[gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

[gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

[Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina]

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

I have a personal vendetta on this subject. Several eclasses set a
completely worthless description (and even more set a mostly worthless
DESCRIPTION) which ends up contaminating the DESCRIPTION for an ebuild
when inherit is done after DESCRIPTION is set.

I realize that most of you will find this a little pedantic, however, I
find that needing to move my DESCRIPTION to below the inherit often
severely affects the readability of the ebuild, and all to avoid a
completely (or nearly) worthless DESCRIPTION from contaminating my
environment.

In my opinion, the text "# @DESCRIPTION" in an eclass is more than
enough for readability, and setting DESCRIPTION only serves to
contaminate the environment.  The is especially true for the following
eclasses that set the DESCRIPTION from the subject:

ozzie eclass # grep 'DESCRIPTION="Based on the ' *.eclass
cannadic.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the $ECLASS eclass"
confutils.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
embassy.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the $ECLASS eclass"
eutils.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
games.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
gnatbuild.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
gnuconfig.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
libtool.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
linux-mod.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the $ECLASS eclass"
nsplugins.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
perl-module.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the $ECLASS eclass"
qmail.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
toolchain-funcs.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

Although these are the ones that make me the most unhappy, I see no
purpose for setting DESCRIPTION in any eclass as it really serves no
purpose to source the eclass then source the ebuild 0.01s later and
overwrite the DESCRIPTION.  Fixing this is not difficult, unlikely to
affect anything, but will help avoid one tiny little annoyance that
really looks like a relic from a time long long ago.

Thanks for the consideration

- -Zero
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=RBrr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

[Ciaran McCreesh]

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

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:51:54 -0400
"Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I have a personal vendetta on this subject. Several eclasses set a
> completely worthless description (and even more set a mostly worthless
> DESCRIPTION) which ends up contaminating the DESCRIPTION for an ebuild
> when inherit is done after DESCRIPTION is set.

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/78813/

> I realize that most of you will find this a little pedantic, however,
> I find that needing to move my DESCRIPTION to below the inherit often
> severely affects the readability of the ebuild, and all to avoid a
> completely (or nearly) worthless DESCRIPTION from contaminating my
> environment.

You want your inherit line to be as near as the top as possible. The
only things you should have before the inherit line are EAPI and any
variables used by eclasses to determine behaviour.

- -- 
Ciaran McCreesh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlBTmfcACgkQ96zL6DUtXhGzDgCcCn6mOes+8eswLl58ba6CBX4v
MisAoLNLzGivS6pDZHDF4YZv2poAY7K/
=/5qc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

[Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina]

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

On 09/14/2012 04:56 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:51:54 -0400
> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> I have a personal vendetta on this subject. Several eclasses set a
>> completely worthless description (and even more set a mostly worthless
>> DESCRIPTION) which ends up contaminating the DESCRIPTION for an ebuild
>> when inherit is done after DESCRIPTION is set.
> 
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/78813/
> 
>> I realize that most of you will find this a little pedantic, however,
>> I find that needing to move my DESCRIPTION to below the inherit often
>> severely affects the readability of the ebuild, and all to avoid a
>> completely (or nearly) worthless DESCRIPTION from contaminating my
>> environment.
> 
> You want your inherit line to be as near as the top as possible. The
> only things you should have before the inherit line are EAPI and any
> variables used by eclasses to determine behaviour.
> 
>
I have a nasty habit of writing ebuilds to be both live and versioned
which requires me to test ${PV} then set things like inherit VCS,
SRC-URI, and KEYWORDS below.  The large if block looks better in my
opinion below the settings which are the same for all versions, rather
than in the middle.

Yes, it's a readability issue, but the point is, this shouldn't be an
issue at all.

