[gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: introspection

[gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: introspection

[Arun Raghavan]

Hi folks,
I'd like to propose a new global USE-flag: introspection.

The purpose of the flag is to enable the building of GIR for the
package using dev-libs/gobject-introspection. gobject-introspection is
going to be quite important in upcoming GNOME releases, allowing for
the automated generation of bindings for several languages.

We already have 13 packages using this flag, with several more to
come. The current description being used in packages' metadata.xml
sucks - I'll put something more descriptive in the final flag.

Any objections? I'll wait till Wed (June 23rd) before adding this if
there aren't any.

Cheers!
-- 
Arun Raghavan
http://arunraghavan.net/
(Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)

[gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1081 bytes --]

El dom, 20-06-2010 a las 20:12 +0530, Arun Raghavan escribió:
> Hi folks,
> I'd like to propose a new global USE-flag: introspection.
> 
> The purpose of the flag is to enable the building of GIR for the
> package using dev-libs/gobject-introspection. gobject-introspection is
> going to be quite important in upcoming GNOME releases, allowing for
> the automated generation of bindings for several languages.
> 
> We already have 13 packages using this flag, with several more to
> come. The current description being used in packages' metadata.xml
> sucks - I'll put something more descriptive in the final flag.
> 
> Any objections? I'll wait till Wed (June 23rd) before adding this if
> there aren't any.
> 
> Cheers!

I agree with having it as a new global USE-flag, but I am unsure about
enabling it by default just now, since some automagic dependency
problems appeared some time ago :-/, but I will leave this decision to
other Gnome team members as I don't know much about introspection and
maybe these issues got fixed already

Best regards



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

[gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> El dom, 20-06-2010 a las 20:12 +0530, Arun Raghavan escribió:
>> Hi folks,
>> I'd like to propose a new global USE-flag: introspection.
[snip]
>> Any objections? I'll wait till Wed (June 23rd) before adding this if
>> there aren't any.
>>
>> Cheers!
>
> I agree with having it as a new global USE-flag, but I am unsure about
> enabling it by default just now, since some automagic dependency
> problems appeared some time ago :-/, but I will leave this decision to
> other Gnome team members as I don't know much about introspection and
> maybe these issues got fixed already
>

The automagic dependency problems have all been fixed as far as I
know. Any new problems should be reported, and they will be fixed.

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

[gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 580 bytes --]

El lun, 21-06-2010 a las 03:05 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan escribió:
> > I agree with having it as a new global USE-flag, but I am unsure about
> > enabling it by default just now, since some automagic dependency
> > problems appeared some time ago :-/, but I will leave this decision to
> > other Gnome team members as I don't know much about introspection and
> > maybe these issues got fixed already
> >
> 
> The automagic dependency problems have all been fixed as far as I
> know. Any new problems should be reported, and they will be fixed.
> 

Great to know! :-D

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: introspection

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 457 bytes --]

On Sun, 2010-06-20 at 20:12 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> I'd like to propose a new global USE-flag: introspection.
...
> Any objections? I'll wait till Wed (June 23rd) before adding this if
> there aren't any.

Do we really want it to be a USE flag ? I would force it on always for
everyone. Due to the direction in which GNOME is heading, it will be
required by the core desktop anyway.

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: introspection

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

2010/6/21 Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org>:
> On Sun, 2010-06-20 at 20:12 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
>> I'd like to propose a new global USE-flag: introspection.
> ...
>> Any objections? I'll wait till Wed (June 23rd) before adding this if
>> there aren't any.
>
> Do we really want it to be a USE flag ? I would force it on always for
> everyone. Due to the direction in which GNOME is heading, it will be
> required by the core desktop anyway.
>

On the other hand, it's not just GNOME-3 which uses gtk+, atk, pango,
etc. A lot of the libraries that we package are going to be used
outside GNOME, and I really don't see why we should force this stuff
onto them when we don't absolutely have to.

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: introspection

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 769 bytes --]

On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 04:14:16PM -0400, Olivier Crrrte wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-06-20 at 20:12 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> > I'd like to propose a new global USE-flag: introspection.
> ...
> > Any objections? I'll wait till Wed (June 23rd) before adding this if
> > there aren't any.
> 
> Do we really want it to be a USE flag ? I would force it on always for
> everyone. Due to the direction in which GNOME is heading, it will be
> required by the core desktop anyway.

