[gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 330 bytes --]

Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
default in a way that would not cruft the base profiles for every local
use flag.

Regards,
Petteri Räty


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Dan Armak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 739 bytes --]

On Thursday 20 October 2005 23:47, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
> Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
> file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
> default in a way that would not cruft the base profiles for every local
> use flag.
Because implementing https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61732 would be a 
lot more cool :-)

Besides, if the effect on portage's behavior is the same, what's the 
difference?

-- 
Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE)
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD  0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1241 bytes --]

Dan Armak wrote:
> On Thursday 20 October 2005 23:47, Petteri Räty wrote:
> 
>>Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
>>Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
>>file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
>>default in a way that would not cruft the base profiles for every local
>>use flag.
> 
> Because implementing https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61732 would be a 
> lot more cool :-)

Cool indeed. I did a quick search on bugzilla for package.use, but did
not find out anything. Although I was quite sure that something like
this was already proposed, but searching for my solution did not bring
anything up.

> 
> Besides, if the effect on portage's behavior is the same, what's the 
> difference?
> 

Well my solution is backwards compatible because older portage versions
will just ignore the file. The solution in the bug would need the new
EAPI stuff which is probably still some time away (just a guess). The
package.use file could be used in the meantime and after the new
features are available we could just move everything from the
package.use file to the ebuilds themselves.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
> Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
> file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
> default in a way that would not cruft the base profiles for every local
> use flag.

i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
-mike

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Alec Warner]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote:
> 
>>Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
>>Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
>>file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
>>default in a way that would not cruft the base profiles for every local
>>use flag.
> 
> 
> i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
> -mike
> 

noFOO is used because "FOO" is on by default, and noFOO turns it off.
AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the buildplan and to
have sane defaults, certain flags are turned on.

a profilish package.use would enable maintainers to turn on sane default
flags while eliminiating noFOO flags and AUTOUSE.  The problem with
make.defaults right now is you can't set a global flag on just a few
packages.  On global flags it's an all or nothing deal.  There are some
packages where a global flag is the default for that package, but not on
others.

The problem with package.use is you can implement it now, but you can't
take out use.defaults or noFOO flags because if a user doesn't have a
portage that handles package.use buildplans will fail.

The tree would need to maintain the AUTOUSE and noFOO flags for old
versions of portage.

-Alec Warner (Antarus)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:03 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote:
> >>Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
> >>Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
> >>file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
> >>default in a way that would not cruft the base profiles for every local
> >>use flag.
> >
> > i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
>
> noFOO is used because "FOO" is on by default, and noFOO turns it off.
> AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the buildplan and to
> have sane defaults, certain flags are turned on.
> <snip>

that was a great explanation however irrelevant it may have been

i guess we will have to make 'nocxx' a special case as we strip all other 
'no*' USE flags from portage
-mike

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Dave Nebinger]

>> > i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
>>
>> noFOO is used because "FOO" is on by default, and noFOO turns it off.
>> AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the buildplan and to
>> have sane defaults, certain flags are turned on.
>
> that was a great explanation however irrelevant it may have been
>
> i guess we will have to make 'nocxx' a special case as we strip all other
> 'no*' USE flags from portage

Sorry, guys, but isn't that what "-FOO" is supposed to be for?  If we
already have support for "-FOO", why then do we need a "noFOO" also?

Or is there some distinction I'm missing here?


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> >> > i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
> >>
> >> noFOO is used because "FOO" is on by default, and noFOO turns it off.
> >> AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the buildplan and to
> >> have sane defaults, certain flags are turned on.
> >
> > that was a great explanation however irrelevant it may have been
> >
> > i guess we will have to make 'nocxx' a special case as we strip all other
> > 'no*' USE flags from portage
>
> Sorry, guys, but isn't that what "-FOO" is supposed to be for?  If we
> already have support for "-FOO", why then do we need a "noFOO" also?
>
> Or is there some distinction I'm missing here?

you're missing the fact that if we change 'nocxx' to 'cxx' then everyone who 
uses '-*' in their USE flags will emerge their gcc without C++ support
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Spider (D.m.D. Lj.)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1365 bytes --]

