Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On 14 August 2015 at 05:37, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Uh, the point of the 'pretend' bit in the name is that it *is* run when > you do emerge -p. It is strange really. It does them *after* prompting "yes" with --ask Whats the point of that? Granted they are very slow for me now with the KDE5 stuff having virtually every package doing pkg_pretend, so I see why avoiding them before the --ask might be beneficial. But I'm not sure how beneficial it is to give me a merge plan, ask me if I want to do it or not and then find out some use flags are unworkable *after* pressing yes. ( I recently filed bugs on quite a few python packages because they were being resolved in pkg_pretend when they could have been resolved in REQUIRED_USE ) Maybe if we could fix *this* wart about pkg_pretend, it would be more viable as a competitor to REQUIRED_USE ? -- Kent KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 08:44:58 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 08/12/15 22:38, William Hubbs wrote: > > I always wondered why pkg_pretend never caught on. > > Because, in a way, it triggers at the wrong point of the merge. > > emerge -pv fnurk => dependencies look ok > > emerge fnurk => pkg_pretend bails out ... eh?! > > (This would be a little bit confusing, if not actively hostile, and > useflags + required_use are a lot more 'natural' to the emerge > workflow) Uh, the point of the 'pretend' bit in the name is that it *is* run when you do emerge -p. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 13/08/15 04:24 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 17:56, Ian Stakenvicius пишет: >> BUT I would advise against this. If a user has specified both >> qt4 and qt5 in USE, then I see no problem with the VDB having >> both qt4 and qt5 atoms listed as dependencies. End-users that >> want a clean VDB can just make sure they only enable one flag, >> but end-users that don't care will have packages that just >> work. >> > > great, in that case emerge --depclean becomes completely > useless, because of unneeded vdb deps. Those DEPENDs that i have > provided was at least consistent in terms of dependencies(that > does not mean that they are not ugly, though) > No it doesn't. It's true that it doesn't end up providing a necessarily fully clean system when both flags are enabled, but there's nothing to keep end-users (or the profiles, when they change) from disabling the qt4 flag on their own terms to get a cleaner system. My entire point here is using the BFH of REQUIRED_USE to force end-users to take manual action on emerge, just because some dev's want them to have a cleaner system via --depclean, -especially- when there aren't any conflicts between the qt4 and qt5 deps being installed at the same time, is to the detriment of end users much more than the extra libs in the system image. If qt4 and qt5 libs collided or conflicted, then this would be a different story, but they don't. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlXMqToACgkQAJxUfCtlWe3tDgEAjPRuf+zAFhYWYNyLefIptPnT 0y3Z2UuOIBO2Bdmqp1oBAJgIMpH5c95dKXkskL/UzvYhgdG4Z8vPDbCjKc/NMZ8g =j8+H -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On 13/08/15 18:17, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 16:49, Michael Palimaka пишет: >>> You think that REQUIRED_USE is abusive to users: fine. Point accepted. >>> I think that provided DEPEND strings if they will be typed at every >>> single qt-related ebuild that needs them are abusive to developers. >>> >>> So, maybe we should wrap them into eclass and stop riding our own >>> bicycles... >>> >>> And then - use apropriate one-liner where it's needed, providing >>> reasonable default and NOT confusing users with overmanaging their >>> package.use >>> >> >> Please read Ben's original post again. Dependency strings are not the topic. >> >> > > If introducing new USE-flags or ignoring using REQUIRED_USE leads to > blowing the DEPEND variable, adding pain for the developers - it is the > topic, definitely > Seriously, read the original post again. It's about handling of packages that offer a choice between qt4 and qt5 and how to present that to the user. It's not about the size of dependency strings, banning REQUIRED_USE, project policy enforcement or anything else. If you wish to discuss those topics please create a new thread and stop derailing this one.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
12.08.2015 22:14, Peter Stuge пишет: > May I suggest instead: > > qt? ( > qt5? ( dev-lang/qt$something:5 ) > qt4? ( dev-lang/qt$something:4 ) > ) And what would be if USE="qt -qt4 -qt5"? Should we introduce a REQUIRED_USE for that? Well, congrats then, USE qt becomes useless, cause it does not improve the situation in case of 'at-most-one-of' implementation. e.g. REQUIRED_USE="qt? ( ^^ ( qt4 qt5 ) )" simple shrinked to current REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( qt4 qt5 )" Again, it's about packages that can not be build with both implementations at the same time -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
11.08.2015 18:02, Ian Stakenvicius пишет: > On 11/08/15 09:04 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: >> 11.08.2015 15:32, Michael Palimaka пишет: >>> On 11/08/15 20:17, Sergey Popov wrote: 09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет: > I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used > sparingly, and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case > for it. So, you prefer to make ugly mess of deps here like i posted before or introduce some really unneded USE-flag like 'gui', 'qt', etc. to make users even more confused? Really, look at man-db ebuild. Especially on berkdb and gdbm USE flags. And dependency string like this: !berkdb? ( !gdbm? ( sys-libs/gdbm ) ) One sentence: "WHAT THE HELL?" Imagine that it would be dozen of flags. Is it fun to mess with deps like this for you? >>> >>> Shall we ban this too? >>> >>> ffmpeg? ( libav? ( media-video/libav:= ) !libav? ( >>> media-video/ffmpeg:0= ) ) >>> >>> >>> >>> > >> No, because ffmpeg here is a feature AND name of concrete >> realization. Not ideal case as i would said, but it is acceptable. > >> You want to migrate to such decision? Like: > >> qt? ( qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) ) > >> Fine by me, if you would ask. > >> As i said one message earlier: Something like $(qt_use_default >> qtgui 5) > >> which will generate something like this: > >> qt4? ( qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) ) >> !qt5? ( !qt4? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) ) > >> would help too. > > Woah -- why would qt5 be a dep when both flags are off? If you have a > package that -needs- one version enabled, then in that case I do fully > support REQUIRED_USE="|| ( qt4 qt5 )". '||' being the one-or-more-of > operator. > > The other alternative here would be that there is no qt5 flag, just a > qt4 one, and the qt4 one toggles qt5 off and qt4 on. And that just > isn't pretty, so let's not do that. > > And using this form of REQUIRED_USE I believe (if I understand what > QA's and QT's stances are on this) is not in conflict with either > group, right? > > > > Again - i am talking about package that CAN not be build without ANY of Qt GUIs. If it can be build without GUIs at all - THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY and solution for it is diffirent Sorry for the caps, but i am a bit tired of repeating myself. -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
11.08.2015 17:56, Ian Stakenvicius пишет: > On 11/08/15 08:58 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: >> 11.08.2015 15:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: >>> On 11/08/15 20:10, Sergey Popov wrote: Err, i have read the whole thread and still does not get a point, why i am wrong. >>> >>> You clearly have not. The reasoning behind Qt team's policy is >>> described on the page and has been reiterated on this list. You >>> are undermining what little confidence there is in the QA team by >>> making decisions with no consultation about problems you do not >>> understand. >>> It's old battle like we have beforce with "gtk" meaning "any versions of GTK flag". This behaviour should be killed with fire. Let's me reiterate some of the cases: 1. Package can be build without Qt GUI at all, but either Qt4 or Qt5 can be chosen, but not both. Fix this with REQUIRED_USE, do not enable any of Qt flags by default >>> >>> Problem: this requires manual intervention if the user has both >>> qt4 and qt5 USE flags enabled. >>> > >> User choice of using USE flags is NOT a problem > 2. Package can not be build without Qt GUI - either Qt4 or Qt5 is required, but not both Same thing here, different REQUIRED_USE operator. But - enable one of the flags by default to ease life of users. >>> >>> Problem: this requires manual intervention if the user has both >>> qt4 and qt5 USE flags enabled. > >> Same here > 3. Package can be build with Qt4 or Qt5 or both AT THE SAME TIME(if such package even exists?) Do not use REQUIRED_USE here, not needed. Now, please tell me, where am i wrong? >>> >>> The problem is manual intervention is required if the user has >>> both qt4 and qt5 USE flags enabled - and this is a common >>> configuration. It is not acceptable to make a user manually add >>> numerous package.use entries when all they want to do is install >>> KDE. > >> And here > >>> I agree Qt's policy is not a perfect solution, but in the absence >>> of some feature allowing a preference to be set when there is a >>> conflict it's the best we've got. >>> > >> If you want to go this way, then please provide helper functions >> in eclasses to set dependencies properly for all common use cases. >> That will ease life both of developers and users. > > > Why do you need this? > > #1, if you really want RDEPEND to only include the deps the package > will actually use, then you do this: > > old: > > qt5? ( list of qt5 atoms ) > qt4? ( list of qt4 atoms ) > > ..to new: > > qt5? ( list of qt5 atoms ) > !qt5? ( > qt4? ( list of qt4 atoms ) > ) > > > BUT I would advise against this. If a user has specified both qt4 and > qt5 in USE, then I see no problem with the VDB having both qt4 and qt5 > atoms listed as dependencies. End-users that want a clean VDB can > just make sure they only enable one flag, but end-users that don't > care will have packages that just work. > great, in that case emerge --depclean becomes completely useless, because of unneeded vdb deps. Those DEPENDs that i have provided was at least consistent in terms of dependencies(that does not mean that they are not ugly, though) >> Leaving constructing of dependencies to developers in all cases >> will cause only pain in your solution. > > It really wont, see above. At minimum, it's barely any more work than > it is with a REQUIRED_USE based solution. > I repeat that i said earlier: if this voodoo magic will be hidden in some eclass - it is fine. If developers will be forced to add this depstring over and over again - it will be PITA. -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
11.08.2015 16:49, Michael Palimaka пишет: >> You think that REQUIRED_USE is abusive to users: fine. Point accepted. >> I think that provided DEPEND strings if they will be typed at every >> single qt-related ebuild that needs them are abusive to developers. >> >> So, maybe we should wrap them into eclass and stop riding our own >> bicycles... >> >> And then - use apropriate one-liner where it's needed, providing >> reasonable default and NOT confusing users with overmanaging their >> package.use >> > > Please read Ben's original post again. Dependency strings are not the topic. > > If introducing new USE-flags or ignoring using REQUIRED_USE leads to blowing the DEPEND variable, adding pain for the developers - it is the topic, definitely -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On 08/12/2015 05:44 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 08/12/15 22:38, William Hubbs wrote: > >> I always wondered why pkg_pretend never caught on. > > Because, in a way, it triggers at the wrong point of the merge. > > emerge -pv fnurk => dependencies look ok > > emerge fnurk => pkg_pretend bails out ... eh?! > > (This would be a little bit confusing, if not actively hostile, and > useflags + required_use are a lot more 'natural' to the emerge workflow) The nice thing about REQUIRED_USE is that it is math expression, and math is a sort of universal language. It leads to uniform error messages. You can imagine that pkg_pretend messages will tend to be much less uniform! >> I to can see the advantage of it over REQUIRED_USE; it would allow the >> package maintainer to give specific error messages about why use flag >> combinations are invalid for a package. > > And now someone will say "annotations". Sigh. Well, nothing stops people from using pkg_pretend to create fancy error messages now! > > > have fun, > > Patrick > > -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On 08/12/15 22:38, William Hubbs wrote: > I always wondered why pkg_pretend never caught on. Because, in a way, it triggers at the wrong point of the merge. emerge -pv fnurk => dependencies look ok emerge fnurk => pkg_pretend bails out ... eh?! (This would be a little bit confusing, if not actively hostile, and useflags + required_use are a lot more 'natural' to the emerge workflow) > I to can see the advantage of it over REQUIRED_USE; it would allow the > package maintainer to give specific error messages about why use flag > combinations are invalid for a package. And now someone will say "annotations". Sigh. have fun, Patrick
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On 12 August 2015 at 16:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Can't we all (except for the usual suspect) just agree that REQUIRED_USE > was a mistake, and go back to pkg_pretend? The only justification for > REQUIRED_USE was that it could allegedly be used in an automated > fashion, and this hasn't happened. I think such a proposal needs to be tested on places where it is used heavily, for instance, python modules where REQUIRED_USE is employed extensively, which could mean a significant number of pkg_pretend phases executing, which *could* be more expensive than the equivalent static dependency code. ( And it could be required that python eclass consumers would all have to provide a pkg_pretend() even if they didn't need required_use behaviour ) I'm not saying it *is*, but a side by side comparison of real-world problems there would be important. ( Maybe the complex dependency resolver stuff is much slower, hard to tell ) -- Kent KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:22:48 +0200 Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 19:25:37 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:19:08 +0200 > > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > pkg_pretend still needs to be executed to guess what useflags are > > > enabled or not, which information is needed before dependency > > > calculation > > > > You'd probably be implementing this in a "SAT modulo theories" kind > > of way: find a solution, do the pkg_pretend checks, and if it fails > > spit a nogood back into the resolver. > > > > But this entire discussion is pointless, since Portage doesn't and > > won't auto-resolve this stuff. > > considering its speed (at least for portage) and the complexity of the > thing, running the dep solver N times, where N is probably unbounded > doesn't seem benefical at all > > esp. since a modified REQUIRED_USE can achieve the same But you'd be running it N times to fix a REQUIRED_USE problem anyway. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 19:25:37 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:19:08 +0200 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > pkg_pretend still needs to be executed to guess what useflags are > > enabled or not, which information is needed before dependency > > calculation > > You'd probably be implementing this in a "SAT modulo theories" kind of > way: find a solution, do the pkg_pretend checks, and if it fails spit > a nogood back into the resolver. > > But this entire discussion is pointless, since Portage doesn't and > won't auto-resolve this stuff. considering its speed (at least for portage) and the complexity of the thing, running the dep solver N times, where N is probably unbounded doesn't seem benefical at all esp. since a modified REQUIRED_USE can achieve the same
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/08/15 03:15 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:24:06 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 12/08/15 02:19 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:00:42 +0200 Ulrich Mueller
>>> wrote:
>>>
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> pkg_pretend() { if use qt4; then required_use -qt5 else
>> required_use qt5 fi }
> And how would the PM understand that -qt5 is conditional
> upon qt4? Such knowledge is required if it's supposed to
> auto-resolve stuff...
Right, the above was too simple (and wrong). It should
have been:
pkg_pretend() { use qt4 && use qt5 && required_use -qt5 use
qt4 || use qt5 || required_use qt4 }
>>>
>>> what is the difference ?
>>>
>>> pkg_pretend still needs to be executed to guess what
>>> useflags are enabled or not, which information is needed
>>> before dependency calculation
>>>
>>> or are we talking about moving pkg_pretend into dependency
>>> calculation?
>>>
>>
>>
>> pkg_pretend is already executed during dependency calculation
>> in portage, although this doesn't seem to actually be specified
>> in PMS: "The pkg_pretend function is called some unspecified
>> time before a (possibly hypothetical) normal sequence." as per
>> PMS sec.9.2
>>
>
> that's definitely not the impression I've got with emerge -uDNa
> world: dep calculation, show result, wait for input, accept, and
> then pkg_pretend stuff gets executed.
>
Apologies if I'm wrong on that; i'm rather sleep deprived and i
didn't actually check an emerge -uDN before I posted. I was sure i
saw the "checking for sufficient space" messages show up during the
dependency-calcs though.
Regardless, the role and point of execution of pkg_pretend would
definitely need to be clarified in PMS as yes we would be talking
about ensuring it happens at a specific point in the dependency
calculation process for each package.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
iF4EAREIAAYFAlXLnIEACgkQAJxUfCtlWe1RpQD9H0WKWDdl7tVHj6KgOoOHPswT
kPQQ0GFadfeo/isbxesBAIEL24JrVyzAEDY2KrofwYe+OVE3LV71jwMpnaGIBAHL
=AMxp
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:24:06 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 12/08/15 02:19 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:00:42 +0200 Ulrich Mueller
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>
> pkg_pretend() { if use qt4; then required_use -qt5 else
> required_use qt5 fi }
> >>
> >>> And how would the PM understand that -qt5 is conditional upon
> >>> qt4? Such knowledge is required if it's supposed to
> >>> auto-resolve stuff...