Use deps exist for situations like this ;)

Beyond that, the naming kind of sucks from where I'm sitting- it's a 
gobject/gnome specific flag in intention, but introspection has many 
meanings elsewhere that may not map cleanly there.

Anyone got a better name for it?
~harring

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: introspection

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Beyond that, the naming kind of sucks from where I'm sitting- it's a
> gobject/gnome specific flag in intention, but introspection has many
> meanings elsewhere that may not map cleanly there.
>

Well, there's nothing else in this namespace (i.e., amongst use-flags)
which uses this word, and I don't see anything else that would want to
use it in-tree. So, I don't see what the problem is with us taking
over it :)

As for confusions w.r.t. name, the use-flag descriptions exist
precisely to clarify that. I personally wouldn't assume a use-flag's
intention before seeing it's corresponding description.

Also note that perl/ruby/python/java/javascript etc bindings will
be/are using gobject-introspection[1], so this particular usage of the
term will become very prevalent in the near future.

1. http://live.gnome.org/GObjectIntrospection/Users
-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: introspection

[Arun Raghavan]

2010/6/21 Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org>:
> On Sun, 2010-06-20 at 20:12 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
>> I'd like to propose a new global USE-flag: introspection.
> ...
>> Any objections? I'll wait till Wed (June 23rd) before adding this if
>> there aren't any.
>
> Do we really want it to be a USE flag ? I would force it on always for
> everyone. Due to the direction in which GNOME is heading, it will be
> required by the core desktop anyway.

In addition to what Nirbheek pointed out, I think a USE flag would be
useful for embedded setups where you might only want introspection for
a subset of libraries.

I do agree with you about it being part of the core desktop and
required by most users, so it will be enabled by default for all
ebuilds.

Cheers,
-- 
Arun Raghavan
http://arunraghavan.net/
(Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)

Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: introspection

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 921 bytes --]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:13:56 +0530
Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 2010/6/21 Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org>:
> > On Sun, 2010-06-20 at 20:12 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> >> I'd like to propose a new global USE-flag: introspection.
> > ...
> >> Any objections? I'll wait till Wed (June 23rd) before adding this
> >> if there aren't any.
> >
> > Do we really want it to be a USE flag ? I would force it on always
> > for everyone. Due to the direction in which GNOME is heading, it
> > will be required by the core desktop anyway.
[...]
> I do agree with you about it being part of the core desktop and
> required by most users, so it will be enabled by default for all
> ebuilds.

Won't it be better to enable it by default only in 'gnome' subprofile?
I don't see a use for it elsewhere.


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

<http://mgorny.alt.pl>
<xmpp:mgorny@jabber.ru>

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection

[Arun Raghavan]

On 20 June 2010 20:12, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@gentoo.org> wrote:
[...]
> We already have 13 packages using this flag, with several more to
> come. The current description being used in packages' metadata.xml
> sucks - I'll put something more descriptive in the final flag.

Here's the description I'm planning to add:

introspection: Add gobject-introspection support, allowing for the
dynamic generation of bindings for various languages

Cheers,
-- 
Arun Raghavan
http://arunraghavan.net/
(Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection

[Alexis Ballier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 597 bytes --]

On Monday 21 June 2010 07:44:50 Arun Raghavan wrote:
> On 20 June 2010 20:12, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@gentoo.org> wrote:
> [...]
> 
> > We already have 13 packages using this flag, with several more to
> > come. The current description being used in packages' metadata.xml
> > sucks - I'll put something more descriptive in the final flag.
> 
> Here's the description I'm planning to add:
> 
> introspection: Add gobject-introspection support, allowing for the
> dynamic generation of bindings for various languages

why not naming the useflag gobject-introspection then ?

A.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection

[Arun Raghavan]

On 21 June 2010 11:43, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
[...]
>> introspection: Add gobject-introspection support, allowing for the
>> dynamic generation of bindings for various languages
>
> why not naming the useflag gobject-introspection then ?