- -Zero


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=50OQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1706 bytes --]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:18:16 -0400
"Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 09/14/2012 04:56 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:51:54 -0400
> > "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> I have a personal vendetta on this subject. Several eclasses set a
> >> completely worthless description (and even more set a mostly
> >> worthless DESCRIPTION) which ends up contaminating the DESCRIPTION
> >> for an ebuild when inherit is done after DESCRIPTION is set.
> > 
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/78813/
> > 
> >> I realize that most of you will find this a little pedantic,
> >> however, I find that needing to move my DESCRIPTION to below the
> >> inherit often severely affects the readability of the ebuild, and
> >> all to avoid a completely (or nearly) worthless DESCRIPTION from
> >> contaminating my environment.
> > 
> > You want your inherit line to be as near as the top as possible. The
> > only things you should have before the inherit line are EAPI and any
> > variables used by eclasses to determine behaviour.
> > 
> >
> I have a nasty habit of writing ebuilds to be both live and versioned
> which requires me to test ${PV} then set things like inherit VCS,
> SRC-URI, and KEYWORDS below.  The large if block looks better in my
> opinion below the settings which are the same for all versions, rather
> than in the middle.
> 
> Yes, it's a readability issue, but the point is, this shouldn't be an
> issue at all.

Use unifdef. Look at my overlay, and my ebuilds in the tree.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

[Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina]

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

On 09/14/2012 05:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:18:16 -0400
> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 09/14/2012 04:56 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:51:54 -0400
>>> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> I have a personal vendetta on this subject. Several eclasses set a
>>>> completely worthless description (and even more set a mostly
>>>> worthless DESCRIPTION) which ends up contaminating the DESCRIPTION
>>>> for an ebuild when inherit is done after DESCRIPTION is set.
>>>
>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/78813/
>>>
>>>> I realize that most of you will find this a little pedantic,
>>>> however, I find that needing to move my DESCRIPTION to below the
>>>> inherit often severely affects the readability of the ebuild, and
>>>> all to avoid a completely (or nearly) worthless DESCRIPTION from
>>>> contaminating my environment.
>>>
>>> You want your inherit line to be as near as the top as possible. The
>>> only things you should have before the inherit line are EAPI and any
>>> variables used by eclasses to determine behaviour.
>>>
>>>
>> I have a nasty habit of writing ebuilds to be both live and versioned
>> which requires me to test ${PV} then set things like inherit VCS,
>> SRC-URI, and KEYWORDS below.  The large if block looks better in my
>> opinion below the settings which are the same for all versions, rather
>> than in the middle.
>>
>> Yes, it's a readability issue, but the point is, this shouldn't be an
>> issue at all.
> 
> Use unifdef. Look at my overlay, and my ebuilds in the tree.
> 

So just so we are clear, everyone but me thinks that DESCRIPTION="Based
on the ${ECLASS} eclass" is a completely useful and critically required
piece of code?

That is really what this boils done to, it isn't.  Seriously, I've read
some worthless code in my day and written a lot more of it, but this is
something that is completely unneeded and causes extra work maintaining
the tree. We could extend repoman to detect when an eclass description
is polluting an ebuild, OR we could remove the completely useless code.

If give the choice between "Clean the code and it works right" or "Hack
around the solution and write extra code to detect when you need to hack
around the solution" you can clearly imagine where I sit.

If anyone wants to explain to me why that DESCRIPTION line is so
critical that it must exist yet not important enough to put something
worthwhile in I'm all ears. Until that point I'll probably keep bringing
this up.

Thanks,
Zero
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=eUD1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

[Mike Frysinger]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> I have a personal vendetta on this subject. Several eclasses set a
> completely worthless description (and even more set a mostly worthless
> DESCRIPTION) which ends up contaminating the DESCRIPTION for an ebuild
> when inherit is done after DESCRIPTION is set.

looks like you've already triaged the bug.  fix the ebuilds.
-mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

[Mike Gilbert]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
<zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> So just so we are clear, everyone but me thinks that DESCRIPTION="Based
> on the ${ECLASS} eclass" is a completely useful and critically required
> piece of code?
>

I don't think anyone really cares, and it doesn't seem like anyone is
going to get in your way if you want to remove it. Maybe ping each
maintainer, and proceed if they don't object.

