[gentoo-dev] RFC: ban cmake-utils_use_* in EAPI 6

[gentoo-dev] RFC: ban cmake-utils_use_* in EAPI 6

[Michael Palimaka]

cmake-utils.eclass currently defines 10 helper functions to assist in
configuring packages.

For example:

local mycmakeargs=(
	$(cmake-utils_use_with foo LibFoo)
)

which outputs -DWITH_LibFoo=ON or OFF

Most of these helpers were introduced before, and could be replaced by,
usex:

local mycmakeargs=(
	-DWITH_LibFoo=$(usex foo)
)

In bug #514384 it has been discussed banning many/all of these helpers
in EAPI 6 and later.

With usex, it's much clearer what actually get passed to cmake, reducing
the chance of incorrect arguments, but $(cmake-utils_use_with foo
LibFoo) is considered by some to be cleaner-looking and nicer to read
than -DWITH_LibFoo=$(usex foo)

The helpers also pass the same option multiple times with different
capitalisation variants:

$(cmake-utils_use_with foo) emits -DWITH_foo=OFF -DWITH_FOO=OFF
-DWITH_Foo=OFF

This makes ebuild maintenance a little bit easier, at the expense of
being less "correct" and unknown configure option warnings useless

The helpers themselves are listed below in order of the number of
packages using them:

cmake-utils_use_with		135
cmake-utils_use_enable 		106
cmake-utils_use_build		89
cmake-utils_use_find_package	75
cmake-utils_use_use		37
cmake-utils_use_disable		14
cmake-utils_use_want		10
cmake-utils_use_has		8
cmake-utils_use_no		3
cmake-utils_useno		2

What do you think?

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ban cmake-utils_use_* in EAPI 6

[Alexis Ballier]

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:53:17 +1100
Michael Palimaka <kensington@gentoo.org> wrote:

> What do you think?


+1

even if I sometimes use those cmake-utils_use*, they tend to confuse
me and find -DABCD=$(usex ...) much easier to understand for the
occasional user of cmake-utils.eclass.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ban cmake-utils_use_* in EAPI 6

[Brian Dolbec]

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:02:15 +0100
Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:53:17 +1100
> Michael Palimaka <kensington@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > What do you think?  
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> even if I sometimes use those cmake-utils_use*, they tend to confuse
> me and find -DABCD=$(usex ...) much easier to understand for the
> occasional user of cmake-utils.eclass.
> 


Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought EAPI 6 specifications were
finalized.

Doesn't that mean this will have to wait for EAPI 7?

-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen>

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ban cmake-utils_use_* in EAPI 6

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 937 bytes --]

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 07:23:55 -0800
Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:02:15 +0100
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:53:17 +1100
> > Michael Palimaka <kensington@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > What do you think?    
> > 
> > 
> > +1
> > 
> > even if I sometimes use those cmake-utils_use*, they tend to confuse
> > me and find -DABCD=$(usex ...) much easier to understand for the
> > occasional user of cmake-utils.eclass.
> >   
> 
> 
> Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought EAPI 6 specifications were
> finalized.
> 
> Doesn't that mean this will have to wait for EAPI 7?

It's eclass API, so it's free to change anytime. Using a new EAPI to
change eclass API has the benefit that you can ban new uses of
deprecated functions without breaking existing ebuilds.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ban cmake-utils_use_* in EAPI 6

[Mike Gilbert]

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:02:15 +0100
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:53:17 +1100
>> Michael Palimaka <kensington@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> > What do you think?
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> even if I sometimes use those cmake-utils_use*, they tend to confuse
>> me and find -DABCD=$(usex ...) much easier to understand for the
>> occasional user of cmake-utils.eclass.
>>
>
>
> Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought EAPI 6 specifications were
> finalized.
>
> Doesn't that mean this will have to wait for EAPI 7?

eclass API is not directly tied to EAPI/PMS. However,
cmake-utils.eclass has this:

case ${EAPI} in
    2|3|4|5) : ;;
    *) die "EAPI=${EAPI:-0} is not supported" ;;
esac

That means that its API is currently undefined when EAPI is set to 6;
the eclass will immediately die.

This is just a convenient opportunity to change the API of this eclass
without risking breakage of existing ebuilds.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ban cmake-utils_use_* in EAPI 6

[Brian Dolbec]

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:47:35 -0500
Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:02:15 +0100
> > Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >  
> >> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:53:17 +1100
> >> Michael Palimaka <kensington@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>  
> >> > What do you think?  
> >>
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> even if I sometimes use those cmake-utils_use*, they tend to
> >> confuse me and find -DABCD=$(usex ...) much easier to understand
> >> for the occasional user of cmake-utils.eclass.
> >>  
> >
> >
> > Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought EAPI 6 specifications were
> > finalized.
> >
> > Doesn't that mean this will have to wait for EAPI 7?  
> 
> eclass API is not directly tied to EAPI/PMS. However,
> cmake-utils.eclass has this:
> 
> case ${EAPI} in
>     2|3|4|5) : ;;
>     *) die "EAPI=${EAPI:-0} is not supported" ;;
> esac
> 
> That means that its API is currently undefined when EAPI is set to 6;
> the eclass will immediately die.
> 
> This is just a convenient opportunity to change the API of this eclass
> without risking breakage of existing ebuilds.
> 

Thanks to both Michael and Mike.

I didn't read enough of the emails and missed this was about eclass
API's

-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen>

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ban cmake-utils_use_* in EAPI 6

[Davide Pesavento]

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Michael Palimaka
<kensington@gentoo.org> wrote:
[...]
>
> What do you think?

+1 for banning them.

Thanks,
Davide

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ban cmake-utils_use_* in EAPI 6

[Jason Zaman]

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 09:53:17PM +1100, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> 	$(cmake-utils_use_with foo LibFoo)
> 	-DWITH_LibFoo=$(usex foo)
> 
> What do you think?

Do it! I have no idea what the cmake one is supposed to do without
reading docs. The usex one is really obvious.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ban cmake-utils_use_* in EAPI 6

[agentsmith]

On 11/18/2015 01:53 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
  What do you think?
+1