
> the desktop profile from the base wouldn't be bad, would it?

If we have it as IUSE default, it can be removed from the profiles
entirely. Having it only in the desktop profile is not good in any
scenario I can think of.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> On Sunday 20 January 2013 10:54:55 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> Yes, I mentioned this in another post already. We can use EAPI=1 IUSE
>> defaults instead. But this will not change any systems so I fail to
>> see the point behind this. This will only move clutter from profiles
>> into ebuilds. 
> where it should have been in the first place.  if it's a package-specific issue, 
> then it belongs in the package.

It is a common issue shared among all packages and package versions that
have this flag. So I think the profile is the correct place.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1036 bytes --]

On Sunday 20 January 2013 10:54:55 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Ben de Groot schrieb:
> > On 20 January 2013 23:22, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> >> Andreas K. Huettel schrieb:
> >>>> * move setting USE=dri from default/linux/make.defaults to
> >>>> targets/desktop/make.defaults
> >> 
> >> I must say that I am unhappy about this. The packages in question should
> >> not be built with dri disabled unless you really *really* know what you
> >> are doing.
> > 
> > It seems to me this is an obvious case where sane useflag defaults
> > need to be set by the packages involved. We no longer need to rely on
> > global profiles for this.
> 
> Yes, I mentioned this in another post already. We can use EAPI=1 IUSE
> defaults instead. But this will not change any systems so I fail to see
> the point behind this. This will only move clutter from profiles into
> ebuilds.

where it should have been in the first place.  if it's a package-specific issue, 
then it belongs in the package.
-mike

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina]

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

> If we have it as IUSE default, it can be removed from the profiles
> entirely. Having it only in the desktop profile is not good in any
> scenario I can think of.
> 

chithanh, maybe you can explain to everyone why USE=dri is needed for
base profile.  You seem to be the most knowledgable here, can you cite a
specific example for how/why a non-desktop profile machine would need
USE=dri.  I think that the example may make it more obvious to people
what is right or wrong here.

Thanks,
Zero
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=80/k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Ciaran McCreesh]

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

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:59:24 -0500
"Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> chithanh, maybe you can explain to everyone why USE=dri is needed for
> base profile.  You seem to be the most knowledgable here, can you
> cite a specific example for how/why a non-desktop profile machine
> would need USE=dri.  I think that the example may make it more
> obvious to people what is right or wrong here.

Your question is the wrong one to ask. What you should ask is whether a
non-desktop profile machine *would be in any way affected by* USE=dri.

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

iEYEARECAAYFAlD8aPgACgkQ96zL6DUtXhGpfgCgxjrIlAp1M0gzkg4FJs2Yx+hM
290AniFiLh7uqNl8elQ/yWre1W903ZdC
=d+Zn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
<zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> If we have it as IUSE default, it can be removed from the profiles
>> entirely. Having it only in the desktop profile is not good in any
>> scenario I can think of.
>
> chithanh, maybe you can explain to everyone why USE=dri is needed for
> base profile.  You seem to be the most knowledgable here, can you cite a
> specific example for how/why a non-desktop profile machine would need
> USE=dri.  I think that the example may make it more obvious to people
> what is right or wrong here.
>

It is needed if you want to run X11 in the generally-recommended
configuration.  I believe it is required for kernel modesetting, and
that is the most stable way to run X11 (and I think that allows a
non-suid X11 server).  I would think that would be the best
configuration for X11 on any system, whether server, desktop, etc.

Now, in case some of you are thinking "but I NEVER run X11 on my
<insert non-desktop scenario here>," in that case the USE flag won't
have any effect anyway.  But, if there are people who run X11 on their
<insert non-desktop scenario here> they will get an all-around better
experience with dri enabled.

I can't really think of a case where somebody would want something
that supports dri that is in the tree, but wouldn't want to use dri.
Even things like embedded use dri (and in fact it is even more
important there with the wimpy CPUs).  And if you're running X11 on a
server for whatever reason, wouldn't that be the place you would most
want it to run as non-root?

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[James Cloos]

>>>>> "AWS" == Aaron W Swenson <titanofold@gentoo.org> writes:

AWS> That's why there's a base desktop profile and desktop/{gnome,kde}
AWS> profiles.

/usr/portage/profiles/targets/desktop/make.defaults still has too much
crap for a real base profile for a box which (might) run X or wl.

Also, I suspect the things dri brings in (or that one would presume dri
to bring in) are needed for gpGPU and the like.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

[gentoo-dev] Re: USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Duncan]

Ciaran McCreesh posted on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:00:20 +0000 as excerpted:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:59:24 -0500 "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina"
> <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> chithanh, maybe you can explain to everyone why USE=dri is needed for
>> base profile.  You seem to be the most knowledgable here, can you cite
>> a specific example for how/why a non-desktop profile machine would need
>> USE=dri.  I think that the example may make it more obvious to people
>> what is right or wrong here.
> 
> Your question is the wrong one to ask. What you should ask is whether a
> non-desktop profile machine *would be in any way affected by* USE=dri.