> >>
> >> Right, the above was too simple (and wrong). It should have
> >> been:
> >>
> >> pkg_pretend() { use qt4 && use qt5 && required_use -qt5 use qt4
> >> || use qt5 || required_use qt4 }
> >
> > what is the difference ?
> >
> > pkg_pretend still needs to be executed to guess what useflags
> > are enabled or not, which information is needed before
> > dependency calculation
> >
> > or are we talking about moving pkg_pretend into dependency
> > calculation?
> >
>
>
> pkg_pretend is already executed during dependency calculation in
> portage, although this doesn't seem to actually be specified in PMS:
> "The pkg_pretend function is called some unspecified time before a
> (possibly hypothetical) normal sequence." as per PMS sec.9.2
>
that's definitely not the impression I've got with emerge -uDNa world:
dep calculation, show result, wait for input, accept, and then
pkg_pretend stuff gets executed.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
Sergey Popov wrote: > qt? ( > qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) > !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) > ) > > Fine by me, if you would ask. May I suggest instead: qt? ( qt5? ( dev-lang/qt$something:5 ) qt4? ( dev-lang/qt$something:4 ) ) Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > > qt? ( > > > qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) > > > !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) > > ) > > > > Fine by me, if you would ask. > > That flag should be called "gui". Not "qt". > > This would be the real solution to gnome team's gtk/gtk2/gtk3 flag > problem and to qt team's flag problem too. Unlike gtk+, using Qt does not mean that there is any GUI. Qt provides many things, and sometimes non-GUI Qt bits are used independently in console-only applications. //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:36:12 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 12/08/15 01:52 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:39:21 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius > > wrote: > >> > >> ...OR we could just adjust PMS to assume flag order determines > >> precedence and still not bother with a new operator: For "^^ ( > >> a b c )" if a then b,c forced-off; elif b then c forced-off; > >> elif !c then a forced-on; fi > > > > that's another possible option indeed > > > > Is this something that we would need to change PMS for? Syntax > stays the same, just the way portage (in particular here) acts on it > would be different... For testing, is what I'm thinking, say tied > to a "resolve-required-use" feature? > > If we don't -need- to change PMS we could just -do- this and see if > it works. we could since that's de facto equivalent to the +/- syntax; however, I have serious doubts that the outcome will be what people who wrote the REQUIRED_USE line intended that'd be a very good proof of concept though
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 12/08/15 01:52 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:39:21 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius > wrote: >> >> ...OR we could just adjust PMS to assume flag order determines >> precedence and still not bother with a new operator: For "^^ ( >> a b c )" if a then b,c forced-off; elif b then c forced-off; >> elif !c then a forced-on; fi > > that's another possible option indeed > Is this something that we would need to change PMS for? Syntax stays the same, just the way portage (in particular here) acts on it would be different... For testing, is what I'm thinking, say tied to a "resolve-required-use" feature? If we don't -need- to change PMS we could just -do- this and see if it works. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlXLkhwACgkQAJxUfCtlWe2icgD/fvbn2O70mE2QJs5+mOfxwZEx Y6huevd2KkJnaEHmlPEBAOvLe3gLDR/KUgvQVytBAXxgu+XsDcN/SDZEt94K0ptE =ySbZ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:19:08 +0200 Alexis Ballier wrote: > pkg_pretend still needs to be executed to guess what useflags are > enabled or not, which information is needed before dependency > calculation You'd probably be implementing this in a "SAT modulo theories" kind of way: find a solution, do the pkg_pretend checks, and if it fails spit a nogood back into the resolver. But this entire discussion is pointless, since Portage doesn't and won't auto-resolve this stuff. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/08/15 02:00 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>>> pkg_pretend() { if use qt4; then required_use -qt5 else
>>> required_use qt5 fi }
>
>> And how would the PM understand that -qt5 is conditional upon
>> qt4? Such knowledge is required if it's supposed to
>> auto-resolve stuff...
>
> Right, the above was too simple (and wrong). It should have
> been:
>
> pkg_pretend() { use qt4 && use qt5 && required_use -qt5 use qt4
> || use qt5 || required_use qt4 }
>
I think Ciaran's point was more, if required_use is going to i.e.
elog, it needs to elog that qt4 is being enabled because neither-of
qt4 or qt5 are off, and similarly for why qt5 is being disabled.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
iF4EAREIAAYFAlXLjdwACgkQAJxUfCtlWe3K6QD+L3kdVxSIJDp3N+wBZEtuhtNT
5kT7NXTdXuubE4Dgv7wA/1auz4k+rYQDZP7DP+i/JsHA/RMhOgUt7yc5a0H8yYHS
=FXa+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:00:42 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> pkg_pretend() {
> >> if use qt4; then
> >> required_use -qt5
> >> else
> >> required_use qt5
> >> fi
> >> }
>
> > And how would the PM understand that -qt5 is conditional upon qt4?
> > Such knowledge is required if it's supposed to auto-resolve stuff...
>
> Right, the above was too simple (and wrong). It should have been:
>
> pkg_pretend() {
> use qt4 && use qt5 && required_use -qt5
> use qt4 || use qt5 || required_use qt4
> }
Doesn't help the PM, unless you're expecting it to parse bash code...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/08/15 02:19 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:00:42 +0200 Ulrich Mueller
> wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>
pkg_pretend() { if use qt4; then required_use -qt5 else
required_use qt5 fi }
>>
>>> And how would the PM understand that -qt5 is conditional upon
>>> qt4? Such knowledge is required if it's supposed to
>>> auto-resolve stuff...
>>
>> Right, the above was too simple (and wrong). It should have
>> been:
>>
>> pkg_pretend() { use qt4 && use qt5 && required_use -qt5 use qt4
>> || use qt5 || required_use qt4 }
>
> what is the difference ?
>
> pkg_pretend still needs to be executed to guess what useflags
> are enabled or not, which information is needed before
> dependency calculation
>
> or are we talking about moving pkg_pretend into dependency
> calculation?
>
pkg_pretend is already executed during dependency calculation in
portage, although this doesn't seem to actually be specified in PMS:
"The pkg_pretend function is called some unspecified time before a
(possibly hypothetical) normal sequence." as per PMS sec.9.2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
iF4EAREIAAYFAlXLj0YACgkQAJxUfCtlWe1NwgD/UlFiaP1Xyh4yfHlEH+nGIYN/
NTqMi1IFiKXpgKJjVWEA/1BdSHkivkFhodChHJ0jlYCX9xHg0Xc0VDzPN0S1aPRn
=KQmI
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/08/15 02:18 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 12/08/15 02:00 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
pkg_pretend() { if use qt4; then required_use -qt5 else
required_use qt5 fi }
>
>>> And how would the PM understand that -qt5 is conditional
>>> upon qt4? Such knowledge is required if it's supposed to
>>> auto-resolve stuff...
>
>> Right, the above was too simple (and wrong). It should have
>> been:
>
>> pkg_pretend() { use qt4 && use qt5 && required_use -qt5 use
>> qt4 || use qt5 || required_use qt4 }
>
>
> I think Ciaran's point was more, if required_use is going to
> i.e. elog, it needs to elog that qt4 is being enabled because
> neither-of qt4 or qt5 are *ON*, and similarly for why qt5 is
> being disabled.
^^^ corrected logic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
iF4EAREIAAYFAlXLjh8ACgkQAJxUfCtlWe3TTAEAuJPVQQ9yoWBeBTRH2AFnFZoW
3aWWdhmClQRMo3MI43IBANkaRZOtWHhnWi31wvK+Pw0GvzkAmzEaWOFS7YxxWORO
=ccVT
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:00:42 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> >> pkg_pretend() {
> >> if use qt4; then
> >> required_use -qt5
> >> else
> >> required_use qt5
> >> fi
> >> }
>
> > And how would the PM understand that -qt5 is conditional upon qt4?
> > Such knowledge is required if it's supposed to auto-resolve stuff...
>
> Right, the above was too simple (and wrong). It should have been:
>
> pkg_pretend() {
> use qt4 && use qt5 && required_use -qt5
> use qt4 || use qt5 || required_use qt4
> }
what is the difference ?
pkg_pretend still needs to be executed to guess what useflags are
enabled or not, which information is needed before dependency
calculation
or are we talking about moving pkg_pretend into dependency calculation?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/08/15 01:50 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 19:43:55 +0200 Ulrich Mueller
> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> Hm, how about adding a new PM command like "required_use foo
>>> -bar"? It would be used exclusively in pkg_pretend, and tell
>>> the PM to suggest the necessary package.use changes to the
>>> user (or even update them automatically with the appropriate
>>> --autounmask-* option).
>>
>> To clarify, I'm thinking about something like this:
>>
>> pkg_pretend() { if use qt4; then required_use -qt5 else
>> required_use qt5 fi }
>>
>> The advantage would be that any number of elog messages could
>> be added which would further explain things to the user.
>
> And how would the PM understand that -qt5 is conditional upon
> qt4? Such knowledge is required if it's supposed to auto-resolve
> stuff...
>
I don't think required_use could auto-resolve here, without some
other rather large changes to PMs -- for instance, the spec
pkg_pretend likely needs to be assured to be taken into account
before dependency resolution of that package somehow.
Also, the required_use function needs to be permitted to modify
effective-use and/or do whatever else it does, meaning that for what
I believe is the first time we will have function calls in ebuilds
modifying the precursors to dependency resolution dynamically rather
than it being deterministic based on state and pre-defined static
logic. (i hope that makes sense, unsure if i'm using anything even
close to the correct terminology)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
iF4EAREIAAYFAlXLjWcACgkQAJxUfCtlWe2eDwEAzIcJWKlyFVbKzRCWIYEzP+JX
DxdOOgnWd9IVfVdwAqQBAOQaJuXjPPpahfyq0qGQDjX6YKhGY2M2b/D/LjIV81HW
=oko+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> pkg_pretend() {
>> if use qt4; then
>> required_use -qt5
>> else
>> required_use qt5
>> fi
>> }
> And how would the PM understand that -qt5 is conditional upon qt4?
> Such knowledge is required if it's supposed to auto-resolve stuff...
Right, the above was too simple (and wrong). It should have been:
pkg_pretend() {
use qt4 && use qt5 && required_use -qt5
use qt4 || use qt5 || required_use qt4
}
pgpm4i07nf1_x.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:39:21 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 12/08/15 01:22 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:06:43 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> > wrote:
> >
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
> >>
> >> On 12/08/15 01:05 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >>> On 12/08/15 01:00 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:57:25 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> wrote:
> >>>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
> >
> > On 12/08/15 12:42 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >>> 2 - is there a particular reasoning for the - in
> >>> front of qt4 here? I only ask because it would seem
> >>> that a single default-enable should suffice in lists
> >>> like this to indicate a resolution path, no? That is,
> >>> '^^ ( +flag1 -flag2 -flag3 -flag4 )' to me seems like
> >>> it would be the same as '^^ ( +flag1 flag2 flag3
> >>> flag4 )'
> >>
> >> If the user has both "qt4 qt5", then enabling qt5 alone
> >> won't help to resolve "^^ ( qt5 qt4 )".
> >>
> >
> > Right, but the PM knows based on a particular
> > REQUIRED_USE operator what it would need to do when a
> > particular flag is set to default. Given '^^' is
> > must-be-one-of, the +flag would be enabled and all the
> > other flags would be disabled, right?
> >
> > Here's how I'd see it mapping out:
> >
> > || ( +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM only forces-on flag1 ^^ (
> > +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM forces-on flag1, forces-off all
> > others ?? ( +flag2 flag2 ... ) , PM forces off all but
> > flag1
> >
> > I'm not sure if the following make sense though...
> > thoughts?
> >
> > {,!}flag1? ( +flag2 ) , PM forces-on flag2 {,!}flag1? (
> > +!flag2 ) , PM forces !flag2, meaning forces-off flag2
> >
> >
> > I'm just wondering if it's really necessary in terms of
> > syntax to specify the flag-negation that the PM would
> > need to do.
> >>>
> >>>
> See my other email: neither + nor - are necessary :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'd disagree on that -- technically they aren't necessary,
> >>> but the whole reason why these new operators were added in
> >>> the first place was so that it's a lot easier for developers
> >>> to fill in REQUIRED_USE and get the logic right. Mapping out
> >>> a ^^ ( flag1 flag2 flag3 flag4 ) into all of its permissible
> >>> flag-a? ( flagb !flagc !flagd ) variants is a royal pain.
> >>> Plus there's readability/understandability to consider here.
> >>>
> >>
> >> err, flaga? ( !flagb !flagc !flagd ) i mean..
> >
> > It is indeed longer (n flags to roughly n² flags expanded i'd
> > say), but i disagree on the readability: i find it much more
> > readable as "if flaga is enabled then flagb, flagc and flagd must
> > be disabled" etc. which express clearly the preference than
> > "exactly one of flaga flagb flagc flagd except if there is a
> > problem then flaga but not the others".
> >
> > Also, there's something we've overseen with the +/- syntax: What
> > about "^^ ( +flaga -flagb -flagc -flagd )" with USE="-flaga flagb
> > flagc" ? The only way to solve it would be USE="flaga -flagb
> > -flagc" while the "implication syntax" could give you USE="-flaga
> > flagb -flagc" (or any other preference of the ebuild writer).
> >
>
> I don't think we've overseen that. If there's a conflict due to any
> two flags being set in ^^ ( +a b c d ), the default resolution is to
> enable a and disable b,c,d. Doesn't matter if a is one of the ones
> enabled or not.
>
> If you want to try and roll out the syntax, such that for any
> particular given set of flags being enabled there is a preferable
> default, then yes it'll have to be written out longhand for sure.
>
> OR we could just adjust PMS to assume flag order determines
> precedence and still not bother with a new operator: For "^^ ( a b
> c )" if a then b,c forced-off; elif b then c forced-off; elif !c
> then a forced-on; fi
that's another possible option indeed
> > Finally, about getting the logic right, since it's a subset of
> > the current syntax I don't think that should be a problem :)
>
> The superset of the "{,!}flag1? ( {,!}flag2 )" syntax was requested
> and created I believe -because- dev's were finding it
> difficult/annoying to write the logic out longhand and get it right.
:)
I'd rather bet it's been copied from what we're used to: license & dep
strings.
> AND it made the messages a lot more clear to end-users too, as I
> recall, as "only-one-of ( flagset )" is a lot more clear and concise
> than "flag1-enabled so must-enable/disable-the-rest-in-flagset." I
> didn't pay that much attention at the time though so if anyone
> involved with those operator requests etc could chime in on
> reasoning I'd appreciate it.
I think autounmask-write is much
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 19:43:55 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > Hm, how about adding a new PM command like "required_use foo -bar"?
> > It would be used exclusively in pkg_pretend, and tell the PM to
> > suggest the necessary package.use changes to the user (or even
> > update them automatically with the appropriate --autounmask-*
> > option).
>
> To clarify, I'm thinking about something like this:
>
> pkg_pretend() {
> if use qt4; then
> required_use -qt5
> else
> required_use qt5
> fi
> }
>
> The advantage would be that any number of elog messages could be added
> which would further explain things to the user.
And how would the PM understand that -qt5 is conditional upon qt4? Such
knowledge is required if it's supposed to auto-resolve stuff...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 12/08/15 01:38 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >> The opposing viewpoint was ferringb believing he could do >> "automatic dependency resolution" for a build server setup, >> without trying it and without an implementation, and that a >> human-readable pkg_pretend would somehow preclude that. > > Hm, how about adding a new PM command like "required_use foo > -bar"? It would be used exclusively in pkg_pretend, and tell the > PM to suggest the necessary package.use changes to the user (or > even update them automatically with the appropriate > --autounmask-* option). > > REQUIRED_USE could be banned at the same time. > > Ulrich > That's an interesting idea from the PM perspective do we have any functions that can directly affect deptree calculations now? Crossing that line is the only thing I forsee right now as being the main issue with this one. Would the 'required_use' function just suggest/set/force the necessary change or would it perform the logic too? ie, would we just call 'required_use foo -bar', or would we: 'if use foo && use bar ; then required_use foo -bar ; fi' ? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlXLhpgACgkQAJxUfCtlWe0bXwEAtDn5LL2VE0xBJqVxQ193kPeo Wn8sm6ud5YgUA2hJkBMA/0IDzi4hg7UZsnqdw59m/DGiYE6Devlfo4LoactUVpDD =4bED -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Hm, how about adding a new PM command like "required_use foo -bar"?