Re: [gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2351 bytes --]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:43:42 -0400
"Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 09/14/2012 05:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:18:16 -0400
> > "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> On 09/14/2012 04:56 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:51:54 -0400
> >>> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>>> I have a personal vendetta on this subject. Several eclasses set
> >>>> a completely worthless description (and even more set a mostly
> >>>> worthless DESCRIPTION) which ends up contaminating the
> >>>> DESCRIPTION for an ebuild when inherit is done after DESCRIPTION
> >>>> is set.
> >>>
> >>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/78813/
> >>>
> >>>> I realize that most of you will find this a little pedantic,
> >>>> however, I find that needing to move my DESCRIPTION to below the
> >>>> inherit often severely affects the readability of the ebuild, and
> >>>> all to avoid a completely (or nearly) worthless DESCRIPTION from
> >>>> contaminating my environment.
> >>>
> >>> You want your inherit line to be as near as the top as possible.
> >>> The only things you should have before the inherit line are EAPI
> >>> and any variables used by eclasses to determine behaviour.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I have a nasty habit of writing ebuilds to be both live and
> >> versioned which requires me to test ${PV} then set things like
> >> inherit VCS, SRC-URI, and KEYWORDS below.  The large if block
> >> looks better in my opinion below the settings which are the same
> >> for all versions, rather than in the middle.
> >>
> >> Yes, it's a readability issue, but the point is, this shouldn't be
> >> an issue at all.
> > 
> > Use unifdef. Look at my overlay, and my ebuilds in the tree.
> > 
> 
> So just so we are clear, everyone but me thinks that
> DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass" is a completely useful
> and critically required piece of code?

No. We agree with you that it is useless but you are saying that with
a *completely* wrong reasoning.

> Until that point I'll probably keep bringing this up.

Don't forget to threaten us that you'll leave Gentoo.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

[Sergei Trofimovich]

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

> In my opinion, the text "# @DESCRIPTION" in an eclass is more than
> enough for readability, and setting DESCRIPTION only serves to
> contaminate the environment.  The is especially true for the following
> eclasses that set the DESCRIPTION from the subject:
> 
> ozzie eclass # grep 'DESCRIPTION="Based on the ' *.eclass
> cannadic.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the $ECLASS eclass"
> confutils.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
> embassy.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the $ECLASS eclass"
> eutils.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
> games.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
> gnatbuild.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
> gnuconfig.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
> libtool.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
> linux-mod.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the $ECLASS eclass"
> nsplugins.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
> perl-module.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the $ECLASS eclass"
> qmail.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
> toolchain-funcs.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
> 
> Although these are the ones that make me the most unhappy, I see no
> purpose for setting DESCRIPTION in any eclass as it really serves no
> purpose to source the eclass then source the ebuild 0.01s later and
> overwrite the DESCRIPTION.  Fixing this is not difficult, unlikely to
> affect anything, but will help avoid one tiny little annoyance that
> really looks like a relic from a time long long ago.

Right, it forbids repoman perform DESCRIPTION.missing check
and makes no sense in multiple inheritance case.

metadata/md5-cache:LANG=C fgrep -R "Based on " .
./sys-fs/sysfsutils-2.1.0:DESCRIPTION=System Utilities Based on Sysfs

None of in-tree users relies on the value. Thus you can wipe them while
nobody is watching :]
 
- -- 

  Sergei
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlBUQ/UACgkQcaHudmEf86qP3gCfftVveos4vrjFbUFSfqauVjm1
8c8AnRS8K4NG5NttW79RN5P9aYWY+Pju
=oDKV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

[Kent Fredric]

On 15 September 2012 08:51, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
<zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> ozzie eclass # grep 'DESCRIPTION="Based on the ' *.eclass
> cannadic.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the $ECLASS eclass"
> confutils.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
> embassy.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the $ECLASS eclass"
> eutils.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
> games.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
> gnatbuild.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
> gnuconfig.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
> libtool.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
> linux-mod.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the $ECLASS eclass"
> nsplugins.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
> perl-module.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the $ECLASS eclass"
> qmail.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"
> toolchain-funcs.eclass:DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

+1.

There's no use cases I know of where having a description as such is useful.

