[gentoo-dev] Stricter --newuse settings

[gentoo-dev] Stricter --newuse settings

[Caleb Cushing]

I know that newuse is stricter now. but do my packages really have to
want to rebuild because a flag was hard masked. e.g. arts when I had
-arts in my make.conf already? seems like it's a little too strict.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stricter --newuse settings

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 941 bytes --]

On Tuesday 28 November 2006 18:40, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> I know that newuse is stricter now. but do my packages really have to
> want to rebuild because a flag was hard masked. e.g. arts when I had
> -arts in my make.conf already? seems like it's a little too strict.
This is not because of a use.mask over a flag, I'm afraid. I've removed some 
arts useflags in the past days, a they are currently showing everywhere 
there's a kde eclass uasage, this is suboptimal as most of the times arts is 
not actually needed there.

When a flag is removed from a package it might be the same as having it 
disabled or enabled, it depends, so --newuse does its job by rebuilding the 
package.

Indeed even when a package _requires_ arts, I remove the useflag and force 
arts on.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK, Ruby ...

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stricter --newuse settings

[Alec Warner]

Caleb Cushing wrote:
> I know that newuse is stricter now. but do my packages really have to
> want to rebuild because a flag was hard masked. e.g. arts when I had
> -arts in my make.conf already? seems like it's a little too strict.

You are free to file a bug at bugs.gentoo.org.  If a flag goes from 
'off' to 'masked on your arch' then the flag shouldn't show up in newuse 
(IMHO).  However I haven't looked at the code that manages it in some 
time so I am unsure if this is the case.

In the end before filing the bug make sure you have can explain exactly 
which use case you are referring to.

Thanks,

Alec Warner
antarus@gentoo.org
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Stricter --newuse settings

[Duncan]

"Diego 'Flameeyes' =?iso-8859-1?q?Petten=F2?=" <flameeyes@gentoo.org>
posted 200611281926.38355@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org, excerpted
below, on  Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:26:28 +0100:

> On Tuesday 28 November 2006 18:40, Caleb Cushing wrote:
>> I know that newuse is stricter now. but do my packages really have to
>> want to rebuild because a flag was hard masked. e.g. arts when I had
>> -arts in my make.conf already? seems like it's a little too strict.

> This is not because of a use.mask over a flag, I'm afraid. I've removed
> some arts useflags in the past days, a they are currently showing
> everywhere there's a kde eclass uasage, this is suboptimal as most of the
> times arts is not actually needed there.
> 
> When a flag is removed from a package it might be the same as having it
> disabled or enabled, it depends, so --newuse does its job by rebuilding
> the package.
> 
> Indeed even when a package _requires_ arts, I remove the useflag and force
> arts on.

Thanks for your hard work, Diego (and everyone else too, but I'm a KDE
user so appreciate this in particular). It's appreciated and makes for a
better Gentoo, altho I too have been known to gripe under my breath at
whatever USE flag removal forcing --newuser rebuild, when I as a /human/
know it's not needed.

The question that has occurred to me is if there might be some way to
implement a package.newusemask or the like.  I haven't hashed out the
details, therefore no bug filed, but since the topic is raised...  The
idea is some way, here suggested as a package.newsusemask file, for a
sysadmin to in effect say "OK, I've seen that --newuse change and for
whatever reason, don't want to bother with that particular package right
now, so ignore that change for now, as if it hadn't happened."  With such
an implementation in place, an entry such as what might be added to
package.use could now be added to package.newusemask, and portage would
then ignore changes to that USE dependency for that atom.

So, portage devs, is this reasonable, or entirely unworkable for some
reason that hasn't occurred to me?  If it's reasonable, are we looking at a
small change or a big change, and at what relative priority and timeframe
is implementation possible/likely?

-- 
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@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Stricter --newuse settings

[Vlastimil Babka]

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

Duncan wrote:
> whatever USE flag removal forcing --newuser rebuild, when I as a /human/
> know it's not needed.

If you're sure you know it's not needed, just edit
/var/db/pkg/$cat/$pkg/{USE,IUSE} to reflect that (i.e. if there was arts
flag removed and you know the ebuild didn't actually need/use it, remove
it from IUSE, and possibly USE) and --newuse won't trigger no more.
It's a bit of hack, but works, for user it's the same amount of work as
editing some newuse.mask file, for portage developers it's no work :)

- --
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFbZFTtbrAj05h3oQRAv/LAJ0aSg/d7oTUwMJyrYPycxpPqJ4megCglkrp
JmNwj5Cgp5hQctTgyE0/BIk=
=VFVl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Stricter --newuse settings

[Alec Warner]

Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Duncan wrote:
>> whatever USE flag removal forcing --newuser rebuild, when I as a /human/
>> know it's not needed.
> 
> If you're sure you know it's not needed, just edit
> /var/db/pkg/$cat/$pkg/{USE,IUSE} to reflect that (i.e. if there was arts
> flag removed and you know the ebuild didn't actually need/use it, remove
> it from IUSE, and possibly USE) and --newuse won't trigger no more.
> It's a bit of hack, but works, for user it's the same amount of work as
> editing some newuse.mask file, for portage developers it's no work :)
> 
> - --
> Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
> Gentoo/Java

oi, don't recommend people edit the vdb *cringes*
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Stricter --newuse settings

[Duncan]

Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> posted 456DB725.9040402@gentoo.org,
excerpted below, on  Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:36:53 -0500:

> Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> 
>> Duncan wrote:
>>> whatever USE flag removal forcing --newuser rebuild, when I as a
>>> /human/ know it's not needed.
>> 
>> If you're sure you know it's not needed, just edit
>> /var/db/pkg/$cat/$pkg/{USE,IUSE} to reflect that (i.e. if there was
>> arts flag removed and you know the ebuild didn't actually need/use it,
>> remove it from IUSE, and possibly USE) and --newuse won't trigger no
>> more. It's a bit of hack, but works, for user it's the same amount of
>> work as editing some newuse.mask file, for portage developers it's no
>> work :)
>> 
> oi, don't recommend people edit the vdb *cringes*

LOL.  Such a hack didn't occur to me, probably for just that reason (tho
like many hacks, it might prove useful at times, for personal use
only with an appropriate pre-hack backup of course).  It occurs to me that
portage devs may prefer the bit of work to "no work", but having to deal
with the consequential bug biteback should this recommendation enter
common usage.

-- 
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@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Stricter --newuse settings

[Marius Mauch]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:34:57 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:

> Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> posted 456DB725.9040402@gentoo.org,
> excerpted below, on  Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:36:53 -0500:
> 
> > Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> 
> >> Duncan wrote:
> >>> whatever USE flag removal forcing --newuser rebuild, when I as a
> >>> /human/ know it's not needed.
> >> 
> >> If you're sure you know it's not needed, just edit
> >> /var/db/pkg/$cat/$pkg/{USE,IUSE} to reflect that (i.e. if there was
> >> arts flag removed and you know the ebuild didn't actually need/use it,
> >> remove it from IUSE, and possibly USE) and --newuse won't trigger no
> >> more. It's a bit of hack, but works, for user it's the same amount of
> >> work as editing some newuse.mask file, for portage developers it's no
> >> work :)
> >> 
> > oi, don't recommend people edit the vdb *cringes*
> 
> LOL.  Such a hack didn't occur to me, probably for just that reason (tho
> like many hacks, it might prove useful at times, for personal use
> only with an appropriate pre-hack backup of course).  It occurs to me that
> portage devs may prefer the bit of work to "no work", but having to deal
> with the consequential bug biteback should this recommendation enter
> common usage.

Well, I definitely prefer people doing it manually than adding an emerge option to do exactly that (as was already suggested a while ago), that leaves at least the hope that they know what they're doing. But I guess making --newuse somewhat configurable wouldn't hurt (too many people annoyed with it recently).

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Stricter --newuse settings

[Steve Long]

Marius Mauch wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:34:57 +0000 (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> 
>> Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> posted 456DB725.9040402@gentoo.org,
>> excerpted below, on  Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:36:53 -0500:
>> 
>> > Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> Duncan wrote:
>> >>> whatever USE flag removal forcing --newuser rebuild, when I as a
>> >>> /human/ know it's not needed.
>> >> 
>> >> If you're sure you know it's not needed, just edit
>> >> /var/db/pkg/$cat/$pkg/{USE,IUSE} to reflect that (i.e. if there was
>> >> arts flag removed and you know the ebuild didn't actually need/use it,
>> >> remove it from IUSE, and possibly USE) and --newuse won't trigger no
>> >> more. It's a bit of hack, but works, for user it's the same amount of
>> >> work as editing some newuse.mask file, for portage developers it's no
>> >> work :)
>> >> 
>> > oi, don't recommend people edit the vdb *cringes*
>> 
>> LOL.  Such a hack didn't occur to me, probably for just that reason (tho
>> like many hacks, it might prove useful at times, for personal use
>> only with an appropriate pre-hack backup of course).  It occurs to me
>> that portage devs may prefer the bit of work to "no work", but having to
>> deal with the consequential bug biteback should this recommendation enter
>> common usage.
> 
> Well, I definitely prefer people doing it manually than adding an emerge
> option to do exactly that (as was already suggested a while ago), that
> leaves at least the hope that they know what they're doing. But I guess
> making --newuse somewhat configurable wouldn't hurt (too many people
> annoyed with it recently).
> 
> Marius

Dunno about the other annoyances; what changes are required?

As for doing it manually, there seems to be a good case for providing new
users with a method that doesn't require editing /vdb.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list