Mostly because it seems exceedingly verbose to me (yes, I know we have
longer USE flags, and I find them too long as well).
-- 
Arun Raghavan
http://arunraghavan.net/
(Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection

[Alexis Ballier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 823 bytes --]

On Monday 21 June 2010 09:53:02 Arun Raghavan wrote:
> On 21 June 2010 11:43, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> [...]
> 
> >> introspection: Add gobject-introspection support, allowing for the
> >> dynamic generation of bindings for various languages
> > 
> > why not naming the useflag gobject-introspection then ?
> 
> Mostly because it seems exceedingly verbose to me (yes, I know we have
> longer USE flags, and I find them too long as well).

well, it removes any possible ambiguity; it's meaning may be obvious for you 
but for me, when I see an "introspection" useflag, I wonder why that package 
would like to do its self psychanalysis...

also, remember that having useflag descriptions is only an addition to accurate 
useflag names, not a justification for having vague names

A.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 985 bytes --]

On 6/21/10 8:53 AM, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> On 21 June 2010 11:43, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote: 
> [...]
>>> introspection: Add gobject-introspection support, allowing for
>>> the dynamic generation of bindings for various languages
>> 
>> why not naming the useflag gobject-introspection then ?
> 
> Mostly because it seems exceedingly verbose to me (yes, I know we
> have longer USE flags, and I find them too long as well).

Please take a look at the devmanual,
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/use-flags/

> In particular, note that if client and server USE flags are ever
> introduced, they can not be global USE flags for this reason.

I think that "introspection" is similarly too general.

So can we either rename it to "gobject-introspection", or find some
other way to handle it?

On the other hand, we already have "handbook" flag for KDE4. So the
above is not really a strong opinion, just a point to consider.

Paweł


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection

[Duncan]

Paweł Hajdan, Jr. posted on Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:04:03 +0200 as excerpted:

> On 6/21/10 8:53 AM, Arun Raghavan wrote:
>> On 21 June 2010 11:43, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:

>>>> introspection: Add gobject-introspection support, allowing for the
>>>> dynamic generation of bindings for various languages

>>> gobject-introspection ?

>> exceedingly verbose

> "introspection" is similarly too general.

gobj-bindings ?

Bindings is a common enough term in use flag descriptions, etc, that users 
should at least have an idea what it means.  Introspection?  Not so much.

Or perhaps dyn-bindings ?  As a kde user without gnome merged, however, 
I'd prefer gobj-bindings, tho, as it's a better memory prompt to what it's 
related to, and that I'll likely want it off.  It should work similarly 
for gnome users who'll likely want it on.

-- 
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: New global USE flag: introspection

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 828 bytes --]

On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 09:07 +0000, Duncan wrote:
> Paweł Hajdan, Jr. posted on Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:04:03 +0200 as excerpted:
> 
> > On 6/21/10 8:53 AM, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> >> On 21 June 2010 11:43, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> >>>> introspection: Add gobject-introspection support, allowing for the
> >>>> dynamic generation of bindings for various languages
> 
> >>> gobject-introspection ?
> 
> >> exceedingly verbose
> 
> > "introspection" is similarly too general.
> 
> gobj-bindings ?
> 
> Bindings is a common enough term in use flag descriptions, etc, that users 
> should at least have an idea what it means.  Introspection?  Not so much.

It's not the bindings... It's introspection data that describes the API.


-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection

[Duncan]

Olivier Crête posted on Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:46:58 -0400 as excerpted:

> It's not the bindings... It's introspection data that describes the API.

Well, the bindings themselves are dynamic, but this is what enables them, 
according to the description.  Only explaining all that is a bit long to 
stick in the flag itself, so leave it in the description.  Which, assuming 
it's correct, would make the name accurate as well, as bindings are what 
the flag is /for/, even if bindings are not actually what's /directly/ 
controlled by it.

-- 
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: New global USE flag: introspection

[René 'Necoro' Neumann]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 454 bytes --]

Am 21.06.2010 09:04, schrieb "Paweł Hajdan, Jr.":
> I think that "introspection" is similarly too general.

What about calling the useflag "GIR" (or "gir")? If the user does not
know what it stands for, he will hopefully look up the description to
see what it means. And in contrast to "introspection" the chance of
getting a false sense of the meaning is low.

Just as an idea (as I personally dislike awfully-long-useflag-names)

- René


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: introspection

[Maciej Mrozowski]

On Sunday 20 of June 2010 16:42:58 Arun Raghavan wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I'd like to propose a new global USE-flag: introspection.
> 
> The purpose of the flag is to enable the building of GIR for the
> package using dev-libs/gobject-introspection. gobject-introspection is
> going to be quite important in upcoming GNOME releases, allowing for
> the automated generation of bindings for several languages.
> 
> We already have 13 packages using this flag, with several more to
> come. The current description being used in packages' metadata.xml
> sucks - I'll put something more descriptive in the final flag.
> 
> Any objections? I'll wait till Wed (June 23rd) before adding this if
> there aren't any.

