[gentoo-dev] Additional USE_EXPAND variables: E_MODULES and E_MODULES_CONF

[gentoo-dev] Additional USE_EXPAND variables: E_MODULES and E_MODULES_CONF

[Thomas Sachau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 209 bytes --]

If there are no objections, i plan to add E_MODULES and E_MODULES_CONF
to the list of USE_EXPAND variables for x11-wm/enlightenment:0.17, in
the next days.

-- 

Thomas Sachau
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 377 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Additional USE_EXPAND variables: E_MODULES and E_MODULES_CONF

[Alexis Ballier]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:41:05 +0100
Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> wrote:

> If there are no objections, i plan to add E_MODULES and E_MODULES_CONF
> to the list of USE_EXPAND variables for x11-wm/enlightenment:0.17, in
> the next days.
> 

i doubt there will be any objection but with such information there
cant be any :)

- there is no x11-wm/enlightenment:0.17 in the tree
- what will be the possible values and use case of these variables ?
- considering gentoo generally uses e-prefixed names (econf, emake,
  etc.) maybe its wiser to name the variables E17_* instead of only
  E_*, or ENLIGHTENMENT_*, so that it makes the "confusion" harder.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Additional USE_EXPAND variables: E_MODULES and E_MODULES_CONF

[Thomas Sachau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1472 bytes --]

Alexis Ballier schrieb:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:41:05 +0100
> Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> If there are no objections, i plan to add E_MODULES and E_MODULES_CONF
>> to the list of USE_EXPAND variables for x11-wm/enlightenment:0.17, in
>> the next days.
>>
> 
> i doubt there will be any objection but with such information there
> cant be any :)

You destroyed my plan ;-)
> 
> - there is no x11-wm/enlightenment:0.17 in the tree

This is currently in the enlightenment overlay. Since there are now
alpha snapshots, i plan to add it to the main tree after doing some
tests in the overlay (including the usage of the USE_EXPAND variable).

> - what will be the possible values and use case of these variables ?

e17 has a good amount of modules, which can be excluded at compile time.
Each module has a USE flag, some examples for those USE flags:

e_modules_conf-theme, e_modules_conf-wallpaper2, e_modules_ibar,
e_modules_temperature

> - considering gentoo generally uses e-prefixed names (econf, emake,
>   etc.) maybe its wiser to name the variables E17_* instead of only
>   E_*, or ENLIGHTENMENT_*, so that it makes the "confusion" harder.
> 

Those functions are internal ebuild functions, while the USE_EXPANDed
var is exposed to and may be used by the user, so i dont see a high risk
of people mixing them. Maybe some other people can also comment on this?


-- 

Thomas Sachau
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 377 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Additional USE_EXPAND variables: E_MODULES and E_MODULES_CONF

[Ben de Groot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 735 bytes --]

On 14 November 2012 05:13, Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Alexis Ballier schrieb:
> > - considering gentoo generally uses e-prefixed names (econf, emake,
> >   etc.) maybe its wiser to name the variables E17_* instead of only
> >   E_*, or ENLIGHTENMENT_*, so that it makes the "confusion" harder.
> >
>
> Those functions are internal ebuild functions, while the USE_EXPANDed
> var is exposed to and may be used by the user, so i dont see a high risk
> of people mixing them. Maybe some other people can also comment on this?
>


I agree that E_* is more confusing than it needs to be. Please use
something that is unmistakeably clearer.
-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1118 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Additional USE_EXPAND variables: E_MODULES and E_MODULES_CONF

[Thomas Sachau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 825 bytes --]

Ben de Groot schrieb:
> On 14 November 2012 05:13, Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> Alexis Ballier schrieb:
>>> - considering gentoo generally uses e-prefixed names (econf, emake,
>>>   etc.) maybe its wiser to name the variables E17_* instead of only
>>>   E_*, or ENLIGHTENMENT_*, so that it makes the "confusion" harder.
>>>
>>
>> Those functions are internal ebuild functions, while the USE_EXPANDed
>> var is exposed to and may be used by the user, so i dont see a high risk
>> of people mixing them. Maybe some other people can also comment on this?
>>
> 
> 
> I agree that E_* is more confusing than it needs to be. Please use
> something that is unmistakeably clearer.
> 

ok, so what about ENLIGHTENMENT_MODULES as USE_EXPANDED var?

-- 

Thomas Sachau
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 377 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Additional USE_EXPAND variables: E_MODULES and E_MODULES_CONF

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 213 bytes --]

On 15/11/2012 11:45, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> ok, so what about ENLIGHTENMENT_MODULES as USE_EXPANDED var?

LGTM

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flameeyes@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 551 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Additional USE_EXPAND variables: E_MODULES and E_MODULES_CONF

[Duncan]

Thomas Sachau posted on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:45:16 +0100 as excerpted:

> Ben de Groot schrieb:
>> On 14 November 2012 05:13, Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Alexis Ballier schrieb:
>>>> - considering gentoo generally uses e-prefixed names (econf, emake,
>>>>   etc.) maybe its wiser to name the variables E17_* instead of only
>>>>   E_*, or ENLIGHTENMENT_*, so that it makes the "confusion" harder.
>>>>
>>> Those functions are internal ebuild functions, while the USE_EXPANDed
>>> var is exposed to and may be used by the user, so i dont see a high
>>> risk of people mixing them. Maybe some other people can also comment
>>> on this?
>> 
>> I agree that E_* is more confusing than it needs to be. Please use
>> something that is unmistakeably clearer.
>> 
> ok, so what about ENLIGHTENMENT_MODULES as USE_EXPANDED var?

That's certainly clear enough.  Alternatively, something like ENL_* would 
be shorter if somewhat more cryptic, but should eliminate any possible 
E_* confusion.

Because as a user I recently noted some package with a use-expand that 
gets REALLY long in portage's emerge --verbose --pretend output, which 
lists ALL variants on or off, with the prefix repeated for each one.  
ENLIGHTENMENT_MODULES is certainly clear enough, but when it's repeated a 
dozen or more times, once for each expansion, that's a VERY long
emerge --pretend --verbose output!

So as a user I'd prefer the shorter if more cryptic ENL_*, which does at 
least eliminate the potential confusion of the originally proposed E_*, 
while still being short enough to not be horribly annoying when repeated 
a dozen times.

-- 
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: Additional USE_EXPAND variables: E_MODULES and E_MODULES_CONF

[Michael Mol]

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> Thomas Sachau posted on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:45:16 +0100 as excerpted:
>
>> Ben de Groot schrieb:
>>> On 14 November 2012 05:13, Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alexis Ballier schrieb:
>>>>> - considering gentoo generally uses e-prefixed names (econf, emake,
>>>>>   etc.) maybe its wiser to name the variables E17_* instead of only
>>>>>   E_*, or ENLIGHTENMENT_*, so that it makes the "confusion" harder.
>>>>>
>>>> Those functions are internal ebuild functions, while the USE_EXPANDed
>>>> var is exposed to and may be used by the user, so i dont see a high
>>>> risk of people mixing them. Maybe some other people can also comment
>>>> on this?
>>>
>>> I agree that E_* is more confusing than it needs to be. Please use
>>> something that is unmistakeably clearer.
>>>
>> ok, so what about ENLIGHTENMENT_MODULES as USE_EXPANDED var?
>
> That's certainly clear enough.  Alternatively, something like ENL_* would
> be shorter if somewhat more cryptic, but should eliminate any possible
> E_* confusion.
>
> Because as a user I recently noted some package with a use-expand that
> gets REALLY long in portage's emerge --verbose --pretend output, which
> lists ALL variants on or off, with the prefix repeated for each one.
> ENLIGHTENMENT_MODULES is certainly clear enough, but when it's repeated a
> dozen or more times, once for each expansion, that's a VERY long
> emerge --pretend --verbose output!
>
> So as a user I'd prefer the shorter if more cryptic ENL_*, which does at
> least eliminate the potential confusion of the originally proposed E_*,
> while still being short enough to not be horribly annoying when repeated
> a dozen times.

