[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-video/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-0.10.2.ebuild ChangeLog

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-video/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-0.10.2.ebuild ChangeLog

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 710 bytes --]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 13:54:03 +0000 (UTC)
"Alexis Ballier (aballier)" <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> aballier    12/03/18 13:54:03
> 
>   Modified:             ChangeLog
>   Added:                ffmpeg-0.10.2.ebuild
>   Log:
>   version bump
>   
>   (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha91/cvs/Linux x86_64)


> FFTOOLS="aviocat cws2fws ffeval graph2dot ismindex pktdumper qt-faststart trasher"
> 
> for i in ${FFTOOLS}; do
> 	IUSE="${IUSE} +$i"
> done


Is it really useful to have such fine-grained control over these?  ffmpeg
already has a ton of USE flags.  Would you consider just putting these under
"tools" or something?


-- 
fonts, gcc-porting
toolchain, wxwidgets
@ gentoo.org

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-video/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-0.10.2.ebuild ChangeLog

[Samuli Suominen]

On 03/19/2012 07:39 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 13:54:03 +0000 (UTC)
> "Alexis Ballier (aballier)"<aballier@gentoo.org>  wrote:
>
>> aballier    12/03/18 13:54:03
>>
>>    Modified:             ChangeLog
>>    Added:                ffmpeg-0.10.2.ebuild
>>    Log:
>>    version bump
>>
>>    (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha91/cvs/Linux x86_64)
>
>
>> FFTOOLS="aviocat cws2fws ffeval graph2dot ismindex pktdumper qt-faststart trasher"
>>
>> for i in ${FFTOOLS}; do
>> 	IUSE="${IUSE} +$i"
>> done
>
>
> Is it really useful to have such fine-grained control over these?  ffmpeg
> already has a ton of USE flags.  Would you consider just putting these under
> "tools" or something?

I'd prefer to drop all USE flags which don't have external deps and just 
always install them

(We actually discussed this with beandog on #gentoo-media month ago or 
something, and he suggested same)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-video/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-0.10.2.ebuild ChangeLog

[Alexis Ballier]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:46:40 +0200
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 03/19/2012 07:39 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 13:54:03 +0000 (UTC)
> > "Alexis Ballier (aballier)"<aballier@gentoo.org>  wrote:
> >
> >> aballier    12/03/18 13:54:03
> >>
> >>    Modified:             ChangeLog
> >>    Added:                ffmpeg-0.10.2.ebuild
> >>    Log:
> >>    version bump
> >>
> >>    (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha91/cvs/Linux x86_64)
> >
> >
> >> FFTOOLS="aviocat cws2fws ffeval graph2dot ismindex pktdumper
> >> qt-faststart trasher"
> >>
> >> for i in ${FFTOOLS}; do
> >> 	IUSE="${IUSE} +$i"
> >> done
> >
> >
> > Is it really useful to have such fine-grained control over these?
> > ffmpeg already has a ton of USE flags.  Would you consider just
> > putting these under "tools" or something?
> 
> I'd prefer to drop all USE flags which don't have external deps and
> just always install them
> 
> (We actually discussed this with beandog on #gentoo-media month ago
> or something, and he suggested same)
> 

imho it doesnt hurt anyone to have fine-grained control

what could be discussed is to put these into a use expand variable, to
better distinguish between important useflags and less important ones

is that what you mean by 'putting these under "tools" or something?' ?

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-video/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-0.10.2.ebuild ChangeLog

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 891 bytes --]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:05:46 -0300
Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> imho it doesnt hurt anyone to have fine-grained control
> 
> what could be discussed is to put these into a use expand variable, to
> better distinguish between important useflags and less important ones
> 
> is that what you mean by 'putting these under "tools" or something?' ?

No, I meant one USE flag, called "tools", that builds and installs all or
none of them.  Unless they have external dependencies, or extraordinary
build times, or licensing issues, then I can't see a situation where someone
would want or need to pick and choose like this.  If you disagree then I
suppose an expanded variable is an improvement, though I don't like them
myself.

Kudos on the USE flag descriptions in any case.  Very informative.