> It would be used exclusively in pkg_pretend, and tell the PM to
> suggest the necessary package.use changes to the user (or even update
> them automatically with the appropriate --autounmask-* option).
To clarify, I'm thinking about something like this:
pkg_pretend() {
if use qt4; then
required_use -qt5
else
required_use qt5
fi
}
The advantage would be that any number of elog messages could be added
which would further explain things to the user.
Ulrich
pgp6Y2g0jbm_a.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 19:38:21 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > The opposing viewpoint was ferringb believing he could do "automatic > > dependency resolution" for a build server setup, without trying it > > and without an implementation, and that a human-readable pkg_pretend > > would somehow preclude that. > > Hm, how about adding a new PM command like "required_use foo -bar"? > It would be used exclusively in pkg_pretend, and tell the PM to > suggest the necessary package.use changes to the user (or even update > them automatically with the appropriate --autounmask-* option). > > REQUIRED_USE could be banned at the same time. Why add support for a hypothetical package mangler feature that doesn't exist and that isn't necessary in practice? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/08/15 01:22 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:06:43 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 12/08/15 01:05 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>> On 12/08/15 01:00 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:57:25 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
wrote:
>>>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>
> On 12/08/15 12:42 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>> 2 - is there a particular reasoning for the - in
>>> front of qt4 here? I only ask because it would seem
>>> that a single default-enable should suffice in lists
>>> like this to indicate a resolution path, no? That is,
>>> '^^ ( +flag1 -flag2 -flag3 -flag4 )' to me seems like
>>> it would be the same as '^^ ( +flag1 flag2 flag3
>>> flag4 )'
>>
>> If the user has both "qt4 qt5", then enabling qt5 alone
>> won't help to resolve "^^ ( qt5 qt4 )".
>>
>
> Right, but the PM knows based on a particular
> REQUIRED_USE operator what it would need to do when a
> particular flag is set to default. Given '^^' is
> must-be-one-of, the +flag would be enabled and all the
> other flags would be disabled, right?
>
> Here's how I'd see it mapping out:
>
> || ( +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM only forces-on flag1 ^^ (
> +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM forces-on flag1, forces-off all
> others ?? ( +flag2 flag2 ... ) , PM forces off all but
> flag1
>
> I'm not sure if the following make sense though...
> thoughts?
>
> {,!}flag1? ( +flag2 ) , PM forces-on flag2 {,!}flag1? (
> +!flag2 ) , PM forces !flag2, meaning forces-off flag2
>
>
> I'm just wondering if it's really necessary in terms of
> syntax to specify the flag-negation that the PM would
> need to do.
>>>
>>>
See my other email: neither + nor - are necessary :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd disagree on that -- technically they aren't necessary,
>>> but the whole reason why these new operators were added in
>>> the first place was so that it's a lot easier for developers
>>> to fill in REQUIRED_USE and get the logic right. Mapping out
>>> a ^^ ( flag1 flag2 flag3 flag4 ) into all of its permissible
>>> flag-a? ( flagb !flagc !flagd ) variants is a royal pain.
>>> Plus there's readability/understandability to consider here.
>>>
>>
>> err, flaga? ( !flagb !flagc !flagd ) i mean..
>
> It is indeed longer (n flags to roughly n² flags expanded i'd
> say), but i disagree on the readability: i find it much more
> readable as "if flaga is enabled then flagb, flagc and flagd must
> be disabled" etc. which express clearly the preference than
> "exactly one of flaga flagb flagc flagd except if there is a
> problem then flaga but not the others".
>
> Also, there's something we've overseen with the +/- syntax: What
> about "^^ ( +flaga -flagb -flagc -flagd )" with USE="-flaga flagb
> flagc" ? The only way to solve it would be USE="flaga -flagb
> -flagc" while the "implication syntax" could give you USE="-flaga
> flagb -flagc" (or any other preference of the ebuild writer).
>
I don't think we've overseen that. If there's a conflict due to any
two flags being set in ^^ ( +a b c d ), the default resolution is to
enable a and disable b,c,d. Doesn't matter if a is one of the ones
enabled or not.
If you want to try and roll out the syntax, such that for any
particular given set of flags being enabled there is a preferable
default, then yes it'll have to be written out longhand for sure.
OR we could just adjust PMS to assume flag order determines
precedence and still not bother with a new operator: For "^^ ( a b
c )" if a then b,c forced-off; elif b then c forced-off; elif !c
then a forced-on; fi
> Finally, about getting the logic right, since it's a subset of
> the current syntax I don't think that should be a problem :)
The superset of the "{,!}flag1? ( {,!}flag2 )" syntax was requested
and created I believe -because- dev's were finding it
difficult/annoying to write the logic out longhand and get it right.
AND it made the messages a lot more clear to end-users too, as I
recall, as "only-one-of ( flagset )" is a lot more clear and concise
than "flag1-enabled so must-enable/disable-the-rest-in-flagset." I
didn't pay that much attention at the time though so if anyone
involved with those operator requests etc could chime in on
reasoning I'd appreciate it.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
iF4EAREIAAYFAlXLhMkACgkQAJxUfCtlWe2A3wEA0jrf9slDrcM92yhXpGpTzBbD
baQAYRUrJsNEI+frKx4BAM9gWVbmGr6U9KAwBdzUVkOFUmZmFj9h7BHFdDsniI1t
=7UNL
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > The opposing viewpoint was ferringb believing he could do "automatic > dependency resolution" for a build server setup, without trying it > and without an implementation, and that a human-readable pkg_pretend > would somehow preclude that. Hm, how about adding a new PM command like "required_use foo -bar"? It would be used exclusively in pkg_pretend, and tell the PM to suggest the necessary package.use changes to the user (or even update them automatically with the appropriate --autounmask-* option). REQUIRED_USE could be banned at the same time. Ulrich pgpqDaZ8sQAQf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:38:19 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > I always wondered why pkg_pretend never caught on. > > I to can see the advantage of it over REQUIRED_USE; it would allow the > package maintainer to give specific error messages about why use flag > combinations are invalid for a package. > > Without really knowing what the opposing viewpoint is, I think > pkg_pretend is the better way to go as well. The opposing viewpoint was ferringb believing he could do "automatic dependency resolution" for a build server setup, without trying it and without an implementation, and that a human-readable pkg_pretend would somehow preclude that. (Incidentally, Exherbo has automatic dependency resolution for a build server setup, and human-readable messages, and it got there by trying stuff out before inflicting it upon everyone by diktat...) -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:06:43 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 12/08/15 01:05 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > On 12/08/15 01:00 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:57:25 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
> >>>
> >>> On 12/08/15 12:42 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > 2 - is there a particular reasoning for the - in front
> > of qt4 here? I only ask because it would seem that a
> > single default-enable should suffice in lists like this
> > to indicate a resolution path, no? That is, '^^ ( +flag1
> > -flag2 -flag3 -flag4 )' to me seems like it would be the
> > same as '^^ ( +flag1 flag2 flag3 flag4 )'
>
> If the user has both "qt4 qt5", then enabling qt5 alone
> won't help to resolve "^^ ( qt5 qt4 )".
>
> >>>
> >>> Right, but the PM knows based on a particular REQUIRED_USE
> >>> operator what it would need to do when a particular flag is
> >>> set to default. Given '^^' is must-be-one-of, the +flag would
> >>> be enabled and all the other flags would be disabled, right?
> >>>
> >>> Here's how I'd see it mapping out:
> >>>
> >>> || ( +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM only forces-on flag1 ^^ (
> >>> +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM forces-on flag1, forces-off all
> >>> others ?? ( +flag2 flag2 ... ) , PM forces off all but flag1
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure if the following make sense though... thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> {,!}flag1? ( +flag2 ) , PM forces-on flag2 {,!}flag1? (
> >>> +!flag2 ) , PM forces !flag2, meaning forces-off flag2
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm just wondering if it's really necessary in terms of
> >>> syntax to specify the flag-negation that the PM would need to
> >>> do.
> >
> >
> >> See my other email: neither + nor - are necessary :)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd disagree on that -- technically they aren't necessary, but
> > the whole reason why these new operators were added in the first
> > place was so that it's a lot easier for developers to fill in
> > REQUIRED_USE and get the logic right. Mapping out a ^^ ( flag1
> > flag2 flag3 flag4 ) into all of its permissible flag-a? ( flagb
> > !flagc !flagd ) variants is a royal pain. Plus there's
> > readability/understandability to consider here.
> >
>
> err, flaga? ( !flagb !flagc !flagd ) i mean..
It is indeed longer (n flags to roughly n² flags expanded i'd say), but
i disagree on the readability: i find it much more readable as "if
flaga is enabled then flagb, flagc and flagd must be disabled" etc.
which express clearly the preference than "exactly one of flaga flagb
flagc flagd except if there is a problem then flaga but not the others".
Also, there's something we've overseen with the +/- syntax: What about
"^^ ( +flaga -flagb -flagc -flagd )" with USE="-flaga flagb flagc" ?
The only way to solve it would be USE="flaga -flagb -flagc" while the
"implication syntax" could give you USE="-flaga flagb -flagc" (or any
other preference of the ebuild writer).
Finally, about getting the logic right, since it's a subset of the
current syntax I don't think that should be a problem :)
Alexis.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:08:59 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > i.e. something that really tells the PM how to automate the choice: > > - 'qt5 -> !qt4' is rather straightforward to solve and tells the PM > > how (note that it is not equivalent to 'qt4 -> !qt5') > > - '^^ ( qt5 qt4 )' requires the PM to make a choice in order to > > automate it > > I was thinking about some syntax like this: > >REQUIRED_USE="|| ( +foo bar ) ^^ ( +qt5 -qt4 )" > > The package manager would first evaluate each group in REQUIRED_USE > with the original set of USE flags. If that doesn't evaluate to true, > retry with flags changed as indicated by the + and - signs. The problem with REQUIRED_USE was someone having an idea and not implementing it and trying it out before inflicting it upon people. Why not start with a test implementation? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote: > it is more in the line of what we currently do, but that doesn't > resolve the 'sat' problem: it doesnt make clear we don't want to > satisfy it but rather walk through a list of causes and consequences > now that i'm thinking more about it, killing || and ^^ would > probably solve the automation problem: > qt? ( !qt4? ( qt5 ) qt4? ( !qt5 ) ) vs 'qt? ( ^^ ( qt4 qt5 ) )' > a bit longer but PM now knows what to do > [...] > No need for a new syntax :) Indeed. What is the general opinion, would it be worth the price of somewhat longer expressions? Ulrich pgpO2bIpGyvzQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/08/15 01:05 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 12/08/15 01:00 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:57:25 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
>> wrote:
>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>>
>>> On 12/08/15 12:42 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> 2 - is there a particular reasoning for the - in front
> of qt4 here? I only ask because it would seem that a
> single default-enable should suffice in lists like this
> to indicate a resolution path, no? That is, '^^ ( +flag1
> -flag2 -flag3 -flag4 )' to me seems like it would be the
> same as '^^ ( +flag1 flag2 flag3 flag4 )'
If the user has both "qt4 qt5", then enabling qt5 alone
won't help to resolve "^^ ( qt5 qt4 )".
>>>
>>> Right, but the PM knows based on a particular REQUIRED_USE
>>> operator what it would need to do when a particular flag is
>>> set to default. Given '^^' is must-be-one-of, the +flag would
>>> be enabled and all the other flags would be disabled, right?
>>>
>>> Here's how I'd see it mapping out:
>>>
>>> || ( +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM only forces-on flag1 ^^ (
>>> +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM forces-on flag1, forces-off all
>>> others ?? ( +flag2 flag2 ... ) , PM forces off all but flag1
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if the following make sense though... thoughts?
>>>
>>> {,!}flag1? ( +flag2 ) , PM forces-on flag2 {,!}flag1? (
>>> +!flag2 ) , PM forces !flag2, meaning forces-off flag2
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm just wondering if it's really necessary in terms of
>>> syntax to specify the flag-negation that the PM would need to
>>> do.
>
>
>> See my other email: neither + nor - are necessary :)
>
>
>
>
> I'd disagree on that -- technically they aren't necessary, but
> the whole reason why these new operators were added in the first
> place was so that it's a lot easier for developers to fill in
> REQUIRED_USE and get the logic right. Mapping out a ^^ ( flag1
> flag2 flag3 flag4 ) into all of its permissible flag-a? ( flagb
> !flagc !flagd ) variants is a royal pain. Plus there's
> readability/understandability to consider here.
>
err, flaga? ( !flagb !flagc !flagd ) i mean..
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
iF4EAREIAAYFAlXLfSMACgkQAJxUfCtlWe3jQQD7B9BCbF/3qfE9sQCygNpxKhlo
svefcKCbomBA6fTg6bsA/0QLz/Qw8nL4d7P9I4fruwgyU1vZb/VIBmXynwbAij2L
=NW7S
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/08/15 01:00 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:57:25 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 12/08/15 12:42 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
2 - is there a particular reasoning for the - in front of
qt4 here? I only ask because it would seem that a single
default-enable should suffice in lists like this to
indicate a resolution path, no? That is, '^^ ( +flag1
-flag2 -flag3 -flag4 )' to me seems like it would be the
same as '^^ ( +flag1 flag2 flag3 flag4 )'
>>>
>>> If the user has both "qt4 qt5", then enabling qt5 alone
>>> won't help to resolve "^^ ( qt5 qt4 )".
>>>
>>
>> Right, but the PM knows based on a particular REQUIRED_USE
>> operator what it would need to do when a particular flag is set
>> to default. Given '^^' is must-be-one-of, the +flag would be
>> enabled and all the other flags would be disabled, right?
>>
>> Here's how I'd see it mapping out:
>>
>> || ( +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM only forces-on flag1 ^^ ( +flag1
>> flag2 ... ) , PM forces-on flag1, forces-off all others ?? (
>> +flag2 flag2 ... ) , PM forces off all but flag1
>>
>> I'm not sure if the following make sense though... thoughts?
>>
>> {,!}flag1? ( +flag2 ) , PM forces-on flag2 {,!}flag1? ( +!flag2
>> ) , PM forces !flag2, meaning forces-off flag2
>>
>>
>> I'm just wondering if it's really necessary in terms of syntax
>> to specify the flag-negation that the PM would need to do.
>
>
> See my other email: neither + nor - are necessary :)
>
>
I'd disagree on that -- technically they aren't necessary, but the
whole reason why these new operators were added in the first place
was so that it's a lot easier for developers to fill in REQUIRED_USE
and get the logic right. Mapping out a ^^ ( flag1 flag2 flag3 flag4
) into all of its permissible flag-a? ( flagb !flagc !flagd )
variants is a royal pain. Plus there's
readability/understandability to consider here.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
iF4EAREIAAYFAlXLfMYACgkQAJxUfCtlWe3JpQD9Gt87cclSsz3FTw5KbnlsSjVX
zf4FXOa4IMI4AcRCy+EA/37u0n/USxmMUDQxbVZT7Kp4O9EkdYR/DdNHQNUlBYMe
=Cpmr
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 12/08/15 12:53 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> On 12/08/15 11:55 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: >>> I think it is better seen as a list of implications, esp. >>> for this kind of questions :) With that in mind, there is no >>> autounmask-write: effective USE for a given package is input >>> USE with these implications applied. > > This very well summarises it. > >> ..if I'm understanding what you're saying here, you see this >> as something the PM will use to adjust the input use list so >> that the emerge itself will go ahead with the newly adjusted >> flags; am I understanding that correctly? > >> In other words, there won't be any user control/alert/override >> for what the default actions will be, if the user's profile >> isn't set up in a way that satisfies REQUIRED_USE, correct? so >> if I have 'app-cat/pkg qt4' in my package.use, but USE="qt5" in >> my profile, then because both flags end up being enabled the >> REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( +qt5 qt4 )" in app-cat/pkg will just >> force-off my package.use entry and everything will proceed as >> if it wasn't there? > > Indeed, maybe there would be too much magic at work there. > However, note that also currently you won't be able to emerge the > package with a package.use that results in conflicting flags. > > Ulrich > How would that be determined, then? These REQUIRED_USE flag forces would somehow occur in between the USE= assignment from the profile/make.conf and the entries from package.use ? This is why I was wondering if it'd make more sense for these REQUIRE_USE defaults to just help portage resolve the deptree, and then --autounmask-write to fix package.use to match before proceeding. Not as nice to end-users I know, but at least portage would resolve currently-unresolvable solutions to a known default; afaik portage can't even suggest a default solution the way things are now, can it? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlXLfAIACgkQAJxUfCtlWe1LhgEAtWKXnWtYLGxt/o6e+cKSXn3u VWidCNO/QKlT9Ji5uQQA/R9biZJqccv4I64JFW9tKWKAuWA3S67VaE9Rj/QZ3GNy =Mbw/ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:57:25 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 12/08/15 12:42 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >> 2 - is there a particular reasoning for the - in front of qt4
> >> here? I only ask because it would seem that a single
> >> default-enable should suffice in lists like this to indicate a
> >> resolution path, no? That is, '^^ ( +flag1 -flag2 -flag3 -flag4
> >> )' to me seems like it would be the same as '^^ ( +flag1 flag2
> >> flag3 flag4 )'
> >
> > If the user has both "qt4 qt5", then enabling qt5 alone won't
> > help to resolve "^^ ( qt5 qt4 )".