I don't mind adding it as globally recognizable USE flag, I'd mind however 
having it enabled by default in desktop/base profile. If Gnome needs it, 
please enable it in gnome subprofile if you wish (apart from setting all 
required USE deps in ebuilds), you can also use IUSE defaults for it which 
would allow more fine grained control or if you or Gnome devs decided to drop 
the idea at some point.

-- 
regards
MM

Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: introspection

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1614 bytes --]

On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 09:33 +0200, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> On Sunday 20 of June 2010 16:42:58 Arun Raghavan wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> > I'd like to propose a new global USE-flag: introspection.
> > 
> > The purpose of the flag is to enable the building of GIR for the
> > package using dev-libs/gobject-introspection. gobject-introspection is
> > going to be quite important in upcoming GNOME releases, allowing for
> > the automated generation of bindings for several languages.
> > 
> > We already have 13 packages using this flag, with several more to
> > come. The current description being used in packages' metadata.xml
> > sucks - I'll put something more descriptive in the final flag.
> > 
> > Any objections? I'll wait till Wed (June 23rd) before adding this if
> > there aren't any.
> 
> I don't mind adding it as globally recognizable USE flag, I'd mind however 
> having it enabled by default in desktop/base profile. If Gnome needs it, 
> please enable it in gnome subprofile if you wish (apart from setting all 
> required USE deps in ebuilds), you can also use IUSE defaults for it which 
> would allow more fine grained control or if you or Gnome devs decided to drop 
> the idea at some point.

Oh no! You'll have two small data files for each package! That's so
terrible! You should definitely look through /usr/share, there are lots
of other files you dont absolutely need too. Maybe you should start
filing bugs against every package that install these tiny files you
don't need! All those wasted inodes!


-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: introspection

[Maciej Mrozowski]

On Monday 21 of June 2010 16:22:08 Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 09:33 +0200, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 of June 2010 16:42:58 Arun Raghavan wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > > I'd like to propose a new global USE-flag: introspection.
> > > 
> > > The purpose of the flag is to enable the building of GIR for the
> > > package using dev-libs/gobject-introspection. gobject-introspection is
> > > going to be quite important in upcoming GNOME releases, allowing for
> > > the automated generation of bindings for several languages.
> > > 
> > > We already have 13 packages using this flag, with several more to
> > > come. The current description being used in packages' metadata.xml
> > > sucks - I'll put something more descriptive in the final flag.
> > > 
> > > Any objections? I'll wait till Wed (June 23rd) before adding this if
> > > there aren't any.
> > 
> > I don't mind adding it as globally recognizable USE flag, I'd mind
> > however having it enabled by default in desktop/base profile. If Gnome
> > needs it, please enable it in gnome subprofile if you wish (apart from
> > setting all required USE deps in ebuilds), you can also use IUSE
> > defaults for it which would allow more fine grained control or if you or
> > Gnome devs decided to drop the idea at some point.
> 
> Oh no! You'll have two small data files for each package! That's so
> terrible! You should definitely look through /usr/share, there are lots
> of other files you dont absolutely need too. Maybe you should start
> filing bugs against every package that install these tiny files you
> don't need! All those wasted inodes!

If that's the case (they are essential for Gnome or whatever to work, just two 
files per package, not bringing any additional dependencies nor probability of 
causing compilation failures), I find it rather odd to make it optional at 
all.
As for attempted irony of yours, I've already filled some gtk-doc and USE=doc 
related bugs, thxbye :P

-- 
regards
MM

Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: introspection

[Arun Raghavan]

On 21 June 2010 21:14, Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> If that's the case (they are essential for Gnome or whatever to work, just two
> files per package, not bringing any additional dependencies nor probability of
> causing compilation failures), I find it rather odd to make it optional at
> all.

As I explained, the reason I think it makes sense to make it optional
is for embedded systems, where you want to enable introspection for
only the subset of your package where you need the dynamically
generated bindings. I agree that this is a tenuous argument in itself,
but I figure that now that we've started this way, and there /is/ a
benefit to it, we might as well carry it through.