As a user, I'd prefer the full ENLIGHTENMENT_MODULES, as I prefer
verbosity over cryptocity in configuration and debugging output. But
then, I don't use E...



--
:wq

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Additional USE_EXPAND variables: E_MODULES and E_MODULES_CONF

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 15/11/12 03:43 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Thomas Sachau posted on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:45:16 +0100 as
> excerpted:
> 
>> Ben de Groot schrieb:
>>> On 14 November 2012 05:13, Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Alexis Ballier schrieb:
>>>>> - considering gentoo generally uses e-prefixed names
>>>>> (econf, emake, etc.) maybe its wiser to name the variables
>>>>> E17_* instead of only E_*, or ENLIGHTENMENT_*, so that it
>>>>> makes the "confusion" harder.
>>>>> 
>>>> Those functions are internal ebuild functions, while the
>>>> USE_EXPANDed var is exposed to and may be used by the user,
>>>> so i dont see a high risk of people mixing them. Maybe some
>>>> other people can also comment on this?
>>> 
>>> I agree that E_* is more confusing than it needs to be. Please
>>> use something that is unmistakeably clearer.
>>> 
>> ok, so what about ENLIGHTENMENT_MODULES as USE_EXPANDED var?
> 
> That's certainly clear enough.  Alternatively, something like ENL_*
> would be shorter if somewhat more cryptic, but should eliminate any
> possible E_* confusion.
> 
> Because as a user I recently noted some package with a use-expand
> that gets REALLY long in portage's emerge --verbose --pretend
> output, which lists ALL variants on or off, with the prefix
> repeated for each one. ENLIGHTENMENT_MODULES is certainly clear
> enough, but when it's repeated a dozen or more times, once for each
> expansion, that's a VERY long emerge --pretend --verbose output!
> 

Portage doesn't do this (for me at least, 2.1.11.31 and previous); it
shows [USE_EXPAND]="possible1 possible2 possible3 ..."; no
[use_expand_] prefixed on -v output ..

Now, for dev's that might need to REQUIRED_USE it, yeah, we have to
deal with that.


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

iF4EAREIAAYFAlClWecACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDl0wD/dxRXh+9/LnbYNRwebBK2upvY
RWr4BIgKwIokNvJ4QnQA/1XgcOq6G2KkLSP1kL1zDQZBOD1wDBBACedhQVFqZCtR
=bHMB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] Re: Additional USE_EXPAND variables: E_MODULES and E_MODULES_CONF

[Duncan]

Ian Stakenvicius posted on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:08:55 -0500 as excerpted:

> Portage doesn't do this (for me at least, 2.1.11.31 and previous); it
> shows [USE_EXPAND]="possible1 possible2 possible3 ..."; no [use_expand_]
> prefixed on -v output ..

It was doing that for awhile.  But then it switched to enumerating each 
one (or at least that's what it looked like it was doing to me, maybe I 
misinterpreted something else), I'm not sure why.

But I'm on the 2.2 series, so...

Wait a minute... I must have been interpreting wrong... or some ebuild's 
doing it wrong or something, because...

[ebuild   R    ] media-libs/mesa-9.0  USE="egl g3dvl gallium gbm gles1 
gles2 llvm nptl openvg r600-llvm-compiler shared-glapi vdpau xa xvmc -
bindist -classic -debug -osmesa -pax_kernel -pic (-selinux) -wayland -
xorg" VIDEO_CARDS="r600 radeon -i915 -i965 -intel -nouveau -r100 -r200 -
r300 -radeonsi -vmware" 0 kB

VIDEO_CARDS=...

So you're right.  Now I'm wondering which ebuild was showing me the long 
versions and why... or what output looked close enough to repeated 
USE_EXPANDS to get me confused.  (Maybe it was related to the new python 
eclass/vars?  Maybe something EAPI5 related?  I'll keep an eye out and 
investigate if I see it again.)

Meanwhile, with that ENLIGHTENMENT_MODULES=... doesn't seem so bad; I 
agree with other posters now, LGTM.

-- 
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