[gentoo-portage-dev] Extra USE field

[gentoo-portage-dev] Extra USE field

[Joel Konkle-Parker]

Would it be plausible to include an extra field in ebuilds that 
describes what effect a particular USE flag has on the package?

Take, for example, "xml" and "xml2" in the xfree ebuild. Ok, the 
description says that it adds XML support. But why are there two of 
them? Why is it optional? What benefit does it have? etc.

I can see something like:

# etcat -u gnucash
[ Colour Code : set unset ]
[ Legend   : (U) Col 1 - Current USE flags        ]
[          : (I) Col 2 - Installed With USE flags ]

  U I [ Found these USE variables in : app-office/gnucash-1.8.9 ]
[snip]
  - - postgres : Adds support for the postgresql database
	Effect: Enables optional SQL backend for multiple simultaneous users; 
not currently maintained and does not support all features
[snip]

The postgres description by itself tells me nothing about why gnucash 
would need or want it, or what benefit it would have.


-- 
Joel Konkle-Parker
Webmaster  [Ballsome.com]

E-mail     [jjk3@msstate.edu]


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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Extra USE field

[Douglas Russell]

On Sunday 25 July 2004 20:52, Joel Konkle-Parker wrote:
> Would it be plausible to include an extra field in ebuilds that
> describes what effect a particular USE flag has on the package?
>
> Take, for example, "xml" and "xml2" in the xfree ebuild. Ok, the
> description says that it adds XML support. But why are there two of
> them? Why is it optional? What benefit does it have? etc.
>
> I can see something like:
>
> # etcat -u gnucash
> [ Colour Code : set unset ]
> [ Legend   : (U) Col 1 - Current USE flags        ]
> [          : (I) Col 2 - Installed With USE flags ]
>
>   U I [ Found these USE variables in : app-office/gnucash-1.8.9 ]
> [snip]
>   - - postgres : Adds support for the postgresql database
> 	Effect: Enables optional SQL backend for multiple simultaneous users;
> not currently maintained and does not support all features
> [snip]
>
> The postgres description by itself tells me nothing about why gnucash
> would need or want it, or what benefit it would have.

That would be really nice. I often wonder what the effect on a package is of a 
use flag. Sometimes I really don't know if I want something or not.

Puggy

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Extra USE field

[John Nilsson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 409 bytes --]

Why not drop global useflags entierly?

There really is no reason for them. Extend euse to modify
/etc/portage/packages.use.

I think it is time to begin decentralizing the system now. Portage is
getting rather large and will probably be broken up into pieces in the
future. If ebuilds didn't have to concider some global useflag namespace
it would be eaiser to sync diffrent vendors trees.

-John

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Extra USE field

[Joseph Booker]

On Sun, July 25, 2004 5:58 pm, John Nilsson said:
> Why not drop global useflags entierly?
>
> There really is no reason for them. Extend euse to modify
> /etc/portage/packages.use.
>
> I think it is time to begin decentralizing the system now. Portage is
> getting rather large and will probably be broken up into pieces in the
> future. If ebuilds didn't have to concider some global useflag namespace
> it would be eaiser to sync diffrent vendors trees.
>
> -John
>


:( so instead of adding USE="gnome" to make.conf, i would have to check
every package i emerge to see if it uses the 'gnome',
'gnomelib','gnome-integratoin', or w/e other local use flag (since the
names wouldn't be standardized) and add those to /etc/portage/package.use?
that one file could get *really* big, I use *alot* of USE flags

-- 
Joseph Booker
joe @ irc.neoturbine.net
jj110888 @ irc.freenode.net


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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Extra USE field

[John Nilsson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1153 bytes --]

On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 01:03, Joseph Booker wrote:
> On Sun, July 25, 2004 5:58 pm, John Nilsson said:
> > Why not drop global useflags entierly?
> >
> > There really is no reason for them. Extend euse to modify
> > /etc/portage/packages.use.
> >
> > I think it is time to begin decentralizing the system now. Portage is
> > getting rather large and will probably be broken up into pieces in the
> > future. If ebuilds didn't have to concider some global useflag namespace
> > it would be eaiser to sync diffrent vendors trees.
> >
> > -John
> >
> 
> 
> :( so instead of adding USE="gnome" to make.conf, i would have to check
> every package i emerge to see if it uses the 'gnome',
> 'gnomelib','gnome-integratoin', or w/e other local use flag (since the
> names wouldn't be standardized) and add those to /etc/portage/package.use?
> that one file could get *really* big, I use *alot* of USE flags

I'm thinking a more automatic aproach... like:

howabout dropping /etc/portage/package.use and just utilize the
/var/db/pkg files?

USE="useflag" emerge package

USE will cascade over the /var/db/pkg/cat/package/USE

-John

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]