-- 
fonts, gcc-porting
toolchain, wxwidgets
@ gentoo.org

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-video/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-0.10.2.ebuild ChangeLog

[Alexis Ballier]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:15:45 -0600
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:05:46 -0300
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > imho it doesnt hurt anyone to have fine-grained control
> > 
> > what could be discussed is to put these into a use expand variable,
> > to better distinguish between important useflags and less important
> > ones
> > 
> > is that what you mean by 'putting these under "tools" or
> > something?' ?
> 
> No, I meant one USE flag, called "tools", that builds and installs
> all or none of them.  Unless they have external dependencies, or
> extraordinary build times, or licensing issues, then I can't see a
> situation where someone would want or need to pick and choose like
> this.  If you disagree then I suppose an expanded variable is an
> improvement, though I don't like them myself.
> 
> Kudos on the USE flag descriptions in any case.  Very informative.


well, there's no extra dep nor licensing issue, and its not that they
are big either, problem is with a merged useflag to rule them all we'll
lose all the descriptions; i can imagine:
tools - install random extra tools

vs. a per tool useflag describing what it is for

i clearly prefer the latter, even if it requires me 5 more minutes to
decide the fate of the useflags i'll build the package with

personally i dont like the tools useflag, the same i dont like the
server one or the minimal one. they're too generic and, for this reason,
useless


if we want to make it a use expand, the only thing we need to agree on
is the prefix i think: what about fftools ? ffmpegtools ?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-video/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-0.10.2.ebuild ChangeLog

[Samuli Suominen]

On 03/20/2012 11:47 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:15:45 -0600
> Ryan Hill<dirtyepic@gentoo.org>  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:05:46 -0300
>> Alexis Ballier<aballier@gentoo.org>  wrote:
>>
>>> imho it doesnt hurt anyone to have fine-grained control
>>>
>>> what could be discussed is to put these into a use expand variable,
>>> to better distinguish between important useflags and less important
>>> ones
>>>
>>> is that what you mean by 'putting these under "tools" or
>>> something?' ?
>>
>> No, I meant one USE flag, called "tools", that builds and installs
>> all or none of them.  Unless they have external dependencies, or
>> extraordinary build times, or licensing issues, then I can't see a
>> situation where someone would want or need to pick and choose like
>> this.  If you disagree then I suppose an expanded variable is an
>> improvement, though I don't like them myself.
>>
>> Kudos on the USE flag descriptions in any case.  Very informative.
>
>
> well, there's no extra dep nor licensing issue, and its not that they
> are big either, problem is with a merged useflag to rule them all we'll
> lose all the descriptions; i can imagine:
> tools - install random extra tools
>
> vs. a per tool useflag describing what it is for
>
> i clearly prefer the latter, even if it requires me 5 more minutes to
> decide the fate of the useflags i'll build the package with
>
> personally i dont like the tools useflag, the same i dont like the
> server one or the minimal one. they're too generic and, for this reason,
> useless
>
>
> if we want to make it a use expand, the only thing we need to agree on
> is the prefix i think: what about fftools ? ffmpegtools ?
>

Maybe there could be use expand that could be reused by other ebuilds 
too? Such as EXTERNAL_TOOLS ?

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-video/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-0.10.2.ebuild ChangeLog

[Alexis Ballier]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:06:30 +0200
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > if we want to make it a use expand, the only thing we need to agree
> > on is the prefix i think: what about fftools ? ffmpegtools ?
> >
> 
> Maybe there could be use expand that could be reused by other ebuilds 
> too? Such as EXTERNAL_TOOLS ?

is it really worth it ? these are by design package specific, so i dont
see any gain in trying to merge them under an arbitrary common namespace

fftools is generic enough to me so that libav ebuilds can adopt it too,
if that's what matters

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-video/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-0.10.2.ebuild ChangeLog

[Samuli Suominen]

On 03/20/2012 07:36 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:06:30 +0200
> Samuli Suominen<ssuominen@gentoo.org>  wrote:
>
>>> if we want to make it a use expand, the only thing we need to agree
>>> on is the prefix i think: what about fftools ? ffmpegtools ?
>>>
>>
>> Maybe there could be use expand that could be reused by other ebuilds
>> too? Such as EXTERNAL_TOOLS ?
>
> is it really worth it ? these are by design package specific, so i dont
> see any gain in trying to merge them under an arbitrary common namespace
>
> fftools is generic enough to me so that libav ebuilds can adopt it too,
> if that's what matters
>

you're right, +1 for fftools

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-video/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-0.10.2.ebuild ChangeLog

[Luca Barbato]

On 20/03/12 10:40, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 07:36 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:06:30 +0200
>> Samuli Suominen<ssuominen@gentoo.org>  wrote:
>>
>>>> if we want to make it a use expand, the only thing we need to agree
>>>> on is the prefix i think: what about fftools ? ffmpegtools ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe there could be use expand that could be reused by other ebuilds
>>> too? Such as EXTERNAL_TOOLS ?
>>
>> is it really worth it ? these are by design package specific, so i dont
>> see any gain in trying to merge them under an arbitrary common namespace
>>
>> fftools is generic enough to me so that libav ebuilds can adopt it too,
>> if that's what matters
>>
> 
> you're right, +1 for fftools
> 

For libav I'll provide just aviocat, graph2dot ismindex, qt-faststart
and cws2fws under either a single useflag or unconditionally.

The rest of the tools aren't of any use since avprobe superceeds them.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero