AW: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

AW: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Noack, Sebastian]

> > Today the solution would be to enable the kde, qt, qt3, qt4, gtk,
etc.
> > -useflag. But this solution is crappy, because of some ebuilds for
> 
> These flags are crap at all. It already is crap that certain packages
> contain backend and frontends for several GUIs (more precisely: based
> on several widget toolkits) alltogether.  They actually should be
> different. Yeah, many packages tend to do such crap in the upstream,
> but we shouldn't let this pass into the portage tree.
> 
> For example: mplayer
> It has it's gui-less player and an gtk-based frontend in one package.
> We should split this into two packages: mplayer and gmplayer.
> The chances to get this done in the upstream *before* some major
> distro like gentoo does the split by its own are quite low.

Hey, come on. We're not Debian! Unnecessary and senseless splitting of
packages is against the philosophy of Gentoo.

> > (kde || qt4 || qt3 || qt || gtk) (arts || alsa) (asf && win32codecs)
> 
> IMHO unnecessary complexity which introduces more point of failure
> and confusion.

At the first sight this approach seems to add complexity, but actual it
would remove a lot of complexity on Gentoo systems. For example on my
own system here I have approx. 40 lines in my /etc/portage/package.use
which could be reduced to less than 10 lines by using such a syntax like
above in the /etc/make.conf for global useflag configuration.

> With you suggestion, the package maintainers have to take care of
> Grandma's special conditions. This shouldn't be their job.
> 
> Granma's Box cries for an special Grandma-Distro, Grandma-Gentoo !
> This should be maintained by an separate team, which is specialized
> on the needs of those users.

In the described scenario, it wasn't mentioned that she has a
grandchild, so where do you know from that she is a grandma? ;) Doesn't
matter, btw it was in any case just an example where such a syntax would
be useful. Another szenario would be a server with several
database-based apps on it, where an expression like "(postgres ||
mysql)" might be useful.

Regards
Sebastian Noack

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Noack, Sebastian <S.Noack@AUTOonline.de> schrieb:

<snip>

> Hey, come on. We're not Debian! Unnecessary and senseless 
> splitting of packages is against the philosophy of Gentoo.

I don't think "we are not xyz" is a good argumentation in 
technical discussions.

At this point, Debian is actually doing good work. The bad thing is 
that those things don't get neither into the upstrem nor other
distros. That's exactly what my OSS-QM project is for.

<snip>

> > > (kde || qt4 || qt3 || qt || gtk) (arts || alsa) (asf && win32codecs)
> > 
> > IMHO unnecessary complexity which introduces more point of failure
> > and confusion.
> 
> At the first sight this approach seems to add complexity, but actual it
> would remove a lot of complexity on Gentoo systems. For example on my
> own system here I have approx. 40 lines in my /etc/portage/package.use
> which could be reduced to less than 10 lines by using such a syntax like
> above in the /etc/make.conf for global useflag configuration.

You shouldn't mix up quantity with complexity.

If you make handling of badly designed code easier, you take presure
from the actual developers.

<snip>

> > With you suggestion, the package maintainers have to take care of
> > Grandma's special conditions. This shouldn't be their job.
> > 
> > Granma's Box cries for an special Grandma-Distro, Grandma-Gentoo !
> > This should be maintained by an separate team, which is specialized
> > on the needs of those users.
> 
> In the described scenario, it wasn't mentioned that she has a
> grandchild, so where do you know from that she is a grandma? ;) 

So no special Grandma-support is needed at all.

<snip>

> Doesn't matter, btw it was in any case just an example where such 
> a syntax would be useful. Another szenario would be a server with 
> several database-based apps on it, where an expression like 
> "(postgres || mysql)" might be useful.

Aehm, you hopefully know that they don't have very much in common. 
Please give me an example, where this would be should be useful.

RDBMS'es aren't actually things we you could say "choose what you
like, doesn't matter which one". Yeah, would be nice if it was
so, but that's just a nice dream.


cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
 	http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
	http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Thomas Cort]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 341 bytes --]

On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:26:44 +0200
Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de> wrote:

> The bad thing is that those things don't get neither into the upstrem
> nor other distros.

      ^--- This should be a warning flag ---^

If other distros aren't doing it and upstream isn't doing it, then it
may no be that great of an idea.

-Thomas

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

AW: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Noack, Sebastian]

> > > Well, I don't consider reducing complexity "frivolous" ;-o
> >
> > Which reduction for which complexity? Do you want to bring
everyone's
> > systems to a grinding halt, just because you can't understand the
> > "complexity" of useflags.
> 
> I just want to keep things simple. We're talking about introducing
> new (additional) logic.