> >
>
> Right, but the PM knows based on a particular REQUIRED_USE operator
> what it would need to do when a particular flag is set to default.
> Given '^^' is must-be-one-of, the +flag would be enabled and all the
> other flags would be disabled, right?
>
> Here's how I'd see it mapping out:
>
> || ( +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM only forces-on flag1
> ^^ ( +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM forces-on flag1, forces-off all others
> ?? ( +flag2 flag2 ... ) , PM forces off all but flag1
>
> I'm not sure if the following make sense though... thoughts?
>
> {,!}flag1? ( +flag2 ) , PM forces-on flag2
> {,!}flag1? ( +!flag2 ) , PM forces !flag2, meaning forces-off flag2
>
>
> I'm just wondering if it's really necessary in terms of syntax to
> specify the flag-negation that the PM would need to do.
See my other email: neither + nor - are necessary :)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:27:15 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 12/08/15 11:55 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:30:39 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius > > wrote: > > > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 > >> > >> On 12/08/15 11:08 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote: > >>> > i.e. something that really tells the PM how to automate > the choice: - 'qt5 -> !qt4' is rather straightforward to > solve and tells the PM how (note that it is not equivalent > to 'qt4 -> !qt5') - '^^ ( qt5 qt4 )' requires the PM to > make a choice in order to automate it > >>> > >>> I was thinking about some syntax like this: > >>> > >>> REQUIRED_USE="|| ( +foo bar ) ^^ ( +qt5 -qt4 )" > >>> > >>> The package manager would first evaluate each group in > >>> REQUIRED_USE with the original set of USE flags. If that > >>> doesn't evaluate to true, retry with flags changed as > >>> indicated by the + and - signs. > >>> > >>> Ulrich > >>> > >> > >> Having the ability for REQUIRED_USE to provide a default > >> resolution path should definitely help with things; I assume > >> this is meant to do its work via --autounmask-write or similar, > >> ie to help users adjust their config files? Or was the thought > >> to allow PMs to override USE immediately? > > > > > > I think it is better seen as a list of implications, esp. for > > this kind of questions :) With that in mind, there is no > > autounmask-write: effective USE for a given package is input USE > > with these implications applied. > > ..if I'm understanding what you're saying here, you see this as > something the PM will use to adjust the input use list so that the > emerge itself will go ahead with the newly adjusted flags; am I > understanding that correctly? > > In other words, there won't be any user control/alert/override for > what the default actions will be, if the user's profile isn't set up > in a way that satisfies REQUIRED_USE, correct? so if I have > 'app-cat/pkg qt4' in my package.use, but USE="qt5" in my profile, > then because both flags end up being enabled the REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( > +qt5 qt4 )" in app-cat/pkg will just force-off my package.use entry > and everything will proceed as if it wasn't there? > > > > > >> Questions: > >> > >> 1 - how does +foo in REQUIRED_USE relate to use-defaults set in > >> IUSE? > > > > This questions remains. I see use-defaults in IUSE as part of > > "input USE" above. > > Yes, just as it is now, the use-defaults in IUSE are part of the > "input use". What I'm wondering is, would the +foo in > REQUIRED_USE="|| ( +foo bar )" be something that should be used in > combination with IUSE="+foo" (perhaps even require it) or would its > functionality and specification be entirely independent of it? > Right now for ||(), setting IUSE="+foo" gets around that issue in > almost all cases, the only case it doesn't is when the user has > explicitly set USE="-foo" (or USE="-*"). > > > > > > > > [...] > >> 3 - will having REQUIRED_USE be able to force flags on (and > >> others off) likely result in abuse of profiles and other use > >> defaults? I forsee this being a way, for instance, for a dev > >> to get around users setting USE="-*" in make.conf to ensure a > >> default use flag setting is honoured. > > > > How? > > This assumes that the PM will just set the flags that resolve the > REQUIRED_USE directly (ie modify the "input use" based on the > defaults provided) and go ahead, which seems to be what you're > implying will be the implementation, earlier on. See my response re > #1 above as well, since if I understand this correctly the > REQUIRED_USE="|| ( +foo bar )" will set +foo even if USE="-*" in the > profile right? Answering all the above questions I think: input use and "effective" use are unrelated. The point here is to give PM a way to solve REQUIRED_USE which we currently lack. How PM does it: by autounmask-write, a warning, an error (as currently), or silently is up to each user's preference. I agree though that forcibly solving the conflicts silently might not be a terrible idea and it'd be much better to have an option to control that behavior. Alexis.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/08/15 12:42 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> 2 - is there a particular reasoning for the - in front of qt4
>> here? I only ask because it would seem that a single
>> default-enable should suffice in lists like this to indicate a
>> resolution path, no? That is, '^^ ( +flag1 -flag2 -flag3 -flag4
>> )' to me seems like it would be the same as '^^ ( +flag1 flag2
>> flag3 flag4 )'
>
> If the user has both "qt4 qt5", then enabling qt5 alone won't
> help to resolve "^^ ( qt5 qt4 )".
>
Right, but the PM knows based on a particular REQUIRED_USE operator
what it would need to do when a particular flag is set to default.
Given '^^' is must-be-one-of, the +flag would be enabled and all the
other flags would be disabled, right?
Here's how I'd see it mapping out:
|| ( +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM only forces-on flag1
^^ ( +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM forces-on flag1, forces-off all others
?? ( +flag2 flag2 ... ) , PM forces off all but flag1
I'm not sure if the following make sense though... thoughts?
{,!}flag1? ( +flag2 ) , PM forces-on flag2
{,!}flag1? ( +!flag2 ) , PM forces !flag2, meaning forces-off flag2
I'm just wondering if it's really necessary in terms of syntax to
specify the flag-negation that the PM would need to do.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
iF4EAREIAAYFAlXLevUACgkQAJxUfCtlWe2egAD+K8DCAD4UfqR3A6GKNBcSzIL9
9NaJrt8TX/LRl3uSP8MBAJjwh5ybmY42dEe3lTBlHhlAv7entRSdzKM6tmwB26WW
=scA5
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 12/08/15 11:55 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: >> I think it is better seen as a list of implications, esp. for >> this kind of questions :) With that in mind, there is no >> autounmask-write: effective USE for a given package is input USE >> with these implications applied. This very well summarises it. > ..if I'm understanding what you're saying here, you see this as > something the PM will use to adjust the input use list so that the > emerge itself will go ahead with the newly adjusted flags; am I > understanding that correctly? > In other words, there won't be any user control/alert/override for > what the default actions will be, if the user's profile isn't set up > in a way that satisfies REQUIRED_USE, correct? so if I have > 'app-cat/pkg qt4' in my package.use, but USE="qt5" in my profile, > then because both flags end up being enabled the REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( > +qt5 qt4 )" in app-cat/pkg will just force-off my package.use entry > and everything will proceed as if it wasn't there? Indeed, maybe there would be too much magic at work there. However, note that also currently you won't be able to emerge the package with a package.use that results in conflicting flags. Ulrich pgp02Zm3PApGy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 12/08/15 11:08 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> I was thinking about some syntax like this: >> >> REQUIRED_USE="|| ( +foo bar ) ^^ ( +qt5 -qt4 )" >> >> The package manager would first evaluate each group in >> REQUIRED_USE with the original set of USE flags. If that doesn't >> evaluate to true, retry with flags changed as indicated by the + >> and - signs. > Having the ability for REQUIRED_USE to provide a default resolution > path should definitely help with things; I assume this is meant to > do its work via --autounmask-write or similar, ie to help users > adjust their config files? Or was the thought to allow PMs to > override USE immediately? In fact, I was thinking about overriding it immediately. It is the same as the ebuild explicitly picking a working default from conflicting flags, where there is also no user interaction required. (The PM should emit a warning, though.) > Questions: > 1 - how does +foo in REQUIRED_USE relate to use-defaults set in > IUSE? Apart from the similar syntax, they are not related. > 2 - is there a particular reasoning for the - in front of qt4 here? > I only ask because it would seem that a single default-enable > should suffice in lists like this to indicate a resolution path, no? > That is, '^^ ( +flag1 -flag2 -flag3 -flag4 )' to me seems like it > would be the same as '^^ ( +flag1 flag2 flag3 flag4 )' If the user has both "qt4 qt5", then enabling qt5 alone won't help to resolve "^^ ( qt5 qt4 )". > 3 - will having REQUIRED_USE be able to force flags on (and others > off) likely result in abuse of profiles and other use defaults? It wouldn't look for the origin of a USE flag setting in its input data. So, yes. > I forsee this being a way, for instance, for a dev to get around > users setting USE="-*" in make.conf to ensure a default use flag > setting is honoured. > 4 - Will a change to which flag the '+' is on likely to require a > revbump for VDB updates? I don't think so. For Portage users, it would be handled by --newuse, I guess. > For something like '^^ ( +qt4 qt5 )' I could see maintainers wanting > to switch which flag is default across a bunch of packages at once > when, say, the qt team wants qt5 to become the de-facto default. Ulrich pgpi4HeTmPlXu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 12/08/15 11:55 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:30:39 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius > wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 12/08/15 11:08 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote: >>> i.e. something that really tells the PM how to automate the choice: - 'qt5 -> !qt4' is rather straightforward to solve and tells the PM how (note that it is not equivalent to 'qt4 -> !qt5') - '^^ ( qt5 qt4 )' requires the PM to make a choice in order to automate it >>> >>> I was thinking about some syntax like this: >>> >>> REQUIRED_USE="|| ( +foo bar ) ^^ ( +qt5 -qt4 )" >>> >>> The package manager would first evaluate each group in >>> REQUIRED_USE with the original set of USE flags. If that >>> doesn't evaluate to true, retry with flags changed as >>> indicated by the + and - signs. >>> >>> Ulrich >>> >> >> Having the ability for REQUIRED_USE to provide a default >> resolution path should definitely help with things; I assume >> this is meant to do its work via --autounmask-write or similar, >> ie to help users adjust their config files? Or was the thought >> to allow PMs to override USE immediately? > > > I think it is better seen as a list of implications, esp. for > this kind of questions :) With that in mind, there is no > autounmask-write: effective USE for a given package is input USE > with these implications applied. ..if I'm understanding what you're saying here, you see this as something the PM will use to adjust the input use list so that the emerge itself will go ahead with the newly adjusted flags; am I understanding that correctly? In other words, there won't be any user control/alert/override for what the default actions will be, if the user's profile isn't set up in a way that satisfies REQUIRED_USE, correct? so if I have 'app-cat/pkg qt4' in my package.use, but USE="qt5" in my profile, then because both flags end up being enabled the REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( +qt5 qt4 )" in app-cat/pkg will just force-off my package.use entry and everything will proceed as if it wasn't there? > >> Questions: >> >> 1 - how does +foo in REQUIRED_USE relate to use-defaults set in >> IUSE? > > This questions remains. I see use-defaults in IUSE as part of > "input USE" above. Yes, just as it is now, the use-defaults in IUSE are part of the "input use". What I'm wondering is, would the +foo in REQUIRED_USE="|| ( +foo bar )" be something that should be used in combination with IUSE="+foo" (perhaps even require it) or would its functionality and specification be entirely independent of it? Right now for ||(), setting IUSE="+foo" gets around that issue in almost all cases, the only case it doesn't is when the user has explicitly set USE="-foo" (or USE="-*"). > > > [...] >> 3 - will having REQUIRED_USE be able to force flags on (and >> others off) likely result in abuse of profiles and other use >> defaults? I forsee this being a way, for instance, for a dev >> to get around users setting USE="-*" in make.conf to ensure a >> default use flag setting is honoured. > > How? This assumes that the PM will just set the flags that resolve the REQUIRED_USE directly (ie modify the "input use" based on the defaults provided) and go ahead, which seems to be what you're implying will be the implementation, earlier on. See my response re #1 above as well, since if I understand this correctly the REQUIRED_USE="|| ( +foo bar )" will set +foo even if USE="-*" in the profile right? > >> 4 - Will a change to which flag the '+' is on likely to require >> a revbump for VDB updates? For something like '^^ ( +qt4 qt5 >> )' I could see maintainers wanting to switch which flag is >> default across a bunch of packages at once when, say, the qt >> team wants qt5 to become the de-facto default. > > It'll "require" a rebuild for those whose default changes anyway. > I'd say no revbump since we don't revbump all affected packages > when we add default enabled flags to make.defaults. Thinking about it I think I answered my own question, in that there shouldn't be any need for this to affect VDB since the end-result is expressed in the state recorded in 'USE'. And no VDB change means no need for a revbump. Whether or not the change results in a rebuild on -N will depend on whether or not the state of the user's profile will result in a REQUIRED_USE conflict that needs to be default-resolved or not, and that's true from emerge to emerge no matter what. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlXLc+MACgkQAJxUfCtlWe3GKgEAvfYZ3SD2NcKCeZjf4qlfzy2G Fjzfub0X2BfuiAVJnbgA/RIaxTQRGt7PL693qNS3HxOX/q2T7l6W3Hv105NeBTlT =S9wv -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:30:39 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 12/08/15 11:08 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > >> i.e. something that really tells the PM how to automate the > >> choice: - 'qt5 -> !qt4' is rather straightforward to solve and > >> tells the PM how (note that it is not equivalent to 'qt4 -> > >> !qt5') - '^^ ( qt5 qt4 )' requires the PM to make a choice in > >> order to automate it > > > > I was thinking about some syntax like this: > > > > REQUIRED_USE="|| ( +foo bar ) ^^ ( +qt5 -qt4 )" > > > > The package manager would first evaluate each group in > > REQUIRED_USE with the original set of USE flags. If that doesn't > > evaluate to true, retry with flags changed as indicated by the + > > and - signs. > > > > Ulrich > > > > Having the ability for REQUIRED_USE to provide a default resolution > path should definitely help with things; I assume this is meant to > do its work via --autounmask-write or similar, ie to help users > adjust their config files? Or was the thought to allow PMs to > override USE immediately? I think it is better seen as a list of implications, esp. for this kind of questions :) With that in mind, there is no autounmask-write: effective USE for a given package is input USE with these implications applied. > Questions: > > 1 - how does +foo in REQUIRED_USE relate to use-defaults set in IUSE? This questions remains. I see use-defaults in IUSE as part of "input USE" above. [...] > 3 - will having REQUIRED_USE be able to force flags on (and others > off) likely result in abuse of profiles and other use defaults? I > forsee this being a way, for instance, for a dev to get around users > setting USE="-*" in make.conf to ensure a default use flag setting > is honoured. How? > 4 - Will a change to which flag the '+' is on likely to require a > revbump for VDB updates? For something like '^^ ( +qt4 qt5 )' I > could see maintainers wanting to switch which flag is default across > a bunch of packages at once when, say, the qt team wants qt5 to > become the de-facto default. It'll "require" a rebuild for those whose default changes anyway. I'd say no revbump since we don't revbump all affected packages when we add default enabled flags to make.defaults. Alexis.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:08:59 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > i.e. something that really tells the PM how to automate the choice: > > - 'qt5 -> !qt4' is rather straightforward to solve and tells the PM > > how (note that it is not equivalent to 'qt4 -> !qt5') > > - '^^ ( qt5 qt4 )' requires the PM to make a choice in order to > > automate it > > I was thinking about some syntax like this: > >REQUIRED_USE="|| ( +foo bar ) ^^ ( +qt5 -qt4 )" > > The package manager would first evaluate each group in REQUIRED_USE > with the original set of USE flags. If that doesn't evaluate to true, > retry with flags changed as indicated by the + and - signs. it is more in the line of what we currently do, but that doesn't resolve the 'sat' problem: it doesnt make clear we don't want to satisfy it but rather walk through a list of causes and consequences now that i'm thinking more about it, killing || and ^^ would probably solve the automation problem: qt? ( !qt4? ( qt5 ) qt4? ( !qt5 ) ) vs 'qt? ( ^^ ( qt4 qt5 ) )' a bit longer but PM now knows what to do both are equally expressive: || ( a b ) <-> !a? ( b ) (or !b? ( a ) depending on preference) Here PM will enable b if a is disabled (a if b is disabled in the latter form) ^^ ( a b ) <-> !a? ( b ) a? ( !b ) Here PM will enable b if a is disabled; disable b if a is enabled No need for a new syntax :) Alexis.