Exactly so.

equery h -p dri

... returns, with a single exception, only x11-drivers/xf86-video-*  xorg 
graphics driver packages.  The single exception is x11-libs/libvdpau.

So the only way the status of USE=dri even /matters/ is if one of those 
graphics drivers or that vdpau library is installed.  And for those 
packages, USE=+dri is the best default, regardless of whether they're 
installed for some reason on a server, or on a desktop.  Nothing else 
cares.


That said, there IS the argument for eliminating USE flag pollution in 
profiles where they aren't likely to be used in any case.  For the server 
non-X-installed server case, just having the flag there means time out of 
every responsible server admin's life, just to figure out that the flag 
is simply noise they don't have to worry about, and from this point of 
view, shouldn't even be seeing.

I mean, while it's technically true that a USE flag not actually used by 
any packages won't make a difference, that logic, taken to its 
conclusion, would lead to every USE flag ever used by a single package 
showing up in both global USE and in profiles, since the claim is that it 
doesn't make a difference if no installed package uses the flag anyway, 
but we REALLY REALLY need a default, just in case you DO decide to 
install the one obscure package that actually DOES use the flag!


So were we starting fresh, the best case would be to put the dri USE flag 
in the desktop profile, instead of in base, simply to avoid the USE flag 
noise pollution in non-desktop profiles.  However, the argument here is 
that we're not starting fresh, and changing it now could break a lot of 
users.

But I think those supporting that argument may have lost sight of the 
context:  The context is the new 13.0 profiles, and from all I've seen 
(Dale can back me up as he's far more involved on the user lists and 
forums), users switching/upgrading profiles generally /expect/ to have a 
few config changes they might need to deal with.  Thus, while the flag 
arguably shouldn't be changed in the old soon-to-be-deprecated 10.x 
profiles to avoid breaking people, the new 13.0 profiles are a chance to 
cleanup that USE flag pollution -- likely the best chance we're going to 
get for a few years.


So that's what I (and others, but less explicitly) propose, leaving 
USE=dri where it is in the old and soon-to-be-deprecated 10.x profiles so 
nobody gets broken, while in the new 13.0 profiles, USE=dri is moved from 
base to desktop.  That way, it'll still be defaulted on for desktop where 
most people will want it, but won't appear in the new base, thus 
eliminating the pollution for people unlikely to care about it, there.  
And the only possibility for breakage will be with the profile upgrade, 
when people should expect and thus be prepared to deal with a bit of 
config change.

-- 
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] Re: USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Ben de Groot]

On 21 January 2013 10:42, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> So that's what I (and others, but less explicitly) propose, leaving
> USE=dri where it is in the old and soon-to-be-deprecated 10.x profiles so
> nobody gets broken, while in the new 13.0 profiles, USE=dri is moved from
> base to desktop.  That way, it'll still be defaulted on for desktop where
> most people will want it, but won't appear in the new base, thus
> eliminating the pollution for people unlikely to care about it, there.
> And the only possibility for breakage will be with the profile upgrade,
> when people should expect and thus be prepared to deal with a bit of
> config change.

No, that doesn't seem the best way to do this. There are lots of users
who stick with the base profile but do install X. They *need* to have
dri enabled, unless they *really* know what they are doing. So, it
either needs to stay in the base profile, as it has been up till now,
or it needs to be set as default (IUSE="+dri") in the specific
packages.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Hans de Graaff]

On Sun, 2013-01-20 at 18:03 +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:

> We can either set it in the base profile, then there is no need for
> IUSE="+dri". Or we can set it in every single ebuild that has the dri
> flag. I prefer the former because it reduces our maintenance burden.

You make it sound like these two options are equivalent, but I don't
think they are.

Setting the option in the profile tells me: "Here's this option you can
play with, and we think you might need it. Or not."

Setting the option in the ebuild tells me: "You know, we are nice and
give you this option, but really you should keep this turned on.
Really."

From the descriptions it sounds like you want the latter effect, and
thus use IUSE="+dri". This would also help all the people starting out
with "-*".

Hans

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flag dri (reverted)

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1667 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, 20. Januar 2013, 18:16:32 schrieb Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn:
> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> > On Sunday 20 January 2013 10:54:55 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> >> Yes, I mentioned this in another post already. We can use EAPI=1 IUSE
> >> defaults instead. But this will not change any systems so I fail to
> >> see the point behind this. This will only move clutter from profiles
> >> into ebuilds.
> > 
> > where it should have been in the first place.  if it's a package-specific
> > issue, then it belongs in the package.
> 
> It is a common issue shared among all packages and package versions that
> have this flag. So I think the profile is the correct place.
> 

Following the discussion here, I've come to the conclusion that I made a bad 
call w/r to removing dri from default/linux after learning more about its 
effect. Summarizing, USE=dri
* is the recommended default anytime
* is needed in particular also in the embedded case (about as far from desktop 
as possible)

Discussion here and on #g-dev presented two options, either
* enabling dri in all relevant ebuilds as default-on, or
* re-adding it to the profile.