On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> > >> > i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
> > >>
> > >> noFOO is used because "FOO" is on by default, and noFOO turns it off.
> > >> AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the buildplan and to
> > >> have sane defaults, certain flags are turned on.
> > >
> > > that was a great explanation however irrelevant it may have been
> > >
> > > i guess we will have to make 'nocxx' a special case as we strip all other
> > > 'no*' USE flags from portage
> >
> > Sorry, guys, but isn't that what "-FOO" is supposed to be for?  If we
> > already have support for "-FOO", why then do we need a "noFOO" also?
> >
> > Or is there some distinction I'm missing here?
> 
> you're missing the fact that if we change 'nocxx' to 'cxx' then everyone who 
> uses '-*' in their USE flags will emerge their gcc without C++ support
> -mike

Yes. And that is as intended with -*.


Really, Don't refuse an idea because this.  Having IUSE="cxx"  USE="-*"
and getting -cxx is expected behaviour.  

Not having a C++ compiler might be just exactly what they want,
right?  :)

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


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:34 pm, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> > > >> > i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
> > > >>
> > > >> noFOO is used because "FOO" is on by default, and noFOO turns it
> > > >> off. AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the
> > > >> buildplan and to have sane defaults, certain flags are turned on.
> > > >
> > > > that was a great explanation however irrelevant it may have been
> > > >
> > > > i guess we will have to make 'nocxx' a special case as we strip all
> > > > other 'no*' USE flags from portage
> > >
> > > Sorry, guys, but isn't that what "-FOO" is supposed to be for?  If we
> > > already have support for "-FOO", why then do we need a "noFOO" also?
> > >
> > > Or is there some distinction I'm missing here?
> >
> > you're missing the fact that if we change 'nocxx' to 'cxx' then everyone
> > who uses '-*' in their USE flags will emerge their gcc without C++
> > support
>
> Really, Don't refuse an idea because this.  Having IUSE="cxx"  USE="-*"
> and getting -cxx is expected behaviour.

i never said i was against the idea of getting rid of no* flags

in fact, i said we should change all flags *except* nocxx
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Alec Warner]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:03 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
> 
>>Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote:
>>>
>>>>Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
>>>>Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
>>>>file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
>>>>default in a way that would not cruft the base profiles for every local
>>>>use flag.
>>>
>>>i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
>>
>>noFOO is used because "FOO" is on by default, and noFOO turns it off.
>>AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the buildplan and to
>>have sane defaults, certain flags are turned on.
>><snip>
> 
> 
> that was a great explanation however irrelevant it may have been
> 
> i guess we will have to make 'nocxx' a special case as we strip all other 
> 'no*' USE flags from portage
> -mike
> 

And we should keep the current shitty behavior to accomediate cxx why?
What is so hard about USE="-* cxx"?  Are there no other flags that do
bad things when they aren't turned on via use.defaults and profiles?

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Dan Meltzer]

On 10/20/05, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:34 pm, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> > > > >> > i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
> > > > >>
> > > > >> noFOO is used because "FOO" is on by default, and noFOO turns it
> > > > >> off. AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the
> > > > >> buildplan and to have sane defaults, certain flags are turned on.
> > > > >
> > > > > that was a great explanation however irrelevant it may have been
> > > > >
> > > > > i guess we will have to make 'nocxx' a special case as we strip all
> > > > > other 'no*' USE flags from portage
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, guys, but isn't that what "-FOO" is supposed to be for?  If we
> > > > already have support for "-FOO", why then do we need a "noFOO" also?
> > > >
> > > > Or is there some distinction I'm missing here?
> > >
> > > you're missing the fact that if we change 'nocxx' to 'cxx' then everyone
> > > who uses '-*' in their USE flags will emerge their gcc without C++
> > > support
> >
> > Really, Don't refuse an idea because this.  Having IUSE="cxx"  USE="-*"
> > and getting -cxx is expected behaviour.
>
> i never said i was against the idea of getting rid of no* flags
>
> in fact, i said we should change all flags *except* nocxx
> -mike
Why single out this one?  ones system will not break irreperbly
without a cxx compiler, it'll just cause a another recompile to get it
to work after breakage if the person is using -* (which has already
been said to be hackish and ill-advised, so doom on them!
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:47 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:03 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
> >>Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>>On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote:
> >>>>Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use
> >>>> flags. Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a
> >>>> package.mask file? This would make it possible for developers to turn
> >>>> on use flags by default in a way that would not cruft the base
> >>>> profiles for every local use flag.
> >>>
> >>>i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
> >>
> >>noFOO is used because "FOO" is on by default, and noFOO turns it off.
> >>AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the buildplan and to
> >>have sane defaults, certain flags are turned on.
> >><snip>
> >
> > that was a great explanation however irrelevant it may have been
> >
> > i guess we will have to make 'nocxx' a special case as we strip all other
> > 'no*' USE flags from portage
>
> And we should keep the current shitty behavior to accomediate cxx why?
> What is so hard about USE="-* cxx"?  Are there no other flags that do
> bad things when they aren't turned on via use.defaults and profiles?

