[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-cdr/cdemu: metadata.xml ChangeLog cdemu-1.3.0.ebuild

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-cdr/cdemu: metadata.xml ChangeLog cdemu-1.3.0.ebuild

[Christian Faulhammer]

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

Hi,

"Peter Volkov (pva)" <pva@gentoo.org>:

> pva         10/10/19 14:35:39
> 
>   Modified:             metadata.xml ChangeLog
>   Added:                cdemu-1.3.0.ebuild
>   Log:
>   Version bump. Added nocdemud USE flag to avoid cdemud dependency
> #315491 wrt Michał Górny. 
>   (Portage version: 2.1.9.18/cvs/Linux x86_64)

 Is there a reason you don't use EAPI=1 syntax for default USE flags,
instead of the unwanted no* USE flags?

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-cdr/cdemu: metadata.xml ChangeLog cdemu-1.3.0.ebuild

[Peter Volkov]

В Втр, 19/10/2010 в 17:39 +0200, Christian Faulhammer пишет:
> "Peter Volkov (pva)" <pva@gentoo.org>:
> > pva         10/10/19 14:35:39
> > 
> >   Modified:             metadata.xml ChangeLog
> >   Added:                cdemu-1.3.0.ebuild
> >   Log:
> >   Version bump. Added nocdemud USE flag to avoid cdemud dependency
> > #315491 wrt Michał Górny. 
> >   (Portage version: 2.1.9.18/cvs/Linux x86_64)
> 
>  Is there a reason you don't use EAPI=1 syntax for default USE flags,
> instead of the unwanted no* USE flags?

Why unwanted? I remember there was never consensus... 

In general USE flags enable/disable feature. Here "feature" is
_disabling_ cdemud and thus USE=nocdemud better expresses what intended.

-- 
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-cdr/cdemu: metadata.xml ChangeLog cdemu-1.3.0.ebuild

[Eray Aslan]

On 21.10.2010 07:57, Peter Volkov wrote:
> Why unwanted? I remember there was never consensus... 

Well, in that case there is a discrepency with the devmanual:
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/use-flags/index.html#noblah-use-flags

-- 
Всего доброго
Эрай

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-cdr/cdemu: metadata.xml ChangeLog cdemu-1.3.0.ebuild

[Peter Volkov]

В Чтв, 21/10/2010 в 09:08 +0300, Eray Aslan пишет:
> On 21.10.2010 07:57, Peter Volkov wrote:
> > Why unwanted? I remember there was never consensus... 
> 
> Well, in that case there is a discrepency with the devmanual:
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/use-flags/index.html#noblah-use-flags

Nothing there applies here, since this USE flag has nothing to do with
archs/profiles...

-- 
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-cdr/cdemu: metadata.xml ChangeLog cdemu-1.3.0.ebuild

[Eray Aslan]

On 21.10.2010 10:30, Peter Volkov wrote:
> Nothing there applies here, since this USE flag has nothing to do with
> archs/profiles...

which will force some users to use double negative (-nocdemud, i.e. no
no cdemud) which is rather convulated and should be avoided imho.  While
at it, we should try to make the wording on the devmanual clearer, that
it only applies to arches/profiles

or

just don't use noblah USE flags.

This is just a friendly suggestion and the decision is yours to make.
Over and out.
-- 
Eray

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-cdr/cdemu: metadata.xml ChangeLog cdemu-1.3.0.ebuild

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 721 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:45:01PM +0300, Eray Aslan wrote:
> On 21.10.2010 10:30, Peter Volkov wrote:
> > Nothing there applies here, since this USE flag has nothing to do with
> > archs/profiles...
> 
> which will force some users to use double negative (-nocdemud, i.e. no
> no cdemud) which is rather convulated and should be avoided imho.  While
> at it, we should try to make the wording on the devmanual clearer, that
> it only applies to arches/profiles

I realize I'm a little lateon this thread, so this is more just for the
record I guess.

I don't like no* use flags either, for the same reason that was given
above.  -no* is a double negative and it should be avoided.

William


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-cdr/cdemu: metadata.xml ChangeLog cdemu-1.3.0.ebuild

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1041 bytes --]

On 14:24 Sun 24 Oct     , William Hubbs wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:45:01PM +0300, Eray Aslan wrote:
> > On 21.10.2010 10:30, Peter Volkov wrote:
> > > Nothing there applies here, since this USE flag has nothing to do with
> > > archs/profiles...
> > 
> > which will force some users to use double negative (-nocdemud, i.e. no
> > no cdemud) which is rather convulated and should be avoided imho.  While
> > at it, we should try to make the wording on the devmanual clearer, that
> > it only applies to arches/profiles
> 
> I realize I'm a little lateon this thread, so this is more just for the
> record I guess.
> 
> I don't like no* use flags either, for the same reason that was given
> above.  -no* is a double negative and it should be avoided.

Agreed. The argument that it's removing a feature is an implementation 
detail that users don't and shouldn't have to care about at all.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-cdr/cdemu: metadata.xml ChangeLog cdemu-1.3.0.ebuild

[Peter Volkov]

В Пнд, 25/10/2010 в 09:07 -0500, Donnie Berkholz пишет:
> On 14:24 Sun 24 Oct     , William Hubbs wrote:
> > I don't like no* use flags either, for the same reason that was given
> > above.  -no* is a double negative and it should be avoided.
> 
> Agreed. The argument that it's removing a feature is an implementation 
> detail that users don't and shouldn't have to care about at all.

Ok, renamed :)

-- 
Peter.