Chí-Thanh, who is the maintainer of the relevant packages, prefers a central 
setting. We've talked about this once more on IRC, I've reverted the profile 
commit and USE=dri is again enabled in default/linux/make.defaults. 

[We can still migrate to IUSE="+dri" in the ebuilds over time but that is a 
separate issue.]

I am sorry for any inconvenience this has caused.

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:46 AM, Hans de Graaff <graaff@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Setting the option in the profile tells me: "Here's this option you can
> play with, and we think you might need it. Or not."
>
> Setting the option in the ebuild tells me: "You know, we are nice and
> give you this option, but really you should keep this turned on.
> Really."

I'm not sure that either really has those connotations.  They're both
recommended defaults, and as with any recommended default changing it
could vary in impact.

I think that package defaults make sense from the standpoint of having
flags that really do vary in usage between packages.  Profile defaults
are good for tweaking the overall characteristics of a system.

The profile defaults do seem less and less relevant, because we only
have 4 profiles.  The kde/gnome/desktop profiles get a lot of care,
and the default basically gets touched very little.

If somebody really wants to make more minimal profiles that actually
mean something, rather than just trying to tweak the default profile I
think it would actually make more sense to make new profiles and
actually turn them into something useful.  Maybe have a
hardened-server profile and accompanying stage3s that let you install
a hardened server that "just works."  Maybe have a Raspberry Pi
profile.  Things that are very specific, and therefore actually
accomplish something.  Obviously somebody needs to maintain them if
they're going to create them, but at least they'd be useful to
SOMEBODY.

The problem with things like a "minimal default" profile are that
everybody has a different idea of what it should be, and as a result
the people who tend to want minimal just end up setting -* and
tweaking everything anyway.  That means that we're debating stuff and
messing with existing systems and not really accomplishing anything of
meaning for anybody.  For one person minimal means that we replace
half the GNU tools with busybox, and for another it just means
disabling things like CUPS.

I think that rather than tossing individual questions about individual
flags to the list if some developers want to have a minimal profile
they should form a project and create one.  Maybe leave the default
profile alone, unless there is some flag change that is just a
no-brainer.  I think the bottom line is that creating a minimal
default profile that is actually useful for something and which
accomplishes the goals of those envisioning it is going to be a lot
harder than it might seem.

Rich

[gentoo-dev] Re: USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 803 bytes --]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 00:02:05 +0000
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 23:58:22 +0000
> "Aaron W. Swenson" <titanofold@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > ++ If the base profile is to become our server profile, it should not
> > have graphics related USE flags enabled.
> 
> ...but that's not how USE flags work. It doesn't matter if you enable
> monkeys in the base profile, since the only people who are affected are
> people who install monkey-related packages. It doesn't affect server
> users. "Minimal" is irrelevant.
 
I, for one, demand more monkey-related packages.


-- 
gcc-porting
toolchain, wxwidgets            learn a language baby, it's that kind of place
@ gentoo.org                   where low card is hunger and high card is taste

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: USE flags dri, cups, pppd

[Duncan]

Hans de Graaff posted on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 08:46:59 +0100 as excerpted:

> On Sun, 2013-01-20 at 18:03 +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> 
>> We can either set it in the base profile, then there is no need for
>> IUSE="+dri". Or we can set it in every single ebuild that has the dri
>> flag. I prefer the former because it reduces our maintenance burden.
> 
> [I]t sounds like you want [...] use IUSE="+dri". This would also help
> all the people starting out with "-*".

??  How would setting the default using IUSE="+dri" in the ebuilds help 
those starting out with -*?  -* does just that, hard-setting all USE 
flags as disabled, unless they're specifically enabled later in the USE 
flag configuration.  Thus, it's the same effect on default-enabled-flags, 
regardless of whether they're default-enabled in the profile or in the 
ebuilds.

[TLDR folks can stop at that.]

FWIW, based on this discussion I wondered just how much effect USE-
defaults, both the profile and ebuild sort, were having here.  Thus, I 
set -* myself, and have been working thru the changes one at a time.  
I've a couple packages yet to deal with ATM, but after I resolved enough 
of the required-use issues for emerge --pretend --newuse @world to even 
spit out a remerge list, I started with 40-some packages with --newuse 
changes.  More or less what I expected...

Most of the changes I've been able to resolve by either adding the flags 
to the use file sourced by my make.conf, or by deciding I didn't need the 
flag enabled anyway, and remerging the package without it.  I've only 
added a few flags to package.use, as most of them were used by only the 
affected packages anyway, at least based on the packages I have installed.

FWIW2, I'm /thinking/ about setting up my own profile entirely... or 
setting it up to cascade only from my custom-selected components, at 
least, keeping the profile-base for the global package-mask, and perhaps 
the amd64-no-multilib stuff.  I already have zero packages in @system as 
I've negated all the entries that would otherwise be there, and I'm in 
the process of zeroing out my dependence on profile default-use...  When 
I'm done with that, I'll take a look at the rest and see...

-- 
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