i only said keep nocxx

there is nothing hard about USE="-* cxx" but while most here want to say 'fuck 
the users' (and i'm inclined to agree), i'd rather not field those 
bugs/questions/etc...
-mike

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:49 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> On 10/20/05, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:34 pm, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> > > > > >> > i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> noFOO is used because "FOO" is on by default, and noFOO turns it
> > > > > >> off. AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the
> > > > > >> buildplan and to have sane defaults, certain flags are turned
> > > > > >> on.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > that was a great explanation however irrelevant it may have been
> > > > > >
> > > > > > i guess we will have to make 'nocxx' a special case as we strip
> > > > > > all other 'no*' USE flags from portage
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, guys, but isn't that what "-FOO" is supposed to be for?  If
> > > > > we already have support for "-FOO", why then do we need a "noFOO"
> > > > > also?
> > > > >
> > > > > Or is there some distinction I'm missing here?
> > > >
> > > > you're missing the fact that if we change 'nocxx' to 'cxx' then
> > > > everyone who uses '-*' in their USE flags will emerge their gcc
> > > > without C++ support
> > >
> > > Really, Don't refuse an idea because this.  Having IUSE="cxx"  USE="-*"
> > > and getting -cxx is expected behaviour.
> >
> > i never said i was against the idea of getting rid of no* flags
> >
> > in fact, i said we should change all flags *except* nocxx
> > -mike
>
> Why single out this one?  ones system will not break irreperbly
> without a cxx compiler, it'll just cause a another recompile to get it
> to work after breakage if the person is using -* (which has already
> been said to be hackish and ill-advised, so doom on them!

it will actually

if you build gcc w/out C++ support that means no libstdc++

no libstdc++ means python on most boxes is now broken

no python means no emerge

how exactly are you going to re-emerge gcc then ?  oh, you cant ...
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Dave Nebinger]

> there is nothing hard about USE="-* cxx" but while most here want to say
> 'fuck
> the users' (and i'm inclined to agree), i'd rather not field those
> bugs/questions/etc...

The average gentoo newbie is not going to know anything about "-*" in
/etc/make.conf.  Mostly it's folks that have been around for a system
build or two before they start adding the "-*" at the beginning of their
USE flags.

I may be wrong but I don't believe the gentoo install doco even mentions
"-*" as part of USE flag setup.

So basically if only 'experienced', yet misguided, folks are using '-*',
then the only bugs to come up from this would be ABKB bugs, leaving them
with egg on their face for messing with '-*' in the first place.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Dave Nebinger]

On Thursday 20 October 2005 11:09 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> So basically if only 'experienced', yet misguided, folks are using '-*',
> then the only bugs to come up from this would be ABKB bugs, leaving them
> with egg on their face for messing with '-*' in the first place.

Before anyone asks, ABKB is help-desk lingo for "A**hole Behind Key Board".  I 
always preferred that to the id10t error (idiot).

Dave
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Chris Lee]

> Before anyone asks, ABKB is help-desk lingo for "A**hole 
> Behind Key Board".  I 
> always preferred that to the id10t error (idiot).
> 

See also: PEBKAC

Thanks,
Chris  

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Harald van Dijk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1591 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 10:56:57PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:49 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> > Why single out this one?  ones system will not break irreperbly
> > without a cxx compiler, it'll just cause a another recompile to get it
> > to work after breakage if the person is using -* (which has already
> > been said to be hackish and ill-advised, so doom on them!
> 
> it will actually
> 
> if you build gcc w/out C++ support that means no libstdc++
> 
> no libstdc++ means python on most boxes is now broken
> 
> no python means no emerge
> 
> how exactly are you going to re-emerge gcc then ?  oh, you cant ...
> -mike

It could be handled the same way busybox handles USE=make-symlinks:
simply abort unless the user makes it really clear via an extra variable
that he knows what he's doing. A nocxx flag isn't necessary to protect
users.