Is a need to have dozens of lines in your /etc/portage/package.use a
simple approach? Maybe it is, if for you, simplicity means only "less
number of lines of code in the core of the application". But wasn't you
the one who told me that quantity isn't the same like complexity? Well
you could say that only source code and scripts contain logic and
therefore numbers of lines in the config files doesn't means complexity,
but what do I do by the config files of portage actually? I use them for
example to instruct portage to enable useflag A but not for ebuild and
useflag B but just for ebuild b. Do you claim that this is no logic?


> Rember: we started with the thesis, "grandma wants graphical
> frontends whereever possible". This is in fact not an technical
> issue, instead a matter of personal taste, or lets say, an individual
> system configuration. Grandma wants to click, okay, so she should
> use graphical applications. She's not interested what sits behind,
> she just wants to have a buch of applications. And she also doesn't
> wann have anything to do with emerge and useflags. She just wants
> to have a choice between a bunch of end-user applications.
> That's the job of an Grandma-(sub-)distro.

That was never the point where "we" started. That was just the point,
you used to confuse this discussion. The grandma scenario should just be
a funny example for a requirement of such a advanced portage syntax I
could really need on my own systems and I'm not female, but male and not
80 but 18 years old. ;)


I know that my proposed syntax isn't a perfect solution. But I think the
current state of portage isn't a perfect solution, too. And I hoped when
I started this thread, that we will find together a good solution.

Best Regards
Sebastian Noack

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: AW: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Luca Barbato]

Noack, Sebastian wrote:
> 
> Is a need to have dozens of lines in your /etc/portage/package.use a
> simple approach? Maybe it is, if for you, simplicity means only "less
> number of lines of code in the core of the application". But wasn't you
> the one who told me that quantity isn't the same like complexity? Well
> you could say that only source code and scripts contain logic and
> therefore numbers of lines in the config files doesn't means complexity,
> but what do I do by the config files of portage actually? I use them for
> example to instruct portage to enable useflag A but not for ebuild and
> useflag B but just for ebuild b. Do you claim that this is no logic?

I claim that is simple and you should wait at least 24 h before posting
on -dev.

> 
> That was never the point where "we" started. That was just the point,
> you used to confuse this discussion. The grandma scenario should just be
> a funny example for a requirement of such a advanced portage syntax I
> could really need on my own systems and I'm not female, but male and not
> 80 but 18 years old. ;)

Poor you.

> I know that my proposed syntax isn't a perfect solution. But I think the
> current state of portage isn't a perfect solution, too. And I hoped when
> I started this thread, that we will find together a good solution.

You can just write something like flagedit for your extreme uses.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Thomas Cort <tcort@gentoo.org> schrieb:
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:26:44 +0200
> Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de> wrote:
> 
> > The bad thing is that those things don't get neither into the upstrem
> > nor other distros.
> 
>       ^--- This should be a warning flag ---^
> 
> If other distros aren't doing it and upstream isn't doing it, then it
> may no be that great of an idea.

Not really. Simply seems that no one else cares about the Debian 
patches, since they don't do enough publicity. They simply fix
some problems at their side and are done with this. Same for other
many distros. 


cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
 	http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
	http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1169 bytes --]

On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:26:44 +0200
Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de> wrote:

> * Noack, Sebastian <S.Noack@AUTOonline.de> schrieb:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > Hey, come on. We're not Debian! Unnecessary and senseless 
> > splitting of packages is against the philosophy of Gentoo.
> 
> I don't think "we are not xyz" is a good argumentation in 
> technical discussions.
> 
> At this point, Debian is actually doing good work. The bad thing is 
> that those things don't get neither into the upstrem nor other
> distros. That's exactly what my OSS-QM project is for.

*sigh*, if you want to use a source based Debian (as the combination of
all your posts seems to indicate) then do so, stop trying to convert
Gentoo into that. Or create your own private fork.
I start to get *really* annoyed by your overall behavior in the last
weeks, and I can tell you that takes quite a bit of effort.
Really, re-evaluate your motivation for being on this list.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 770 bytes --]

On Monday 07 August 2006 22:09, Marius Mauch wrote:
>
> *sigh*, if you want to use a source based Debian (as the combination of
> all your posts seems to indicate) then do so, stop trying to convert
> Gentoo into that. Or create your own private fork.
> I start to get *really* annoyed by your overall behavior in the last
> weeks, and I can tell you that takes quite a bit of effort.
> Really, re-evaluate your motivation for being on this list.
>
> Marius

I second this as should be clear from my earlier rant. Enrico should stop 
barking about how everything in gentoo is broken without having actually been 
active and built up a reputation.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]