Either the Eclass should be able to provide a useful DESCRIPTION for
each and every derived ebuild, or it should provide none at all.

Maybe the Eclass has a translation from $P to $DESCRIPTION somehow
that is useful, but "Based on the ECLASS eclass" is about as useful as
DESCRIPTION="An EAPI $EAPI Ebuild" or  just "An Ebuild", or just no
description at all.

If the usecase for this is "Sometimes people will want to write an
ebuild and not provide a description at all, and don't care that its
not useful", then it shoudn't be supported by a nasty hack in the
parent eclass, Portage should instead support a missing DESCRIPTION
feature.


-- 
Kent

perl -e  "print substr( \"edrgmaM  SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3,
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );"

http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz

[gentoo-dev] Re: DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

[Duncan]

Kent Fredric posted on Sat, 15 Sep 2012 23:52:16 +1200 as excerpted:

> If the usecase for this is "Sometimes people will want to write an
> ebuild and not provide a description at all, and don't care that its not
> useful",
> then it shoudn't be supported by a nasty hack in the parent eclass,
> Portage should instead support a missing DESCRIPTION feature.

Ciaranm already posted this link, from an earlier discussion, that 
describes why that thing's there.  It's legacy and it /should/ be gotten 
rid of I think most would agree (I certainly do as a user; it's a hassle 
and an eyesore).  Only nobody has cared to take on the responsibility of 
double-checking to make sure removing it doesn't break anything and of 
fixing anything they miss if it does anyway, so there the cruft still 
sits.

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/78813/

Bottom line, I doubt there'd be any complaints if those lines 
"disappeared", as long as anything broken in the process equally 
magically just "got fixed".

-- 
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

[gentoo-dev] Re: DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

[Duncan]

Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina posted on Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:43:42 -0400 as
excerpted:

> If anyone wants to explain to me why that DESCRIPTION line is so
> critical that it must exist yet not important enough to put something
> worthwhile in I'm all ears. Until that point I'll probably keep bringing
> this up.

Did you read the up-thread link Ciaran posted?

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/78813/

IOW, it's legacy.  They could probably "disappear", if anybody was 
willing to spend the time investigating, then fixing anything that broke 
when the lines "disappeared".  But it's simply easier to go with "don't 
fix what's not broken", and just leave it be.  Let someone else take that 
risk.

But as long as any breakage "magically disappeared" to wherever the 
DESCRIPTIONs went, I don't expect there'd be many complaints...

-- 
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: DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

[Zac Medico]

On 09/15/2012 08:06 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina posted on Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:43:42 -0400 as
> excerpted:
> 
>> If anyone wants to explain to me why that DESCRIPTION line is so
>> critical that it must exist yet not important enough to put something
>> worthwhile in I'm all ears. Until that point I'll probably keep bringing
>> this up.
> 
> Did you read the up-thread link Ciaran posted?
> 
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/78813/
> 
> IOW, it's legacy.  They could probably "disappear", if anybody was 
> willing to spend the time investigating, then fixing anything that broke 
> when the lines "disappeared".  But it's simply easier to go with "don't 
> fix what's not broken", and just leave it be.  Let someone else take that 
> risk.
> 
> But as long as any breakage "magically disappeared" to wherever the 
> DESCRIPTIONs went, I don't expect there'd be many complaints...

I've gone ahead and removed them. I can't imagine that it will break
anything. After the change, all of the ebuilds still have non-empty
DESCRIPTION metadata.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

[Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina]