: >>> Test phase [not enabled]: sys-apps/busybox-1.01
:
: >>> Install busybox-1.01 into /var/tmp/portage/busybox-1.01/image/ category sys-apps
:  * setting USE=make-symlinks and emerging to / is very dangerous.
:  * it WILL overwrite lots of system programs like: ls bash awk grep (bug 60805 for full list).
:  * If you are creating a binary only and not merging this is probably ok.
:  * set env VERY_BRAVE_OR_VERY_DUMB=yes if this is realy what you want.
:
: !!! ERROR: sys-apps/busybox-1.01 failed.
: !!! Function src_install, Line 176, Exitcode 0
: !!! silly options will destroy your system
: !!! If you need support, post the topmost build error, NOT this status message.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Marius Mauch]

Petteri Räty wrote:
> Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
> Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
> file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
> default in a way that would not cruft the base profiles for every local
> use flag.

The main problem I'd have with this is the stacking order, e.g. 
profiles/package.use has "app-misc/foo bar" and make.conf has 
"USE=-bar", which one should be preferred?
Current rules say that /etc/portage/package.use overrides make.conf, and 
user config overrides profiles, the proposal would create a new 
unintuitive situation between those two.
Depending on the answer on this it also has some technical implications 
with the way package.use support is implemented currently. In short it's 
  not a trivial thing to do.

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1168 bytes --]

Marius Mauch wrote:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
> 
>> Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
>> Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
>> file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
>> default in a way that would not cruft the base profiles for every local
>> use flag.
> 
> 
> The main problem I'd have with this is the stacking order, e.g.
> profiles/package.use has "app-misc/foo bar" and make.conf has
> "USE=-bar", which one should be preferred?
> Current rules say that /etc/portage/package.use overrides make.conf, and
> user config overrides profiles, the proposal would create a new
> unintuitive situation between those two.
> Depending on the answer on this it also has some technical implications
> with the way package.use support is implemented currently. In short it's
>  not a trivial thing to do.
> 
> Marius

Gentoo being about choice the new package.use should come before
anything user set. I do not see any problem with this if it works in the
same way as package.mask already works. Please, enlighten me.

Regards,
Petteri Räty


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Duncan]

Dave Nebinger posted <36596.127.0.0.1.1129861153.squirrel@cornholio>,
excerpted below,  on Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:19:13 -0400:

>>> > i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
>>>
>>> noFOO is used because "FOO" is on by default, and noFOO turns it off.
>>> AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the buildplan and to
>>> have sane defaults, certain flags are turned on.
>>
>> that was a great explanation however irrelevant it may have been
>>
>> i guess we will have to make 'nocxx' a special case as we strip all other
>> 'no*' USE flags from portage
> 
> Sorry, guys, but isn't that what "-FOO" is supposed to be for?  If we
> already have support for "-FOO", why then do we need a "noFOO" also?
> 
> Or is there some distinction I'm missing here?

Also consider the case of media-libs/libsdl.  It uses novideo, noaudio,
and nojoystick, for the simple reason that for the vast majority of folks
who'd have reason to merge the package, turning OFF that functionality
makes entirely NO sense and having it OFF by default, if the USE flags
weren't enabled for some reason, would be entirely unintuitive.

Put another way...  It is said over and over again that USE flags cover
OPTIONAL functionality.  Few would consider video/audio/joystick support
in a library with a primary use of supporting games as optional.  Rather,
the "option" would be to /not/ have support compiled in, and that's
/exactly/ what the no* USE flags express in this case, just as it's
/exactly/ what the nocxx USE flag expresses.  Doing it any other way is,
as stated, counterintuitive to the way portage normally works, and the
defined use of USE flags.

-- 
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 in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 745 bytes --]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 04:37:16 -0700 Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
| Also consider the case of media-libs/libsdl.  It uses novideo,
| noaudio, and nojoystick, for the simple reason that for the vast
| majority of folks who'd have reason to merge the package, turning OFF
| that functionality makes entirely NO sense and having it OFF by
| default, if the USE flags weren't enabled for some reason, would be
| entirely unintuitive.