I'm still trying to think of a good name. I understand the concerns
about "introspection" being too generic and non GNOME-y, but "gir" is
likely to cause confusion.

-- 
Arun Raghavan
http://arunraghavan.net/
(Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)

Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: introspection

[Arun Raghavan]

On 21 June 2010 21:23, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@gentoo.org> wrote:
[...]
> I'm still trying to think of a good name. I understand the concerns
> about "introspection" being too generic and non GNOME-y, but "gir" is
> likely to cause confusion.

"gir" is not good because it gives near-zero information.

I can still not think of short enough USE flag. I propose we stick to
"introspection". There isn't anything on the horizon that might
overlap with this flag, and I don't see why we should drop using a
simpler flag for the *possibility* that it might overlap with
something else in the future. We can deal with this if it happens.

Cheers,
-- 
Arun Raghavan
http://arunraghavan.net/
(Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)

[gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection

[Peter Hjalmarsson]

tis 2010-06-22 klockan 15:17 +0530 skrev Arun Raghavan:
> On 21 June 2010 21:23, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@gentoo.org> wrote:
> [...]
> > I'm still trying to think of a good name. I understand the concerns
> > about "introspection" being too generic and non GNOME-y, but "gir" is
> > likely to cause confusion.
> 
> "gir" is not good because it gives near-zero information.
> 
> I can still not think of short enough USE flag. I propose we stick to
> "introspection". There isn't anything on the horizon that might
> overlap with this flag, and I don't see why we should drop using a
> simpler flag for the *possibility* that it might overlap with
> something else in the future. We can deal with this if it happens.
> 
> Cheers,

Why not just gintrospection?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection

[Arun Raghavan]

On 22 June 2010 16:54, Peter Hjalmarsson <xake@rymdraket.net> wrote:
> tis 2010-06-22 klockan 15:17 +0530 skrev Arun Raghavan:
>> On 21 June 2010 21:23, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > I'm still trying to think of a good name. I understand the concerns
>> > about "introspection" being too generic and non GNOME-y, but "gir" is
>> > likely to cause confusion.
>>
>> "gir" is not good because it gives near-zero information.
>>
>> I can still not think of short enough USE flag. I propose we stick to
>> "introspection". There isn't anything on the horizon that might
>> overlap with this flag, and I don't see why we should drop using a
>> simpler flag for the *possibility* that it might overlap with
>> something else in the future. We can deal with this if it happens.
>>
>> Cheers,
>
> Why not just gintrospection?

I still think "introspection" is easier to grok. It's unlikely that
it's going to be used in a completely different sense by other
packages in the future, so let's stick with "introspection" please.

-- 
Arun Raghavan
http://arunraghavan.net/
(Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection

[Mike Auty]

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

On 22/06/10 15:33, Arun Raghavan wrote:
>> Why not just gintrospection?
> 
> I still think "introspection" is easier to grok. It's unlikely that
> it's going to be used in a completely different sense by other
> packages in the future, so let's stick with "introspection" please.

Gintrospection gives more information (things starting with g are
generally gnome related, which this is), and grepping for introspection
will still turn it up.  It also solves the concerns that all the people
on this thread have voiced about introspection being too generic.  I
can't see why introspection is that much easier for people to "grok"?
Gintrospection seems like a good compromise that everyone can agree on...

Mike  5:)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkwg5d0ACgkQu7rWomwgFXqr+QCggMCbz0F9Jm/WxK080ZcVLLWV
+bcAnj4A72j+T9iLmbyW+0uFDCyYg23o
=vbNg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection

[Arun Raghavan]

On 22 June 2010 22:03, Mike Auty <ikelos@gentoo.org> wrote:
[...]
>> I still think "introspection" is easier to grok. It's unlikely that
>> it's going to be used in a completely different sense by other
>> packages in the future, so let's stick with "introspection" please.
>
> Gintrospection gives more information (things starting with g are
> generally gnome related, which this is), and grepping for introspection

It is not a GNOME-only flag. It affects several non-GNOME-only
packages as well (udev, upower, udisks, dbus, gstreamer, other
freedesktop projects,  pulseaudio).

> will still turn it up.  It also solves the concerns that all the people
> on this thread have voiced about introspection being too generic.  I

Which should not be an issue since any library that has some sort of
introspection can use this flag (and the use.desc can be changed
appropriately at that time if it does not use gobject-introspection).