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

On 09/15/2012 03:59 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:43:42 -0400
> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/14/2012 05:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:18:16 -0400
>>> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 09/14/2012 04:56 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:51:54 -0400
>>>>> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>> I have a personal vendetta on this subject. Several eclasses set
>>>>>> a completely worthless description (and even more set a mostly
>>>>>> worthless DESCRIPTION) which ends up contaminating the
>>>>>> DESCRIPTION for an ebuild when inherit is done after DESCRIPTION
>>>>>> is set.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/78813/
>>>>>
>>>>>> I realize that most of you will find this a little pedantic,
>>>>>> however, I find that needing to move my DESCRIPTION to below the
>>>>>> inherit often severely affects the readability of the ebuild, and
>>>>>> all to avoid a completely (or nearly) worthless DESCRIPTION from
>>>>>> contaminating my environment.
>>>>>
>>>>> You want your inherit line to be as near as the top as possible.
>>>>> The only things you should have before the inherit line are EAPI
>>>>> and any variables used by eclasses to determine behaviour.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I have a nasty habit of writing ebuilds to be both live and
>>>> versioned which requires me to test ${PV} then set things like
>>>> inherit VCS, SRC-URI, and KEYWORDS below.  The large if block
>>>> looks better in my opinion below the settings which are the same
>>>> for all versions, rather than in the middle.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it's a readability issue, but the point is, this shouldn't be
>>>> an issue at all.
>>>
>>> Use unifdef. Look at my overlay, and my ebuilds in the tree.
>>>
>>
>> So just so we are clear, everyone but me thinks that
>> DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass" is a completely useful
>> and critically required piece of code?
> 
> No. We agree with you that it is useless but you are saying that with
> a *completely* wrong reasoning.
> 
>> Until that point I'll probably keep bringing this up.
> 
> Don't forget to threaten us that you'll leave Gentoo.

While I may be completely unreasonable in my requests you will never see
those words spoken from me.  If all of you quit I'd develop gentoo
(poorly) by myself and if I was kicked out (which I'll try to avoid)
I'll keep developing Pentoo based on Gentoo as I have been for the last
7 years.  Please don't mistake my belly aching for a lack of dedication
to this project, it is precisely my dedication that causes me to care so
much.

- -Zero
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=LAXF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] Re: DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

[Duncan]

Zac Medico posted on Sat, 15 Sep 2012 10:01:49 -0700 as excerpted:

> I've gone ahead and removed them. I can't imagine that it will break
> anything. After the change, all of the ebuilds still have non-empty
> DESCRIPTION metadata.

"And there was much rejoicing in gentoo-land!" =:^)

-- 
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] DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

[Markos Chandras]

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:43:42 -0400
> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> On 09/14/2012 05:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:18:16 -0400
>> > "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >> Hash: SHA1
>> >>
>> >> On 09/14/2012 04:56 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:51:54 -0400
>> >>> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> >>>> I have a personal vendetta on this subject. Several eclasses set
>> >>>> a completely worthless description (and even more set a mostly
>> >>>> worthless DESCRIPTION) which ends up contaminating the
>> >>>> DESCRIPTION for an ebuild when inherit is done after DESCRIPTION
>> >>>> is set.
>> >>>
>> >>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/78813/
>> >>>
>> >>>> I realize that most of you will find this a little pedantic,
>> >>>> however, I find that needing to move my DESCRIPTION to below the
>> >>>> inherit often severely affects the readability of the ebuild, and
>> >>>> all to avoid a completely (or nearly) worthless DESCRIPTION from
>> >>>> contaminating my environment.
>> >>>
>> >>> You want your inherit line to be as near as the top as possible.
>> >>> The only things you should have before the inherit line are EAPI
>> >>> and any variables used by eclasses to determine behaviour.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> I have a nasty habit of writing ebuilds to be both live and
>> >> versioned which requires me to test ${PV} then set things like
>> >> inherit VCS, SRC-URI, and KEYWORDS below.  The large if block
>> >> looks better in my opinion below the settings which are the same
>> >> for all versions, rather than in the middle.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, it's a readability issue, but the point is, this shouldn't be
>> >> an issue at all.
>> >
>> > Use unifdef. Look at my overlay, and my ebuilds in the tree.
>> >
>>
>> So just so we are clear, everyone but me thinks that
>> DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass" is a completely useful
>> and critically required piece of code?
>
> No. We agree with you that it is useless but you are saying that with
> a *completely* wrong reasoning.
>
>> Until that point I'll probably keep bringing this up.
>
> Don't forget to threaten us that you'll leave Gentoo.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny

This was uncalled-for. I see no such tone from his e-mails. We need no
more flames. We had enough of these already.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2