From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECD7B138792 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 17:00:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 97A54E0A45; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 17:00:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95C19E09C5 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 17:00:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69E1433EE63 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 17:00:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.669 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.531, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G79FWZfFAcT9 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 17:00:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CA4233EEC3 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 17:00:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VcI4p-0001Ya-TS for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:00:04 +0100 Received: from ppp-168-31.20-151.libero.it ([151.20.31.168]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:00:03 +0100 Received: from just22.adl by ppp-168-31.20-151.libero.it with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:00:03 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Alessandro DE LAURENZIS Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: vim and gvim package split Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 16:52:52 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20131031230212.1ea303a9@egeo.atlantide.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 151.20.31.168 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686) AppleWebKit/535.22+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Chromium/17.0.963.56 Chrome/17.0.963.56 Safari/535.22+ dwb/2013.10.20) X-Archives-Salt: 9e7a5c53-1e01-4511-be05-4371ae91ea2b X-Archives-Hash: a39cfd8d36154ccdcc35d2166c161bf9 Kent Fredric gmail.com> writes: > Useflags have their perks for giving variations on behaviour, but having 3 > effective packages in one, governed by useflags, means you'll have 3 much > more tightly coupled packages, and the code will be much messier with > useflag conditionals to pull dependencies. > > If you imagine useflags like "if" statements, and ebuilds like independent > classes where "dependencies" are a kind of inheritance, you may find theres' > reasonable benefits for the maintenance side e.g.: people checking reverse > deps for QT don't have to worry about changes in QT breaking vim and gvim > because those packages are independent of QT interaction > > > Fixes that need to go in to make building vs QT mean only the qvim ebuild > gets updated and the rest are fine as-is. > > The only real downside is if you're building all 3 {q,g,}vim there's a > little compile time overhead as a result ( Though I'm not sure what the > difference is in real terms ) > > But by having them seperate, we enjoy a more robust installation, > especially for people who only want one of the 3, then they're not > needlessly burdened by logic to handle things they're not using, which > could break. > > Not to mention you have to deal with overheads introduced by having to > work out the equivalent of all three of the above having vastly different > useflags and making useflags conditional upon each other as a result to > codify the same behaviour, again, further raising the odds that a situtation > will arise where things break and the dependencies/use flags are a mess. Kent, all your argumentations make sense, but actually only apply to vim-qt, which isn't in fact in the vim main tree. In other words: it's normal that vim and vim-qt are two different packages, but gvim is just vim with the GUI interface (neither an add-on nor a different project); playing with USE flags in /etc/portage/package.use should give easy access to all the possible options: - only vim ("-gtk"); - gvim ("gtk"); - qvim ("-gtk" for vim and vim-qt as package, having vim as dependency); - or even both ("gtk" for vim and vim-qt). What's wrong or complex (from a mantainer perspective) with this? Thanks for your comments