-- 
Arun Raghavan
http://arunraghavan.net/
(Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection

[Mike Auty]

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

On 22/06/10 18:11, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> It is not a GNOME-only flag.

A general introspection flag may not be, but this isn't a general
introspection flag, this is specific to gobject and the suggestions try
to clarify that.  People who want gobject-introspection (which concerns
gobject, and is therefore appropriate for a "g" prefix) will not want to
have to manually differentiate between arbitrary-library-introspection
and gobject-introspection by fiddling around with a package.use file to
individually turn it on and off.  It should be an easy, global USE flag
to enable once in make.conf and forget about.

> Which should not be an issue since any library that has some sort of
> introspection can use this flag (and the use.desc can be changed
> appropriately at that time if it does not use gobject-introspection).

Why have to change it in the future (and probably split it into two
flags then), when the choice hasn't been made yet?  Or, to put your own
question to you, why are you vehemently for "introspection" when others
have shown concern with the choice?  As far as I can see, the only
difference is requiring a slightly longer use_enable line.

In the end, it's not a big issue and whichever is chosen it'll work out.
 I'm just trying to figure out why the compromise solutions aren't good
enough to satisfy everyone?

Mike  5:)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkwhGkAACgkQu7rWomwgFXp0dQCePjaHQn6JeBO6OrzwsIHBp8f1
+2gAoJDD4MS1spuo1DiqD96uOfX8ZBj9
=TJvC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection

[Arun Raghavan]

On 23 June 2010 01:47, Mike Auty <ikelos@gentoo.org> wrote:
[...]
>> Which should not be an issue since any library that has some sort of
>> introspection can use this flag (and the use.desc can be changed
>> appropriately at that time if it does not use gobject-introspection).
>
> Why have to change it in the future (and probably split it into two
> flags then), when the choice hasn't been made yet?  Or, to put your own
> question to you, why are you vehemently for "introspection" when others
> have shown concern with the choice?  As far as I can see, the only
> difference is requiring a slightly longer use_enable line.

Mostly because I don't want to coin a new term if it's not absolutely necessary.

That said, you're right - more people seem to be comfortable with
"gintrospection" than plain "introspection". If no further objections
arise, we'll go with "gintrospection".

Thanks,
-- 
Arun Raghavan
http://arunraghavan.net/
(Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection

[Mart Raudsepp]

On K, 2010-06-23 at 09:33 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> On 23 June 2010 01:47, Mike Auty <ikelos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> [...]
> >> Which should not be an issue since any library that has some sort of
> >> introspection can use this flag (and the use.desc can be changed
> >> appropriately at that time if it does not use gobject-introspection).
> >
> > Why have to change it in the future (and probably split it into two
> > flags then), when the choice hasn't been made yet?  Or, to put your own
> > question to you, why are you vehemently for "introspection" when others
> > have shown concern with the choice?  As far as I can see, the only
> > difference is requiring a slightly longer use_enable line.
> 
> Mostly because I don't want to coin a new term if it's not absolutely necessary.
> 
> That said, you're right - more people seem to be comfortable with
> "gintrospection" than plain "introspection". If no further objections
> arise, we'll go with "gintrospection".

I object.


gintrospection doesn't describe anything. It's very hard to understand
from the USE flag name that it deals with introspection, as opposed, to,
uh, gint's or who knows what.

USE flags starting with "g" usually denote support for some GNU package,
not gnome, per some actual looking at use.desc.

Nothing stops QtCore packages to use the same USE flag name for the same
purpose - introspection. USE flags are primarily supposed to enable
certain functionality, not "allow to depend on this package". That
functionality is introspection. It just happens that the only framework
this is currently supported in is on top of GObject and the appropriate
gobject-introspection package.
Introspection has nothing to do with GNOME. Most GNOME modules are
written in C and don't need introspection information (primary exception
being gnome-shell and its javascript stuff). All packages that currently
depend on PyGTK will and should eventually use PyGi and in turn the
introspection information provided by the necessary used libraries. This
includes many GUI software that has no relation to GNOME, other than
using the same toolkit.

