Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Improved user information and communication

[Simon Stelling <blubb@gentoo.org>]

Daniel Stiefelmaier wrote:
> A new tool, lets say einfo, that prints info from metadata.xml. The link 
> could be read from metadata.xml or, if desired, generated automatiacally 
> in the form "http://gentoo-wiki.com/Ebuild:www-client/mozilla-firefox"

Why do you need a new funky tool called einfo when 'cat' already exists? XML is 
such a great format because it is readable for humans, not because it is just 
sexy ;)

>> So... nail it down, instead of the vague "eix/emerge should do this".
>>  
>>
> im getting vague because if i am precise, everybody just tells me that 
> it will not work that way.

Sure, but some people here know much more than you and me about portage's 
internals, and so they know whether something works or not, and what the 
problems might be. Instead of feeling ignored you should probably try to 
understand WHY people think it's not a good idea.

> i did not yet get constructive feedback and i don't know portage and its 
> developers well enough to make a pleasing plan.

That's probably the biggest issue. You don't know portage well enough to make a 
pleasing plan, but you ask people who didn't asked for your feature to make one. 
I hope you got the 'free' in 'free software' the right way.

> To be honest i just discovered use.local.desc, i didn't know this 
> already exists. (only use.desc) Sorry for my lack of knowledge. 
> Constructive feedback would have been to tell me the information i want 
> already exists. Nobody wondered, why i want to add information to 
> ebuilds that already exists.

I hate to tell people, but I have to: please, RTFM. use.local.desc is mentioned 
on line 60 of 'man portage' and it is explained briefly later on, additionally, 
the handbook even shows a snipplet from use.desc in 'Working with Gentoo -> USE 
flags', so one should think that users actually READ documentation carefully. 
Documentation is there to be read and understood, not to be ignored.
At least I wondered why you wanted to add so much redundant data to the tree, as 
it was absolutely evident to me that use.[local.]desc exists and that you know 
of it too.

> Well, that's fine. :)
> Just that some flags could be explained more comprehensive, not only 
> telling the obvious.

That's surely something that could be improved, but you have to explain which 
descriptions you find not helpful. A list would be very useful.

> Now i understand Jason and agree, that missused global flags should be 
> renamed. (but still believe there is a small chance they will)

File a bug for every package, wait some time, and if the maintainer refuses and 
you still think the use flags violate the policy, involve QA.

> all the responses i got were so declining that i thought
> "even if you would code it, we will never include it, even if you'll 
> edit all the 10k metadata.xml files, we just don't WANT it, it's useless 
> for us and everybody else"
> wrong conclusion?

wrong.

Friendly regards,

-- 
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
blubb@gentoo.org
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list