Not a problem. Just turn on the video, audio and joystick USE flags in
the base profile. Or don't make them USE flags at all...

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


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 21 October 2005 02:44 am, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 10:56:57PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:49 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> > > Why single out this one?  ones system will not break irreperbly
> > > without a cxx compiler, it'll just cause a another recompile to get it
> > > to work after breakage if the person is using -* (which has already
> > > been said to be hackish and ill-advised, so doom on them!
> >
> > it will actually
> >
> > if you build gcc w/out C++ support that means no libstdc++
> >
> > no libstdc++ means python on most boxes is now broken
> >
> > no python means no emerge
> >
> > how exactly are you going to re-emerge gcc then ?  oh, you cant ...
>
> It could be handled the same way busybox handles USE=make-symlinks:
> simply abort unless the user makes it really clear via an extra variable
> that he knows what he's doing. A nocxx flag isn't necessary to protect
> users.

no, because then it makes it a pita for the people who legitimately use nocxx
-mike

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 21 October 2005 05:56 am, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
> > Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
> > Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
> > file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
> > default in a way that would not cruft the base profiles for every local
> > use flag.
>
> The main problem I'd have with this is the stacking order, e.g.
> profiles/package.use has "app-misc/foo bar" and make.conf has
> "USE=-bar", which one should be preferred?

this is a no brainer

profile use.defaults
profile package.use
profile make.defaults
user make.conf
user package.use
user env
-mike

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Marius Mauch]

Petteri Räty wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> 
> Gentoo being about choice the new package.use should come before
> anything user set. I do not see any problem with this if it works in the
> same way as package.mask already works. Please, enlighten me.

Because package.use is implemented in a very different way then 
package.mask and currently isn't stackable at all. Adding a 
profiles/package.use that could be overridden by make.conf would require 
some nasty special casing in portage, and as we all know special case 
code is something that should be avoided. Besides that, there would also 
be the question about USE=-*, should this kill profiles/package.use 
completely?
Short version: Implementation and semantics of profiles/package.use 
isn't much easier than extending IUSE.

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Daniel Ostrow]

On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 17:49 +0300, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
> > Marius Mauch wrote:
> > 
> > Gentoo being about choice the new package.use should come before
> > anything user set. I do not see any problem with this if it works in the
> > same way as package.mask already works. Please, enlighten me.
> 
> Because package.use is implemented in a very different way then 
> package.mask and currently isn't stackable at all. Adding a 
> profiles/package.use that could be overridden by make.conf would require 
> some nasty special casing in portage, and as we all know special case 
> code is something that should be avoided. Besides that, there would also 
> be the question about USE=-*, should this kill profiles/package.use 
> completely?
> Short version: Implementation and semantics of profiles/package.use 
> isn't much easier than extending IUSE.
> 
> Marius

Hijacking this for a moment. And I fully expect to be lynched for the
following but it is something that has come up in both the amd64 and
ppc64 groups in the past.

I know it has been proposed many a time in the past but a per profile
(${PORTDIR}/profiles/default-linux/${ARCH}) package.use.mask would also
come in handy. It's a rare case...but increasingly in the world of mixed
32-bit and 64-bit environments things like java work against 32-bit
stuff *or* 64-bit stuff. This means that the java use flag will work
perfectly on a given arch for one bitness but not the other...and
masking it out completely means that the one bitness where it would work
looses functionality unnecessarily.

Yeah I know this adds a whole additional layer of complexity to the
picture but seeing how DEPEND="!arch? ( use? ( app-foo/bar ) )" is
against policy there has to be some way to control it. 

-- 
Daniel Ostrow
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel}
dostrow@gentoo.org


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Michiel de Bruijne]

On Friday 21 October 2005 04:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:49 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> > Why single out this one?  ones system will not break irreperbly
> > without a cxx compiler, it'll just cause a another recompile to get it
> > to work after breakage if the person is using -* (which has already
> > been said to be hackish and ill-advised, so doom on them!
>
> it will actually
>
> if you build gcc w/out C++ support that means no libstdc++
>
> no libstdc++ means python on most boxes is now broken
>
> no python means no emerge
>
> how exactly are you going to re-emerge gcc then ?  oh, you cant ...
> -mike