I can't imagine what else introspection means than what this USE flag is
proposed to provide to many libraries (would api-introspection be more
clear?), all of which just happen to be GObject based right now (and as
such detailed in the currently proposed global USE flag description), as
other base frameworks currently don't have any introspection support to
our knowledge.

Note that you will soon not be able to really avoid
gobject-introspection package on desktop systems (unless you are a Qt
junky that refuses to install anything not based on Qt), so this USE
flag really isn't about dependency control at all. It's about defining
if embedded images need a .typelib introspection file at runtime or not.
So that embedded GUI image builders would be able to globally disable
the USE flag and enable it per-package as necessary by applications
(represented with USE depends). If it weren't for that, we'd simply
always install them, they are just not that big compared to the include
files that get always installed too. But embedded guys can easily delete
all of /usr/include, but typelibs (containing the introspection data)
may be necessary at runtime.


-- 
Mart Raudsepp
Gentoo Developer
Mail: leio@gentoo.org
Weblog: http://blogs.gentoo.org/leio

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection

[Jacob Godserv]

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:33, Mike Auty <ikelos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Gintrospection gives more information (things starting with g are
> generally gnome related, which this is), and grepping for introspection
> will still turn it up.  It also solves the concerns that all the people
> on this thread have voiced about introspection being too generic.  I
> can't see why introspection is that much easier for people to "grok"?
> Gintrospection seems like a good compromise that everyone can agree on...

If you need help gathering consensus, you have this user's vote.

-- 
    Jacob

    "For then there will be great distress, unequaled
    from the beginning of the world until now — and never
    to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut
    short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the
    elect those days will be shortened."

    Are you ready?

Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: introspection

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 20 of June 2010 16:42:58 Arun Raghavan wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>> I'd like to propose a new global USE-flag: introspection.
>
> I don't mind adding it as globally recognizable USE flag, I'd mind however
> having it enabled by default in desktop/base profile.

There are no plans to enable this USE-flag in the desktop/base profiles.

> If Gnome needs it,
> please enable it in gnome subprofile if you wish (apart from setting all
> required USE deps in ebuilds),

There are no plans as yet to do this either.

> you can also use IUSE defaults for it which
> would allow more fine grained control or if you or Gnome devs decided to drop
> the idea at some point.
>

Most of the ebuilds with this USE-flag, have it enabled via IUSE
defaults, and that is how we plan to enable it. If that plan changes,
however, there will be an RFC on this mailing list as is the proper
procedure.

Thanks

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

[gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection

[Arun Raghavan]

On 20 June 2010 20:12, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@gentoo.org> wrote:
[...]
> Any objections? I'll wait till Wed (June 23rd) before adding this if
> there aren't any.

Is anyone here vehemently against "introspection".

-- 
Arun Raghavan
http://arunraghavan.net/
(Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection

[Maciej Mrozowski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1707 bytes --]

On Tuesday 22 of June 2010 19:14:38 Arun Raghavan wrote:
> On 20 June 2010 20:12, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@gentoo.org> wrote:
> [...]
> 
> > Any objections? I'll wait till Wed (June 23rd) before adding this if
> > there aren't any.
> 
> Is anyone here vehemently against "introspection".

Not vehemently, but how would you differentiate between gobject introspection 
or (let's say) DBus introspection or Kross (if anyone writes one).

'introspection' global USE flag simply cannot be described as:

"Use <pkg>dev-libs/gobject-introspection</pkg> for introspection</flag>"

because the term introspection is not specific to GObject. Period.

Now, I don't want to sound harsh, but I understand in Gnome camp (upstream) 
there's a tendency to use commonly used names for Gnome specific 
"technologies". For instance - there's WebKitGtk but tarballs is called (yes, 
you guessed it) - webkit-${PV}.tar.gz. It's like for many Desktop Environment 
means Gnome, Linux means Ubuntu and such.
The same applies to GObject introspection - in autotools there's --enable-
introspection switch for it like the term introspection was exclusive for 
GObject. Also many upstream developers working with Gnome/Gtk/Glib libs and 
using said GObject introspection will defend their right to hijack this term 
(like certain developer of a library I maintain in Gentoo).

I'd prefer not to see such practice here.
I'd suggest gobject-introspection USE flag instead - it's self describing.
If 'introspection' USE flag is to be used globally, it needs to have 
description implementation-agnostic, let's say:

"Enable runtime API introspection"

or something like this.

-- 
regards
MM

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