Can you think of a situation where this is desired? If not, why not remove the 
cxx IUSE and always build the C++-component?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1027 bytes --]

Duncan wrote:
> Put another way...  It is said over and over again that USE flags cover
> OPTIONAL functionality.  Few would consider video/audio/joystick support
> in a library with a primary use of supporting games as optional.  Rather,
> the "option" would be to /not/ have support compiled in, and that's
> /exactly/ what the no* USE flags express in this case, just as it's
> /exactly/ what the nocxx USE flag expresses.  Doing it any other way is,
> as stated, counterintuitive to the way portage normally works, and the
> defined use of USE flags.
> 

We already have use flags turned on in the base profiles. IMHO we should
only have one way of doing this. Either everything should follow the no*
convention so we should move to using for example nopython and remove
all use flags from make.defaults or implement the requested feature of
making use flags on by default. Considering that different profiles
probably want different settings the no convention would be restrictive
on what we want to do.

Regards,
Petteri

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday 21 October 2005 01:23 pm, Michiel de Bruijne wrote:
> On Friday 21 October 2005 04:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:49 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> > > Why single out this one?  ones system will not break irreperbly
> > > without a cxx compiler, it'll just cause a another recompile to get it
> > > to work after breakage if the person is using -* (which has already
> > > been said to be hackish and ill-advised, so doom on them!
> >
> > it will actually
> >
> > if you build gcc w/out C++ support that means no libstdc++
> >
> > no libstdc++ means python on most boxes is now broken
> >
> > no python means no emerge
> >
> > how exactly are you going to re-emerge gcc then ?  oh, you cant ...
>
> Can you think of a situation where this is desired? If not, why not remove
> the cxx IUSE and always build the C++-component?

i use the flag on my machines with different packages (including gcc)

so yes, i can easily think of situations since i use them
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1439 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 21 October 2005 05:56 am, Marius Mauch wrote:
> 
>>Petteri Räty wrote:
>>
>>>Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
>>>Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
>>>file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
>>>default in a way that would not cruft the base profiles for every local
>>>use flag.
>>
>>The main problem I'd have with this is the stacking order, e.g.
>>profiles/package.use has "app-misc/foo bar" and make.conf has
>>"USE=-bar", which one should be preferred?
> 
> 
> this is a no brainer
> 
> profile use.defaults
> profile package.use
> profile make.defaults
> user make.conf
> user package.use
> user env
> -mike
> 

I think profile package.use should come after make.defaults. After all
package.use is package specific while make.defauls being generic. Of
course it should not matter if we make it a policy that people can't
turn off global use flags that are on by default on a per package basis,
but I would like this possibility. For example there is the python use
flag which is not needed with every package but there are packages that
need the python use flag for some dependencies. Maybe this was not the
best example but hopefully got the idea across. Of course this will be
fixed when the new portage will come this way some day.

Regads,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 980 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 21 October 2005 05:56 am, Marius Mauch wrote:
> 
>>Petteri Räty wrote:
>>
>>>Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
>>>Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
>>>file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
>>>default in a way that would not cruft the base profiles for every local
>>>use flag.
>>
>>The main problem I'd have with this is the stacking order, e.g.
>>profiles/package.use has "app-misc/foo bar" and make.conf has
>>"USE=-bar", which one should be preferred?
> 
> 
> this is a no brainer
> 
> profile use.defaults
> profile package.use
> profile make.defaults
> user make.conf
> user package.use
> user env
> -mike
> 

Ah yes. Why make the profiles behave differently than the user order? In
user order we have make.conf before package.use and in profile
make.defaults after package.use.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Re: ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1071 bytes --]


21.10.2005, 13:51:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 04:37:16 -0700 Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> | Also consider the case of media-libs/libsdl.  It uses novideo,
> | noaudio, and nojoystick, for the simple reason that for the vast
> | majority of folks who'd have reason to merge the package, turning OFF
> | that functionality makes entirely NO sense and having it OFF by
> | default, if the USE flags weren't enabled for some reason, would be
> | entirely unintuitive.

> Not a problem. Just turn on the video, audio and joystick USE flags in
> the base profile. Or don't make them USE flags at all...

These three no* flags should have been killed ages ago. They've never been
useful for anything else than causing tons of PEBKAC bugs. :-( This stuff is
not optional, period.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature ;)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]