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 12/08/15 11:08 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote: > >> i.e. something that really tells the PM how to automate the >> choice: - 'qt5 -> !qt4' is rather straightforward to solve and >> tells the PM how (note that it is not equivalent to 'qt4 -> >> !qt5') - '^^ ( qt5 qt4 )' requires the PM to make a choice in >> order to automate it > > I was thinking about some syntax like this: > > REQUIRED_USE="|| ( +foo bar ) ^^ ( +qt5 -qt4 )" > > The package manager would first evaluate each group in > REQUIRED_USE with the original set of USE flags. If that doesn't > evaluate to true, retry with flags changed as indicated by the + > and - signs. > > Ulrich > Having the ability for REQUIRED_USE to provide a default resolution path should definitely help with things; I assume this is meant to do its work via --autounmask-write or similar, ie to help users adjust their config files? Or was the thought to allow PMs to override USE immediately? Questions: 1 - how does +foo in REQUIRED_USE relate to use-defaults set in IUSE? 2 - is there a particular reasoning for the - in front of qt4 here? I only ask because it would seem that a single default-enable should suffice in lists like this to indicate a resolution path, no? That is, '^^ ( +flag1 -flag2 -flag3 -flag4 )' to me seems like it would be the same as '^^ ( +flag1 flag2 flag3 flag4 )' 3 - will having REQUIRED_USE be able to force flags on (and others off) likely result in abuse of profiles and other use defaults? I forsee this being a way, for instance, for a dev to get around users setting USE="-*" in make.conf to ensure a default use flag setting is honoured. 4 - Will a change to which flag the '+' is on likely to require a revbump for VDB updates? For something like '^^ ( +qt4 qt5 )' I could see maintainers wanting to switch which flag is default across a bunch of packages at once when, say, the qt team wants qt5 to become the de-facto default. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlXLZp8ACgkQAJxUfCtlWe0NcgEAzt6FjitYEyk6h2HufX4WiKko tldpUk71Wnj+y5ejB38A/R23oq0E4PakpXg5ML8pqG8gPnyXJmIN8Fuh6Gj1Y+6Y =UaQK -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote: > i.e. something that really tells the PM how to automate the choice: > - 'qt5 -> !qt4' is rather straightforward to solve and tells the PM how > (note that it is not equivalent to 'qt4 -> !qt5') > - '^^ ( qt5 qt4 )' requires the PM to make a choice in order to > automate it I was thinking about some syntax like this: REQUIRED_USE="|| ( +foo bar ) ^^ ( +qt5 -qt4 )" The package manager would first evaluate each group in REQUIRED_USE with the original set of USE flags. If that doesn't evaluate to true, retry with flags changed as indicated by the + and - signs. Ulrich pgptPvjWEli86.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 12/08/15 09:40 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > At the very least, we need to be able to tag REQUIRED_USE > conflicts with human readable error messages. OK, so I know I > can't have USE="qt4 qt5" for this package... but why? How do I > fix it? We can do that with pkg_pretend and a bunch of "if" > statements, or maybe there's value in having the requirements in > a variable -- who knows. The former is a lot simpler to > implement. > > I still think it's really important to note the meaning of "Can't" here. "Can't" IMO should still really mean cannot -- that setting both flags is going to cause a problem that'll break the system, conflicts that will cause things to not work. This whole qt4/qt5 discussion isn't about "can't", but about "doesn't." -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlXLWoAACgkQAJxUfCtlWe2GAwD/dgkq8Iyd4njMd2tAvO8zWVOr JddKwKnUxMxT4haGYDYBAIxIQbT5BM3+iHkNWXF8nKm6GXukNKqUODhZl3eNRoUi =kAZd -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 09:40:00AM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 08/12/2015 12:21 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 23:30:31 +1000 > > Michael Palimaka wrote: > >> I invite you to reproduce the problem yourself then make the > >> judgement. Using REQUIRED_USE like this makes the affected packages > >> unusable. > > > > Can't we all (except for the usual suspect) just agree that REQUIRED_USE > > was a mistake, and go back to pkg_pretend? The only justification for > > REQUIRED_USE was that it could allegedly be used in an automated > > fashion, and this hasn't happened. > > > > I'm starting to see the light. USE flags and their > combinations/conflicts are almost always package- if not > ebuild-specific. The problem isn't that REQUIRED_USE forces me to do > something, it's that portage will only ever be able to output 45 pages > of garbage rather than telling me how to fix it (which again, depends on > the package/ebuild). > > At the very least, we need to be able to tag REQUIRED_USE conflicts with > human readable error messages. OK, so I know I can't have USE="qt4 qt5" > for this package... but why? How do I fix it? We can do that with > pkg_pretend and a bunch of "if" statements, or maybe there's value in > having the requirements in a variable -- who knows. The former is a lot > simpler to implement. I always wondered why pkg_pretend never caught on. I to can see the advantage of it over REQUIRED_USE; it would allow the package maintainer to give specific error messages about why use flag combinations are invalid for a package. Without really knowing what the opposing viewpoint is, I think pkg_pretend is the better way to go as well. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On 08/12/2015 12:21 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 23:30:31 +1000 > Michael Palimaka wrote: >> I invite you to reproduce the problem yourself then make the >> judgement. Using REQUIRED_USE like this makes the affected packages >> unusable. > > Can't we all (except for the usual suspect) just agree that REQUIRED_USE > was a mistake, and go back to pkg_pretend? The only justification for > REQUIRED_USE was that it could allegedly be used in an automated > fashion, and this hasn't happened. > I'm starting to see the light. USE flags and their combinations/conflicts are almost always package- if not ebuild-specific. The problem isn't that REQUIRED_USE forces me to do something, it's that portage will only ever be able to output 45 pages of garbage rather than telling me how to fix it (which again, depends on the package/ebuild). At the very least, we need to be able to tag REQUIRED_USE conflicts with human readable error messages. OK, so I know I can't have USE="qt4 qt5" for this package... but why? How do I fix it? We can do that with pkg_pretend and a bunch of "if" statements, or maybe there's value in having the requirements in a variable -- who knows. The former is a lot simpler to implement.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 05:21:20 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 23:30:31 +1000 > Michael Palimaka wrote: > > I invite you to reproduce the problem yourself then make the > > judgement. Using REQUIRED_USE like this makes the affected packages > > unusable. > > Can't we all (except for the usual suspect) just agree that > REQUIRED_USE was a mistake, and go back to pkg_pretend? The only > justification for REQUIRED_USE was that it could allegedly be used in > an automated fashion, and this hasn't happened. +1 or restrict it so that it is not yet another sat instance i.e. something that really tells the PM how to automate the choice: - 'qt5 -> !qt4' is rather straightforward to solve and tells the PM how (note that it is not equivalent to 'qt4 -> !qt5') - '^^ ( qt5 qt4 )' requires the PM to make a choice in order to automate it
[gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
Sergey Popov posted on Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300 as excerpted: > 11.08.2015 15:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: >> On 11/08/15 20:10, Sergey Popov wrote: >>> Err, i have read the whole thread and still does not get a point, why >>> i am wrong. >> >> You clearly have not. The reasoning behind Qt team's policy is >> described on the page and has been reiterated on this list. You are >> undermining what little confidence there is in the QA team by making >> decisions with no consultation about problems you do not understand. >> >>> It's old battle like we have beforce with "gtk" meaning "any versions >>> of GTK flag". This behaviour should be killed with fire. >>> >>> Let's me reiterate some of the cases: >>> >>> 1. Package can be build without Qt GUI at all, but either Qt4 or Qt5 >>> can be chosen, but not both. >>> >>> Fix this with REQUIRED_USE, do not enable any of Qt flags by default >> >> Problem: this requires manual intervention if the user has both qt4 and >> qt5 USE flags enabled. >> >> > User choice of using USE flags is NOT a problem [As has been said elsewhere in the thread but you apparently haven't seen...] But if the profile enables both qt4 and qt5, as at least one profile, the new plasma (aka kde5) profile does, and really must? The desktop profile enables qt4. The plasma profile inherits qt4 from there and enables qt5, so both are enabled. And because kde5 is an incremental switchover that still includes many kde4-based apps, some of which likely have deps that need qt4 in the USE flags and users likely still want it enabled in any case, it's not as simple as disabling the qt4 USE flag in the plasma profile, either. Furthermore, as qt5 matures and more apps base on it, it's likely that qt5 will need enabled in the desktop profile as well, well before qt4 can be conveniently disabled. So there's some users now, the ones using the plasma profile, and will soon be very many users, anyone using a desktop-inheriting profile, that will have and arguably need, both qt4 and qt5 enabled. You're really saying that *all* of them should be forced to deal with dozens of package-specific package.use settings, to negate the effects of REQUIRED_USE when both qt4 and qt5 are enabled in their gentoo-shipped profile? This is why it's a problem. If it were just the people that specifically set both qt4 and qt5 in make.conf. it'd be a much smaller problem and could perhaps be simply ignored as a user-created problem. But when it's the default setting in all desktop profiles, as it's very likely to be within a year, it's no longer simply a user-created problem. [Personally, I both run with USE="-* ..." and started trying qt5 and kde5/ plasma back when they were both still in the overlay, so I've long since worked out the biggest such problems here. I didn't complain as it's simply part of both trying things that far ahead and specifying that I /want/ the choice and will deal with the consequences of such things by setting USE=-*. But it'd be very nice if our stable desktop users didn't have to go thru the same thing I did, once they get plasma5, just because they use a desktop profile.] -- 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] Re: useflag policies
Alexandre Rostovtsev posted on Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:13:36 -0400 as excerpted: > On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 16:04 +0300, Sergey Popov wrote: >> You want to migrate to such decision? Like: >> >> qt? ( >> > qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) >> ) >> >> Fine by me, if you would ask. > > That flag should be called "gui". Not "qt". > > This would be the real solution to gnome team's gtk/gtk2/gtk3 flag > problem and to qt team's flag problem too. Hasn't the X USE flag effectively been the gui USE flag (with curses as a semi-gui USE flag)? With wayland coming along, what will be the effect, since we'll effectively have two separate GUIs, then, instead of X being the de facto gui USE flag? Of course X remains the default for now, but for how long? -- 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: useflag policies
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 23:30:31 +1000 Michael Palimaka wrote: > I invite you to reproduce the problem yourself then make the > judgement. Using REQUIRED_USE like this makes the affected packages > unusable. Can't we all (except for the usual suspect) just agree that REQUIRED_USE was a mistake, and go back to pkg_pretend? The only justification for REQUIRED_USE was that it could allegedly be used in an automated fashion, and this hasn't happened. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/08/15 03:13 PM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: > Is a possible solution something like an eselect module to > indicate the preferred interface kit? It could default to any > package that is available with a sequential set of preferred > order. Then ebuild would consult the eselect module, and users > who care can select the kit they want, and users who don't > care/know get the default. > > > Just a nickel's worth opinion. Due to inflation it isn't 2 cents > any more. > Firstly, that's what USE flags are supposed to be for in the first place. Secondly, although something could be done within phase functions to deal with whatever the eselected iface-kit is, that afaik isn't something that would be permitted in global scope and so RDEPEND wouldn't be changed. Also I forsee major issues with binary packages, as right now the use flag settings partly determine whether a binpkg can be applied on another system based on that system's profile/use-flag settings (and those would now be gone). If you're talking instead about using an eselect module to adjust or auto-fill /etc/portage/package.use . i dunno. I think the metadata setup to get that right is is still going to be a lot of work for dev's to do (meaning it won't be done). -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlXKUhwACgkQAJxUfCtlWe1WhQEAlpdOL975yR+jYyNQNZWKML6l ZJlKzxrEKM1JMfLs+acA/0ypsvc/DLULgZWqZY7t+KdbappPNlI/K6YJDPyeKtS7 =/9HJ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: > Is a possible solution something like an eselect module to indicate > the preferred > interface kit? It could default to any package that is available with > a sequential > set of preferred order. > Then ebuild would consult the eselect module, and users who care can > select the kit they want, and users who don't care/know get the default. That still neglects the case where a user just wanted to say "use the best version of qt for any particular package," which I'd argue is probably the most common use case. It may not make sense to have one global preference system-wide, and managing it per-package is painful. It really does make sense to leave it up to the maintainer, while still letting people either turn off qt entirely if they'd prefer to do so, or override the default implementation when they really want to. There is always requiring any package that supports qt to enable either qt4 or qt5 by default, so the typical user who wants qt does nothing, the typical user who doesn't want qt sets USE="-qt4 -qt5", and then anybody who wants to override things per-package can do so. That is simple to define in ebuilds, and you can set REQUIRED_USE to prevent them both from being set. It just means having qt support by default all over the tree and forcing people who don't want it to explicitly turn it off. That is simple to do at least, but not really in keeping with the general spirit of the base profile being a minimal one. And it would still be difficult to do anything at the profile level if it were appropriate to do so. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
Is a possible solution something like an eselect module to indicate the preferred interface kit? It could default to any package that is available with a sequential set of preferred order. Then ebuild would consult the eselect module, and users who care can select the kit they want, and users who don't care/know get the default. Just a nickel's worth opinion. Due to inflation it isn't 2 cents any more. -- G.Wolfe Woodbury redwo...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 08/11/2015 03:41 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: > I'd suggest to make a QA team meeting to override this policies > with more correct and rationale. > > Qt team members are greatly appreciated on this meeting. Even more, > i think that we should not take any decision on this without at > least Qt team lead(or half of Qt team devs) > > So, let's arrange some time and talk about this, cause it is > really confusing. Qt team point is understandable, but it's still > wrong. Let's make some consensus here. > > 02.08.2015 19:34, Ben de Groot пишет: >> Recently some team members of the Qt project have adopted these >> ebuild policies: >> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Qt/Policies >> >> I have an issue with the policy adopted under "Requires one of >> two Qt versions". In my opinion, in the case where a package >> offers a choice between qt4 or qt5, we should express this in >> explicit useflags and a REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( qt4 qt5 )". This >> offers the user the clearest choice. >> >> Other developers state that users are not interested in such >> implementation details, or that forced choice through >> REQUIRED_USE is too much of a hassle. This results in current >> ebuilds such as quassel to not make it clear that qt4 is an >> option. >> >> This goes against the principle of least surprise, as well as >> against QA recommendations. I would like to hear specifically >> from QA about how we should proceed, but comments from the wider >> developer community are also welcome. >> >> -- Cheers, >> >> Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer >> > > I'm interested in this meeting as well, as maintainer of a package that can be built with one of two toolkit versions. At the moment, I'm using REQUIRED_USE with a preference preset for users that don't care, but it does cause a problem when both flags are set (so it's something I'd like to fix). I'd like to be part of the conversation if you don't mind. - -- Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVykQPAAoJEAEkDpRQOeFwVAgP+wYqVva9YHWmUOwC2dyrUFhx EjnPHBRaAsd6vOdoKKoFbO2c4wMhcoXb2C9pgLDw4O+eB2Q7JE3iMiiG/vAwGGtN 10meoAjvFV+DxpB7EYiHNj8NtlKq8PAncHusu6H/eP7YwdS37ruO4E89nBbXzxjU JQru2bxL6Jf7m/LuI5lihdU6fwe1GrsDz0fCaeZ/49zBE8EPY1PjDbV8G8vHq/S6 UAgGXmFbzN8lPXfgBgnaD4O6So+WrhILUeTy4CVUQu0599W4UFmLqOmupeRHD0SM wHjtJ/0gW+Wfb7VbuQsfrmNYuu0Fh/Wx15qs62/8YcgIOxb5YI31cefPa7e3HZbm RQ52JC16Pl7VxPEsf5jhcQ6+QCpdOi/jH7B72JQiSgmtLF9N6j4kcr8XGtJB/HLy PlJES1865ugS8LWpMiJCCwGyO8o/lOi4scbumw+XxjWj43Z93d66wGK84Yf2goAL VBVA0JjzrJ46EIrBbqOPECMZZvJjeq4t28V3DHAdLPZmxhvLQjIjEqb8wywR5USa NJ4kDgP5H85udznBk7JWapFu+ipphFm8uzKt6nqCeAfVc/y3n4rLZ9aUDCBVKodv lzr652TmUw2sBvmhM6oRqsGZuMg6t0peBOOTFjTMJl+WYG+eUybvsWk9RQ9HQpuW aqpPa6GiLL9Gbx8JTX8F =JOKI -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 12/08/15 00:29, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> I realize this is frustrating and contentious, but I think we're >> better off hashing this out, and implementing something reasonable, >> than having a bazillion different conventions that users have to deal >> with. Usually I prefer maintainer autonomy, but this is just one of >> those times it doesn't make sense. >> > > Isn't this moving towards a situation that we used GLEP 39 to remove? > Fair enough. I don't really have a problem with the qt team proposing a policy and having QA or the Council bless it. Or having a more general policy and the QA policy is just an instance of it. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/08/15 10:19 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Sergey Popov > wrote: >> 11.08.2015 16:36, Rich Freeman пишет: >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Sergey Popov >>> wrote: 11.08.2015 16:11, James Le Cuirot пишет: > On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300 Sergey Popov > wrote: > >> If both of flags are not set - we stick to default. >> Should this be set in EVERY ebuild explicitly? >> >> Maybe provide some sugar like $(qt_use_default qtgui 5), >> where qt_use_default is the name of function, qtgui is >> the package and 5 is the slot for default choice, where >> either BOTH of flags(qt4, qt5) are enabled or disabled > > That sounds a little bit like what I suggested earlier. > > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/884257a2d924a51851d 629b1dc9b30df > > But without introducing brand new useless USE flag. Which makes huge difference to me :-) >>> >>> If we want the typical user to not set either qt4 or qt5, are >>> we saying that any package that could use either always enable >>> one of them by default? Then all users get a GUI by default, >>> and then users have to explicitly disable it? That seems to be >>> the opposite of how we normally do things, but it does let you >>> get away from having lots of users turning on qt. >> >> I suggested this for packages, where GUI can not be disabled AND >> it should be either qt4 or qt5. Then, if we do not add + to USE >> description, users without anything in make.conf just run the >> blocker >> > > What if the GUI can be disabled? Should we force users to set > USE="-qt4 -qt5" to disable the GUI? Or should we force users to > put one of those in their make.conf or profile to enable it > (causing problems with packages that don't allow both)? > I think the idea with USE="gui" is that the generic profiles then no longer need any qt4/qt5/gtk3/whatever flags in them at all, and the ebuilds themselves can set a single default-enable on the particular flag that should be used by default, thus allowing REQUIRED_USE to be satisfied by default when an end-user doesn't care. However, I agree that USE=gui still has the problem where the sub-flags have active state in VDB, meaning that any change to the sub-flags will trigger rebuilds on -N even if USE="-gui". And since (if i understand this thread correctly) part of the reason for doing all of this is to ensure VDB is as "accurate" as possible to what the package actually uses/needs/depends on/etc, we end up not having solved anything. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlXKEmUACgkQAJxUfCtlWe3fowEA6Sx5CtDme6K2h5Yu0yYrfUnb 2ZunvwQFlv4QAD+fQ1wA/3aX/kfviD+FttzxHgWBH3uGg1SX8DHNCFptfv9y2lJe =6i3x -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/08/15 09:04 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 15:32, Michael Palimaka пишет: >> On 11/08/15 20:17, Sergey Popov wrote: >>> 09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет: I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly, and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case for it. >>> >>> So, you prefer to make ugly mess of deps here like i posted >>> before or introduce some really unneded USE-flag like 'gui', >>> 'qt', etc. to make users even more confused? >>> >>> Really, look at man-db ebuild. Especially on berkdb and gdbm >>> USE flags. And dependency string like this: >>> >>> !berkdb? ( !gdbm? ( sys-libs/gdbm ) ) >>> >>> One sentence: "WHAT THE HELL?" >>> >>> Imagine that it would be dozen of flags. Is it fun to mess with >>> deps like this for you? >> >> Shall we ban this too? >> >> ffmpeg? ( libav? ( media-video/libav:= ) !libav? ( >> media-video/ffmpeg:0= ) ) >> >> >> >> > > No, because ffmpeg here is a feature AND name of concrete > realization. Not ideal case as i would said, but it is acceptable. > > You want to migrate to such decision? Like: > > qt? ( qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) ) > > Fine by me, if you would ask. > > As i said one message earlier: Something like $(qt_use_default > qtgui 5) > > which will generate something like this: > > qt4? ( qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) ) > !qt5? ( !qt4? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) ) > > would help too. Woah -- why would qt5 be a dep when both flags are off? If you have a package that -needs- one version enabled, then in that case I do fully support REQUIRED_USE="|| ( qt4 qt5 )". '||' being the one-or-more-of operator. The other alternative here would be that there is no qt5 flag, just a qt4 one, and the qt4 one toggles qt5 off and qt4 on. And that just isn't pretty, so let's not do that. And using this form of REQUIRED_USE I believe (if I understand what QA's and QT's stances are on this) is not in conflict with either group, right? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlXKDosACgkQAJxUfCtlWe2Z8QD/Z+NvyJ0VXoIQH/KRPy8Asete iXZTpA1QgLDh4xYJE9YBAOTV61mJP472jBu/kEmJOK9cZPFW9PfJ15I0IvoBWdNF =1oaz -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/08/15 08:58 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 15:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: >> On 11/08/15 20:10, Sergey Popov wrote: >>> Err, i have read the whole thread and still does not get a >>> point, why i am wrong. >> >> You clearly have not. The reasoning behind Qt team's policy is >> described on the page and has been reiterated on this list. You >> are undermining what little confidence there is in the QA team by >> making decisions with no consultation about problems you do not >> understand. >> >>> It's old battle like we have beforce with "gtk" meaning "any >>> versions of GTK flag". This behaviour should be killed with >>> fire. >>> >>> Let's me reiterate some of the cases: >>> >>> 1. Package can be build without Qt GUI at all, but either Qt4 >>> or Qt5 can be chosen, but not both. >>> >>> Fix this with REQUIRED_USE, do not enable any of Qt flags by >>> default >> >> Problem: this requires manual intervention if the user has both >> qt4 and qt5 USE flags enabled. >> > > User choice of using USE flags is NOT a problem > >>> >>> 2. Package can not be build without Qt GUI - either Qt4 or Qt5 >>> is required, but not both >>> >>> Same thing here, different REQUIRED_USE operator. But - enable >>> one of the flags by default to ease life of users. >> >> Problem: this requires manual intervention if the user has both >> qt4 and qt5 USE flags enabled. > > Same here > >>> >>> 3. Package can be build with Qt4 or Qt5 or both AT THE SAME >>> TIME(if such package even exists?) >>> >>> Do not use REQUIRED_USE here, not needed. >>> >>> Now, please tell me, where am i wrong? >>> >> >> The problem is manual intervention is required if the user has >> both qt4 and qt5 USE flags enabled - and this is a common >> configuration. It is not acceptable to make a user manually add >> numerous package.use entries when all they want to do is install >> KDE. > > And here > >> I agree Qt's policy is not a perfect solution, but in the absence >> of some feature allowing a preference to be set when there is a >> conflict it's the best we've got. >> > > If you want to go this way, then please provide helper functions > in eclasses to set dependencies properly for all common use cases. > That will ease life both of developers and users. > Why do you need this? #1, if you really want RDEPEND to only include the deps the package will actually use, then you do this: old: qt5? ( list of qt5 atoms ) qt4? ( list of qt4 atoms ) ..to new: qt5? ( list of qt5 atoms ) !qt5? ( qt4? ( list of qt4 atoms ) ) BUT I would advise against this. If a user has specified both qt4 and qt5 in USE, then I see no problem with the VDB having both qt4 and qt5 atoms listed as dependencies. End-users that want a clean VDB can just make sure they only enable one flag, but end-users that don't care will have packages that just work. > Leaving constructing of dependencies to developers in all cases > will cause only pain in your solution. It really wont, see above. At minimum, it's barely any more work than it is with a REQUIRED_USE based solution. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlXKDTkACgkQAJxUfCtlWe09QAD/ST47V7i08k09c8o+dgMx8hQP cRyBiTzxHKKtQ3aqmKIBAIdjBB4rGZLLMjiu9l0KfUOkOT1J+Z8oHPWQhzDPJpqv =LCgR -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On 12/08/15 00:29, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: >> 11.08.2015 16:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: >>> >>> Don't forget that as a project with no special authority, Qt's policy >>> remains a suggestion for the vast majority of maintainers. If someone >>> wishes to provide support for only one Qt version or abuse their users >>> with REQUIRED_USE they are still free to do so. >>> >> >> Not enforcing policies on main tree is a bad thing. If you make policy, >> make other maintainers follow it. I am not against consistent policy >> that ease life BOTH for developers and users. > > ++ > > I think the qt team taking the lead on this makes sense, but this is > the sort of thing that just makes sense as a treewide policy. If > people don't like their suggested policy they can take it to > QA/council/whatever, but it makes more sense to have projects setting > standards than having everybody doing their own thing. > > I realize this is frustrating and contentious, but I think we're > better off hashing this out, and implementing something reasonable, > than having a bazillion different conventions that users have to deal > with. Usually I prefer maintainer autonomy, but this is just one of > those times it doesn't make sense. > Isn't this moving towards a situation that we used GLEP 39 to remove?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/08/15 06:10 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: > Err, i have read the whole thread and still does not get a point, > why i am wrong. > > It's old battle like we have beforce with "gtk" meaning "any > versions of GTK flag". This behaviour should be killed with fire. > > Let's me reiterate some of the cases: > > 1. Package can be build without Qt GUI at all, but either Qt4 or > Qt5 can be chosen, but not both. > > Fix this with REQUIRED_USE, do not enable any of Qt flags by > default > Why does this need REQUIRED_USE at all? neither flag is necessary, and just because the package only uses one flag at a time doesn't mean we should require users that have both flags set in profiles to -have to- package.use one of them off. > 2. Package can not be build without Qt GUI - either Qt4 or Qt5 is > required, but not both > > Same thing here, different REQUIRED_USE operator. But - enable one > of the flags by default to ease life of users. > IUSE="qt4 +qt5" and USE="qt4 -qt5" globally (ie from profiles) is going to make a REQUIRED_USE force an exception in package.use as well. Again, annoying to end-users for no overly good reason and see #1 . > 3. Package can be build with Qt4 or Qt5 or both AT THE SAME TIME(if > such package even exists?) > > Do not use REQUIRED_USE here, not needed. > > Now, please tell me, where am i wrong? > IMO it's wrong because REQUIRED_USE is a BFH for what really ends up as an extra, dangling enabled use flag. Unless there's a case (and i truely doubt there is) that there's a package with IUSE="qt4" that depends on ANOTHER package with IUSE="qt4 qt5", and that other package only builds against one implementation, AND the dep on the first package doesn't include any use deps, I still see no actual -need- for REQUIRED_USE. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlXKCZwACgkQAJxUfCtlWe3GqwEA2UCV9E+h+Djy7+KiwqODkEjv MiToijoa6ncX3xicD4cA/3PIQcv3ObG+obxECkB1gzyYclQrVGCaHT79DAkVE3oK =2iat -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 16:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: >> >> Don't forget that as a project with no special authority, Qt's policy >> remains a suggestion for the vast majority of maintainers. If someone >> wishes to provide support for only one Qt version or abuse their users >> with REQUIRED_USE they are still free to do so. >> > > Not enforcing policies on main tree is a bad thing. If you make policy, > make other maintainers follow it. I am not against consistent policy > that ease life BOTH for developers and users. ++ I think the qt team taking the lead on this makes sense, but this is the sort of thing that just makes sense as a treewide policy. If people don't like their suggested policy they can take it to QA/council/whatever, but it makes more sense to have projects setting standards than having everybody doing their own thing. I realize this is frustrating and contentious, but I think we're better off hashing this out, and implementing something reasonable, than having a bazillion different conventions that users have to deal with. Usually I prefer maintainer autonomy, but this is just one of those times it doesn't make sense. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 16:36, Rich Freeman пишет: >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: >>> 11.08.2015 16:11, James Le Cuirot пишет: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300 Sergey Popov wrote: > If both of flags are not set - we stick to default. > Should this be set in EVERY ebuild explicitly? > > Maybe provide some sugar like $(qt_use_default qtgui 5), where > qt_use_default is the name of function, qtgui is the package and 5 is > the slot for default choice, where either BOTH of flags(qt4, qt5) are > enabled or disabled That sounds a little bit like what I suggested earlier. https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/884257a2d924a51851d629b1dc9b30df >>> >>> But without introducing brand new useless USE flag. Which makes huge >>> difference to me :-) >>> >> >> If we want the typical user to not set either qt4 or qt5, are we >> saying that any package that could use either always enable one of >> them by default? Then all users get a GUI by default, and then users >> have to explicitly disable it? That seems to be the opposite of how >> we normally do things, but it does let you get away from having lots >> of users turning on qt. > > I suggested this for packages, where GUI can not be disabled AND it > should be either qt4 or qt5. Then, if we do not add + to USE > description, users without anything in make.conf just run the blocker > What if the GUI can be disabled? Should we force users to set USE="-qt4 -qt5" to disable the GUI? Or should we force users to put one of those in their make.conf or profile to enable it (causing problems with packages that don't allow both)? -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 00:02 +1000, Michael Palimaka wrote: > 3. Create a whole new solution like USE="gui" (what happens if I have > multiple gui implementation USE flags set?) This is what I would suggest. It would remove 90% of the problem since most applications use only one gui toolkit. If no toolkit USE flags are set, go with the "best" (most stable, best supported) toolkit. If multiple flags are set - here you have a choice. The user-friendly approach is to add some logic to find the "best" toolkit out of the ones for which a flag is set (this gets complicated in the theoretical case of three toolkits). However, the user-friendly approach is completely unworkable when there are reverse dependencies on your package (plugins for example) that require a specific toolkit. So a better choice might be REQUIRED_USE, *but* then you must adjust package.use in all profiles to allow your package to be emerged without forcing a user to manually set/unset flags. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On 11/08/15 23:04, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 15:32, Michael Palimaka пишет: >> On 11/08/15 20:17, Sergey Popov wrote: >>> 09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет: I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly, and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case for it. >>> >>> So, you prefer to make ugly mess of deps here like i posted before or >>> introduce some really unneded USE-flag like 'gui', 'qt', etc. to make >>> users even more confused? >>> >>> Really, look at man-db ebuild. Especially on berkdb and gdbm USE flags. >>> And dependency string like this: >>> >>> !berkdb? ( !gdbm? ( sys-libs/gdbm ) ) >>> >>> One sentence: "WHAT THE HELL?" >>> >>> Imagine that it would be dozen of flags. Is it fun to mess with deps >>> like this for you? >> >> Shall we ban this too? >> >> ffmpeg? ( >> libav? ( media-video/libav:= ) >> !libav? ( media-video/ffmpeg:0= ) >> ) >> >> >> >> > > No, because ffmpeg here is a feature AND name of concrete realization. > Not ideal case as i would said, but it is acceptable. > > You want to migrate to such decision? Like: > > qt? ( > qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) > !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) > ) > > Fine by me, if you would ask. This looks fine to me - I have no particular solution preference. I understand there's been objection to generic GUI USE flags in the past though. > > As i said one message earlier: Something like $(qt_use_default qtgui 5) > > which will generate something like this: > > qt4? ( > qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) > !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) > ) > !qt5? ( !qt4? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) ) > > would help too. > > If you are doing complicated things(and please, do not tell me that > provided dependency string is simple and understandable by every > developer in just a second without wanting to "improve" or "simplify" I disagree but we're getting offtopic. The thread was raised regarding support of packages that at-most-one-of qt4 or qt5. Ben is of course right that for these packages, USE="qt4 qt5" automagically selecting qt5 is not the clearest result and has the potential for confusion. I feel that usability benefit of this choice outweighs the negatives. This leaves only a few options: 1. Leave the policy recommendation as-is (letting maintainers adopt or ignore it as they see fit) 2. Veto the policy recommendation and force something different (maintainers who disagree will likely either drop support for multiple qt versions or stop maintaining the package completely) 3. Create a whole new solution like USE="gui" (what happens if I have multiple gui implementation USE flags set?)
[gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On 11/08/15 23:39, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 16:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: >> >> Don't forget that as a project with no special authority, Qt's policy >> remains a suggestion for the vast majority of maintainers. If someone >> wishes to provide support for only one Qt version or abuse their users >> with REQUIRED_USE they are still free to do so. >> > > Not enforcing policies on main tree is a bad thing. If you make policy, > make other maintainers follow it. I am not against consistent policy > that ease life BOTH for developers and users. With what authority? Whether we like it or not, no project has any formal authority to tell others how to handle "their" part of Gentoo. > > You think that REQUIRED_USE is abusive to users: fine. Point accepted. > I think that provided DEPEND strings if they will be typed at every > single qt-related ebuild that needs them are abusive to developers. > > So, maybe we should wrap them into eclass and stop riding our own > bicycles... > > And then - use apropriate one-liner where it's needed, providing > reasonable default and NOT confusing users with overmanaging their > package.use > Please read Ben's original post again. Dependency strings are not the topic.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
11.08.2015 16:36, Rich Freeman пишет: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: >> 11.08.2015 16:11, James Le Cuirot пишет: >>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300 >>> Sergey Popov wrote: >>> If both of flags are not set - we stick to default. Should this be set in EVERY ebuild explicitly? Maybe provide some sugar like $(qt_use_default qtgui 5), where qt_use_default is the name of function, qtgui is the package and 5 is the slot for default choice, where either BOTH of flags(qt4, qt5) are enabled or disabled >>> >>> That sounds a little bit like what I suggested earlier. >>> >>> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/884257a2d924a51851d629b1dc9b30df >>> >> >> But without introducing brand new useless USE flag. Which makes huge >> difference to me :-) >> > > If we want the typical user to not set either qt4 or qt5, are we > saying that any package that could use either always enable one of > them by default? Then all users get a GUI by default, and then users > have to explicitly disable it? That seems to be the opposite of how > we normally do things, but it does let you get away from having lots > of users turning on qt. I suggested this for packages, where GUI can not be disabled AND it should be either qt4 or qt5. Then, if we do not add + to USE description, users without anything in make.conf just run the blocker -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
11.08.2015 16:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: > > Don't forget that as a project with no special authority, Qt's policy > remains a suggestion for the vast majority of maintainers. If someone > wishes to provide support for only one Qt version or abuse their users > with REQUIRED_USE they are still free to do so. > Not enforcing policies on main tree is a bad thing. If you make policy, make other maintainers follow it. I am not against consistent policy that ease life BOTH for developers and users. You think that REQUIRED_USE is abusive to users: fine. Point accepted. I think that provided DEPEND strings if they will be typed at every single qt-related ebuild that needs them are abusive to developers. So, maybe we should wrap them into eclass and stop riding our own bicycles... And then - use apropriate one-liner where it's needed, providing reasonable default and NOT confusing users with overmanaging their package.use -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 16:11, James Le Cuirot пишет: >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300 >> Sergey Popov wrote: >> >>> If both of flags are not set - we stick to default. >>> Should this be set in EVERY ebuild explicitly? >>> >>> Maybe provide some sugar like $(qt_use_default qtgui 5), where >>> qt_use_default is the name of function, qtgui is the package and 5 is >>> the slot for default choice, where either BOTH of flags(qt4, qt5) are >>> enabled or disabled >> >> That sounds a little bit like what I suggested earlier. >> >> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/884257a2d924a51851d629b1dc9b30df >> > > But without introducing brand new useless USE flag. Which makes huge > difference to me :-) > If we want the typical user to not set either qt4 or qt5, are we saying that any package that could use either always enable one of them by default? Then all users get a GUI by default, and then users have to explicitly disable it? That seems to be the opposite of how we normally do things, but it does let you get away from having lots of users turning on qt. Normally we'd just turn them on in a profile, but you can't do this if some packages need qt4, some need qt5, and some fail if both are enabled. -- Rich
[gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On 11/08/15 22:58, Sergey Popov wrote: > 11.08.2015 15:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: >> On 11/08/15 20:10, Sergey Popov wrote: >>> Err, i have read the whole thread and still does not get a point, why i >>> am wrong. >> >> You clearly have not. The reasoning behind Qt team's policy is described >> on the page and has been reiterated on this list. You are undermining >> what little confidence there is in the QA team by making decisions with >> no consultation about problems you do not understand. >> >>> It's old battle like we have beforce with "gtk" meaning "any versions of >>> GTK flag". This behaviour should be killed with fire. >>> >>> Let's me reiterate some of the cases: >>> >>> 1. Package can be build without Qt GUI at all, but either Qt4 or Qt5 can >>> be chosen, but not both. >>> >>> Fix this with REQUIRED_USE, do not enable any of Qt flags by default >> >> Problem: this requires manual intervention if the user has both qt4 and >> qt5 USE flags enabled. >> > > User choice of using USE flags is NOT a problem I invite you to reproduce the problem yourself then make the judgement. Using REQUIRED_USE like this makes the affected packages unusable. >>> >>> 2. Package can not be build without Qt GUI - either Qt4 or Qt5 is >>> required, but not both >>> >>> Same thing here, different REQUIRED_USE operator. But - enable one of >>> the flags by default to ease life of users. >> >> Problem: this requires manual intervention if the user has both qt4 and >> qt5 USE flags enabled. > > Same here > >>> >>> 3. Package can be build with Qt4 or Qt5 or both AT THE SAME TIME(if such >>> package even exists?) >>> >>> Do not use REQUIRED_USE here, not needed. >>> >>> Now, please tell me, where am i wrong? >>> >> >> The problem is manual intervention is required if the user has both qt4 >> and qt5 USE flags enabled - and this is a common configuration. It is >> not acceptable to make a user manually add numerous package.use entries >> when all they want to do is install KDE. > > And here > >> I agree Qt's policy is not a perfect solution, but in the absence of >> some feature allowing a preference to be set when there is a conflict >> it's the best we've got. >> > > If you want to go this way, then please provide helper functions in > eclasses to set dependencies properly for all common use cases. That > will ease life both of developers and users. > > Leaving constructing of dependencies to developers in all cases will > cause only pain in your solution. > > Look at the example with berkdb/gdbm, that i have posted recently. > > If both of flags are not set - we stick to default. > Should this be set in EVERY ebuild explicitly? > > Maybe provide some sugar like $(qt_use_default qtgui 5), where > qt_use_default is the name of function, qtgui is the package and 5 is > the slot for default choice, where either BOTH of flags(qt4, qt5) are > enabled or disabled How does this solve the REQUIRED_USE problem? Or is your only objection is that resulting dependency string is "too hard"? Don't forget that as a project with no special authority, Qt's policy remains a suggestion for the vast majority of maintainers. If someone wishes to provide support for only one Qt version or abuse their users with REQUIRED_USE they are still free to do so.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
11.08.2015 16:11, James Le Cuirot пишет: > On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300 > Sergey Popov wrote: > >> If both of flags are not set - we stick to default. >> Should this be set in EVERY ebuild explicitly? >> >> Maybe provide some sugar like $(qt_use_default qtgui 5), where >> qt_use_default is the name of function, qtgui is the package and 5 is >> the slot for default choice, where either BOTH of flags(qt4, qt5) are >> enabled or disabled > > That sounds a little bit like what I suggested earlier. > > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/884257a2d924a51851d629b1dc9b30df > But without introducing brand new useless USE flag. Which makes huge difference to me :-) -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 16:04 +0300, Sergey Popov wrote: > You want to migrate to such decision? Like: > > qt? ( > > qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) > > !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) > ) > > Fine by me, if you would ask. That flag should be called "gui". Not "qt". This would be the real solution to gnome team's gtk/gtk2/gtk3 flag problem and to qt team's flag problem too. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300 Sergey Popov wrote: > If both of flags are not set - we stick to default. > Should this be set in EVERY ebuild explicitly? > > Maybe provide some sugar like $(qt_use_default qtgui 5), where > qt_use_default is the name of function, qtgui is the package and 5 is > the slot for default choice, where either BOTH of flags(qt4, qt5) are > enabled or disabled That sounds a little bit like what I suggested earlier. https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/884257a2d924a51851d629b1dc9b30df -- James Le Cuirot (chewi) Gentoo Linux Developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
11.08.2015 16:04, Sergey Popov пишет: > 11.08.2015 15:32, Michael Palimaka пишет: >> On 11/08/15 20:17, Sergey Popov wrote: >>> 09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет: I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly, and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case for it. >>> >>> So, you prefer to make ugly mess of deps here like i posted before or >>> introduce some really unneded USE-flag like 'gui', 'qt', etc. to make >>> users even more confused? >>> >>> Really, look at man-db ebuild. Especially on berkdb and gdbm USE flags. >>> And dependency string like this: >>> >>> !berkdb? ( !gdbm? ( sys-libs/gdbm ) ) >>> >>> One sentence: "WHAT THE HELL?" >>> >>> Imagine that it would be dozen of flags. Is it fun to mess with deps >>> like this for you? >> >> Shall we ban this too? >> >> ffmpeg? ( >> libav? ( media-video/libav:= ) >> !libav? ( media-video/ffmpeg:0= ) >> ) >> >> >> >> > > No, because ffmpeg here is a feature AND name of concrete realization. > Not ideal case as i would said, but it is acceptable. > > You want to migrate to such decision? Like: > > qt? ( > qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) > !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) > ) > > Fine by me, if you would ask. > > As i said one message earlier: Something like $(qt_use_default qtgui 5) > > which will generate something like this: > > qt4? ( > qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) > !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) > ) > !qt5? ( !qt4? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) ) > > would help too. > > If you are doing complicated things(and please, do not tell me that > provided dependency string is simple and understandable by every > developer in just a second without wanting to "improve" or "simplify" > it) - do it through eclass. And provide nice API. > > Thanks for listening and sorry if i was too harsh > Oops, sorry dev-qt/qtgui inside the brackets, of course. -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
11.08.2015 15:32, Michael Palimaka пишет: > On 11/08/15 20:17, Sergey Popov wrote: >> 09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет: >>> I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly, >>> and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case for it. >> >> So, you prefer to make ugly mess of deps here like i posted before or >> introduce some really unneded USE-flag like 'gui', 'qt', etc. to make >> users even more confused? >> >> Really, look at man-db ebuild. Especially on berkdb and gdbm USE flags. >> And dependency string like this: >> >> !berkdb? ( !gdbm? ( sys-libs/gdbm ) ) >> >> One sentence: "WHAT THE HELL?" >> >> Imagine that it would be dozen of flags. Is it fun to mess with deps >> like this for you? > > Shall we ban this too? > > ffmpeg? ( > libav? ( media-video/libav:= ) > !libav? ( media-video/ffmpeg:0= ) > ) > > > > No, because ffmpeg here is a feature AND name of concrete realization. Not ideal case as i would said, but it is acceptable. You want to migrate to such decision? Like: qt? ( qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) ) Fine by me, if you would ask. As i said one message earlier: Something like $(qt_use_default qtgui 5) which will generate something like this: qt4? ( qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) !qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 ) ) !qt5? ( !qt4? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 ) ) would help too. If you are doing complicated things(and please, do not tell me that provided dependency string is simple and understandable by every developer in just a second without wanting to "improve" or "simplify" it) - do it through eclass. And provide nice API. Thanks for listening and sorry if i was too harsh -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
11.08.2015 15:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: > On 11/08/15 20:10, Sergey Popov wrote: >> Err, i have read the whole thread and still does not get a point, why i >> am wrong. > > You clearly have not. The reasoning behind Qt team's policy is described > on the page and has been reiterated on this list. You are undermining > what little confidence there is in the QA team by making decisions with > no consultation about problems you do not understand. > >> It's old battle like we have beforce with "gtk" meaning "any versions of >> GTK flag". This behaviour should be killed with fire. >> >> Let's me reiterate some of the cases: >> >> 1. Package can be build without Qt GUI at all, but either Qt4 or Qt5 can >> be chosen, but not both. >> >> Fix this with REQUIRED_USE, do not enable any of Qt flags by default > > Problem: this requires manual intervention if the user has both qt4 and > qt5 USE flags enabled. > User choice of using USE flags is NOT a problem >> >> 2. Package can not be build without Qt GUI - either Qt4 or Qt5 is >> required, but not both >> >> Same thing here, different REQUIRED_USE operator. But - enable one of >> the flags by default to ease life of users. > > Problem: this requires manual intervention if the user has both qt4 and > qt5 USE flags enabled. Same here >> >> 3. Package can be build with Qt4 or Qt5 or both AT THE SAME TIME(if such >> package even exists?) >> >> Do not use REQUIRED_USE here, not needed. >> >> Now, please tell me, where am i wrong? >> > > The problem is manual intervention is required if the user has both qt4 > and qt5 USE flags enabled - and this is a common configuration. It is > not acceptable to make a user manually add numerous package.use entries > when all they want to do is install KDE. And here > I agree Qt's policy is not a perfect solution, but in the absence of > some feature allowing a preference to be set when there is a conflict > it's the best we've got. > If you want to go this way, then please provide helper functions in eclasses to set dependencies properly for all common use cases. That will ease life both of developers and users. Leaving constructing of dependencies to developers in all cases will cause only pain in your solution. Look at the example with berkdb/gdbm, that i have posted recently. If both of flags are not set - we stick to default. Should this be set in EVERY ebuild explicitly? Maybe provide some sugar like $(qt_use_default qtgui 5), where qt_use_default is the name of function, qtgui is the package and 5 is the slot for default choice, where either BOTH of flags(qt4, qt5) are enabled or disabled -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On 11/08/15 20:17, Sergey Popov wrote: > 09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет: >> I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly, >> and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case for it. > > So, you prefer to make ugly mess of deps here like i posted before or > introduce some really unneded USE-flag like 'gui', 'qt', etc. to make > users even more confused? > > Really, look at man-db ebuild. Especially on berkdb and gdbm USE flags. > And dependency string like this: > > !berkdb? ( !gdbm? ( sys-libs/gdbm ) ) > > One sentence: "WHAT THE HELL?" > > Imagine that it would be dozen of flags. Is it fun to mess with deps > like this for you? Shall we ban this too? ffmpeg? ( libav? ( media-video/libav:= ) !libav? ( media-video/ffmpeg:0= ) )
[gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On 11/08/15 20:10, Sergey Popov wrote: > Err, i have read the whole thread and still does not get a point, why i > am wrong. You clearly have not. The reasoning behind Qt team's policy is described on the page and has been reiterated on this list. You are undermining what little confidence there is in the QA team by making decisions with no consultation about problems you do not understand. > It's old battle like we have beforce with "gtk" meaning "any versions of > GTK flag". This behaviour should be killed with fire. > > Let's me reiterate some of the cases: > > 1. Package can be build without Qt GUI at all, but either Qt4 or Qt5 can > be chosen, but not both. > > Fix this with REQUIRED_USE, do not enable any of Qt flags by default Problem: this requires manual intervention if the user has both qt4 and qt5 USE flags enabled. > > 2. Package can not be build without Qt GUI - either Qt4 or Qt5 is > required, but not both > > Same thing here, different REQUIRED_USE operator. But - enable one of > the flags by default to ease life of users. Problem: this requires manual intervention if the user has both qt4 and qt5 USE flags enabled. > > 3. Package can be build with Qt4 or Qt5 or both AT THE SAME TIME(if such > package even exists?) > > Do not use REQUIRED_USE here, not needed. > > Now, please tell me, where am i wrong? > The problem is manual intervention is required if the user has both qt4 and qt5 USE flags enabled - and this is a common configuration. It is not acceptable to make a user manually add numerous package.use entries when all they want to do is install KDE. I agree Qt's policy is not a perfect solution, but in the absence of some feature allowing a preference to be set when there is a conflict it's the best we've got.
[gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
I'd suggest to make a QA team meeting to override this policies with more correct and rationale. Qt team members are greatly appreciated on this meeting. Even more, i think that we should not take any decision on this without at least Qt team lead(or half of Qt team devs) So, let's arrange some time and talk about this, cause it is really confusing. Qt team point is understandable, but it's still wrong. Let's make some consensus here. 02.08.2015 19:34, Ben de Groot пишет: > Recently some team members of the Qt project have adopted these ebuild > policies: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Qt/Policies > > I have an issue with the policy adopted under "Requires one of two Qt > versions". In my opinion, in the case where a package offers a choice > between qt4 or qt5, we should express this in explicit useflags and a > REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( qt4 qt5 )". This offers the user the clearest choice. > > Other developers state that users are not interested in such > implementation details, or that forced choice through REQUIRED_USE is > too much of a hassle. This results in current ebuilds such as quassel to > not make it clear that qt4 is an option. > > This goes against the principle of least surprise, as well as against QA > recommendations. I would like to hear specifically from QA about how we > should proceed, but comments from the wider developer community are also > welcome. > > -- > Cheers, > > Ben | yngwin > Gentoo developer > -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
11.08.2015 13:18, Georg Rudoy пишет: > > You missed the fourth option: the package can not be built without Qt > GUI, but it supports building with either Qt version at the same time. > Not a problem. REQUIRED_USE="|| ( qt4 qt5 )" At least one of flags should be enabled, but both can be enabled too(if i understand your example correctly) -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
2015-08-11 11:10 GMT+01:00 Sergey Popov : > > 3. Package can be build with Qt4 or Qt5 or both AT THE SAME TIME(if such > package even exists?) > Take app-text/poppler as an "officially supported" example. Take x11-libs/qwt as an example of a library that gets a patched library name to avoid collisions (at least, last time I looked into it). I would argue this is a very desirably property for libraries in general. I even keep my own small overlay with Qt5-enabled versions of libraries like qxmpp, qtermwidget or liblastfm. > Do not use REQUIRED_USE here, not needed. > You missed the fourth option: the package can not be built without Qt GUI, but it supports building with either Qt version at the same time. -- Georg Rudoy
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет: > I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly, > and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case for it. So, you prefer to make ugly mess of deps here like i posted before or introduce some really unneded USE-flag like 'gui', 'qt', etc. to make users even more confused? Really, look at man-db ebuild. Especially on berkdb and gdbm USE flags. And dependency string like this: !berkdb? ( !gdbm? ( sys-libs/gdbm ) ) One sentence: "WHAT THE HELL?" Imagine that it would be dozen of flags. Is it fun to mess with deps like this for you? -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
Err, i have read the whole thread and still does not get a point, why i am wrong. It's old battle like we have beforce with "gtk" meaning "any versions of GTK flag". This behaviour should be killed with fire. Let's me reiterate some of the cases: 1. Package can be build without Qt GUI at all, but either Qt4 or Qt5 can be chosen, but not both. Fix this with REQUIRED_USE, do not enable any of Qt flags by default 2. Package can not be build without Qt GUI - either Qt4 or Qt5 is required, but not both Same thing here, different REQUIRED_USE operator. But - enable one of the flags by default to ease life of users. 3. Package can be build with Qt4 or Qt5 or both AT THE SAME TIME(if such package even exists?) Do not use REQUIRED_USE here, not needed. Now, please tell me, where am i wrong? 09.08.2015 23:08, Davide Pesavento пишет: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Sergey Popov wrote: >> >> >> In short - apropriate REQUIRED_USE with setting recommended >> USE-flag(e.g. USE="+qt4 qt5" or USE="qt4 +qt5") >> >> >> >> That's most painless decision for both developers and users. Developers >> do not need to maintain ugly dependencies like >> >> DEPEND="qt4 ? ( >> qt5 ( dev-qt/qtcore:5 ) >> !qt5 ( dev-qt/qtcore:4 ) >> ) >> ... >> " >> and other mess. >> >> >> >> Users will have default behaviour for empty make.conf. If they adjust >> they make.conf to globally include/exclude some Qt-related USEs - they >> are already moving from default and that's why - they can add apropriate >> options to package.use >> > > Sergey, > > It seems you completely ignored the discussion that took place in this > thread (and I also think you misunderstood the scenario judging from > the example you gave). Therefore I'm sorry but I will ignore your > opinion as QA team lead. > > Thanks, > Davide > -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
What's not clear with 'apropriate' word in my sentence? Let me clarify - if package depend either on Qt4 or Qt5 and CAN not be built with Qt at all - force this behaviour with REQUIRED_USE. I think that it was obvious that i have meant exactly this case, cause other cases are unreasonable here. 09.08.2015 23:07, Alexandre Rostovtsev пишет: > On Sun, 2015-08-09 at 22:38 +0300, Sergey Popov wrote: >> >> >> In short - apropriate REQUIRED_USE with setting recommended >> USE-flag(e.g. USE="+qt4 qt5" or USE="qt4 +qt5") >> >> > > If a package has optional guis, why should users of the default profile get > any > gui enabled by default? The default profile usually means "headless server". > It > means users who specifically don't need gtk, don't need qt4, don't need qt5, > don't need X. > > So please don't + desktop-oriented USE flags in an ebuild's IUSE by default > unless the whole ebuild is intended mainly for desktop users. > >> Users will have default behaviour for empty make.conf. If they adjust >> they make.conf to globally include/exclude some Qt-related USEs - they >> are already moving from default and that's why - they can add apropriate >> options to package.use > > There is more than one "default" from which to move away. Different profiles > globally enable different flags. Desktop, gnome, and kde profiles already > enable > qt4 globally. Plasma already enables qt4 and qt5 globally. And the desktop > profile will probably end up enabling qt4 and qt5 at some point. > -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/08/15 21:38, Sergey Popov wrote: > > > In short - apropriate REQUIRED_USE with setting recommended > USE-flag(e.g. USE="+qt4 qt5" or USE="qt4 +qt5") > > Strong -1. - -- Alexander berna...@gentoo.org https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVyFJ0AAoJENQqWdRUGk8BdYkP/3ZNmUAawdlBnX7Bjlc8io0c AGVTFCFX8tjbu4nnx1jZe9ZXB3SEBfHs8rb8/I/9h6BmDUi9jU2ca7E9Iw27/IDg qxd7xy+iGY00IjLgtWooI06ELJRv7KHxAAOb9UOpJuRZvxW4a1MaUgE2lddy+c9r 7wNJaHjgdkm9qJOejaf/kWiYpwOM6HYWZlV9Mq7EV3Jzn1K9u8gRJDB9Rf0uIwoe Tt/bD1wbQvMKzgDXdxh8zlNaI6F2v+xUFF8UJqjtEptjVHN/BFGTL8Rxbdm39eIk PqiyfMQsjGSk6OLJe60dD5nnRHxwVz+r97O9Kwag7bGdaTeRB9/8zITHHe5GgvbW v3ibxSfS1/2rOmynMJmj1/tFeFyulDcAhajUdB6dpX/Pv2wyUN8SluezrT0VIb1G IGMkzRAzqwYAbdhe/y6YcO6lFtKDcET4NpuLo6cHhDzYmkcHWjcROHOOghtpLL9w TvYwyQmCA4BN9y/NBw6Sw80TeumRKGr0Uh1SyvNwb/JaMRWEvR0NdfljOtPk4cjS mf55dWs85wrZTSvqpNS1riAI+UIXeB5A/Rwb4F/mvvV4B0tabnoPMxyNGqk7ZP+n AC4pCMoI29saUedBjl+Em8iG1dYL2KCAUE4ItONl74AchzQBToN1zcpHegEBGKjt cCJj84GIjFWf3BVm63xa =MKyo -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
> On Sun, 09 Aug 2015, Sergey Popov wrote: > > In short - apropriate REQUIRED_USE with setting recommended > USE-flag(e.g. USE="+qt4 qt5" or USE="qt4 +qt5") > > That's most painless decision for both developers and users. Developers > do not need to maintain ugly dependencies like > DEPEND="qt4 ? ( > qt5 ( dev-qt/qtcore:5 ) > !qt5 ( dev-qt/qtcore:4 ) > ) > ... > " > and other mess. > I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly, and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case for it. Ulrich pgpdNoJRSFygB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Sergey Popov wrote: > > > In short - apropriate REQUIRED_USE with setting recommended > USE-flag(e.g. USE="+qt4 qt5" or USE="qt4 +qt5") > > > > That's most painless decision for both developers and users. Developers > do not need to maintain ugly dependencies like > > DEPEND="qt4 ? ( > qt5 ( dev-qt/qtcore:5 ) > !qt5 ( dev-qt/qtcore:4 ) > ) > ... > " > and other mess. > > > > Users will have default behaviour for empty make.conf. If they adjust > they make.conf to globally include/exclude some Qt-related USEs - they > are already moving from default and that's why - they can add apropriate > options to package.use > Sergey, It seems you completely ignored the discussion that took place in this thread (and I also think you misunderstood the scenario judging from the example you gave). Therefore I'm sorry but I will ignore your opinion as QA team lead. Thanks, Davide
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Sun, 2015-08-09 at 22:38 +0300, Sergey Popov wrote: > > > In short - apropriate REQUIRED_USE with setting recommended > USE-flag(e.g. USE="+qt4 qt5" or USE="qt4 +qt5") > > If a package has optional guis, why should users of the default profile get any gui enabled by default? The default profile usually means "headless server". It means users who specifically don't need gtk, don't need qt4, don't need qt5, don't need X. So please don't + desktop-oriented USE flags in an ebuild's IUSE by default unless the whole ebuild is intended mainly for desktop users. > Users will have default behaviour for empty make.conf. If they adjust > they make.conf to globally include/exclude some Qt-related USEs - they > are already moving from default and that's why - they can add apropriate > options to package.use There is more than one "default" from which to move away. Different profiles globally enable different flags. Desktop, gnome, and kde profiles already enable qt4 globally. Plasma already enables qt4 and qt5 globally. And the desktop profile will probably end up enabling qt4 and qt5 at some point. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
In short - apropriate REQUIRED_USE with setting recommended USE-flag(e.g. USE="+qt4 qt5" or USE="qt4 +qt5") That's most painless decision for both developers and users. Developers do not need to maintain ugly dependencies like DEPEND="qt4 ? ( qt5 ( dev-qt/qtcore:5 ) !qt5 ( dev-qt/qtcore:4 ) ) ... " and other mess. Users will have default behaviour for empty make.conf. If they adjust they make.conf to globally include/exclude some Qt-related USEs - they are already moving from default and that's why - they can add apropriate options to package.use 02.08.2015 19:34, Ben de Groot пишет: > Recently some team members of the Qt project have adopted these ebuild > policies: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Qt/Policies > > I have an issue with the policy adopted under "Requires one of two Qt > versions". In my opinion, in the case where a package offers a choice > between qt4 or qt5, we should express this in explicit useflags and a > REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( qt4 qt5 )". This offers the user the clearest choice. > > Other developers state that users are not interested in such > implementation details, or that forced choice through REQUIRED_USE is > too much of a hassle. This results in current ebuilds such as quassel to > not make it clear that qt4 is an option. > > This goes against the principle of least surprise, as well as against QA > recommendations. I would like to hear specifically from QA about how we > should proceed, but comments from the wider developer community are also > welcome. > > -- > Cheers, > > Ben | yngwin > Gentoo developer > -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop-effects project lead Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
Ben de Groot posted on Tue, 04 Aug 2015 11:59:40 +0800 as excerpted: > In my opinion, this is the way Gentoo has always worked, and we should > simply recommend users to only set one of the qt* useflags as globally > enabled, if they want to prevent such micro-management. Hiding the qt4 > option is in my opinion the wrong solution around people complaining > after they have consciously enabled both flags. > > If this is not acceptable (or "absolutely unusable" as one dev put it), > then we need a proper solution, which a) will not hide the qt4 option, > and b) will prevent triggering required_use blockage by choosing qt5 > over qt4 in case both are enabled, while c) informing the user about > this. This probably requires new eclass or even EAPI functionality. What about a solution such as that used by python, USE=qt, for turning on qt support at all if it's optional, with QT_TARGETS for people to set to the versions they want if more than one can be enabled at once, and QT_SINGLE_TARGET for people to set to their preferred if a package can build against only one at a time, but that one can be chosen? And of course, just as with python, people can setup an /etc/portage/env/ * file for exceptions, and point as many packages at that file as desired using package.env.[1] But this would be dramatically simpler with qt than it is with python, since there will normally only be two (with a theoretical but unlikely possibility of three) choices at the same time, and the time between qt slot upgrades and slot-effective times as well is much /much/ longer than between python slot upgrades. Of course it'd require a whole new set of eclasses, but it's not as if that hasn't been done before. [1] FWIW, that's the python solution I've been using for awhile, with PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET set to 3.3 and then 3.4 in make.conf, with an /etc/portage/env/python.starget.27 file that does what the name suggests, and formerly quite a few package entries in /etc/portage/package.env pointing to it that couldn't handle python3 yet, but now only one, app- text/asciidoc. -- 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: useflag policies
On 03/08/2015 15:07, Dale wrote: > Michael Palimaka wrote: >> On 03/08/15 07:14, NP-Hardass wrote: >>> ^^ has the pleasant side effect of being easier to read, as a user. The >>> user receives a message saying "at-most-one-of" instead of some >>> convoluted other expression that they don't understand. >>> >>> I am all for the use of ^^ add the default for this reason. >> This introduces a usability nightmare for anyone with both qt4 and qt5 >> in their global USE flags (a common configuration). >> >> >> > > > As a Gentoo user. This is what I have set and what I hope to get > because of the settings. I have both qt4 and qt5 set in make.conf for > my USE flags. I expect qt5 for whatever packages can work with qt5 and > qt4 for whatever isn't ready for qt5 but requires qt. If for some > reason a package isn't quite ready for qt5 and won't function correctly > for me, I can always set that in package.use until it is. My current > entries for this: > > media-libs/phonon-vlc qt5 > media-video/mkvtoolnix -qt5 > > I don't have notes on that so not sure what was ran into to require > those. I may comment those out and give them another try. > > Point of this post, provide a little user info about expectations and > settings. Y'all sort out the best way forward and let us know if we > need to change something. :-) Dale and I think alike. I also have Qt4 and Qt5 installed, and I expect packages that use them to link to the version that works better (understanding that "better" is usually the opinion of upstream and the devs). If I decide I care about which one works better for a given package, then I'm happy to package.use but mostly I like that file to be as empty as I can get it. What I don't want is for the machinery to give the impression that I can't just go with whatever the dev put in the ebuild for the general case. I also don't want to have to keep going back to use.desc because it's not obvious what the flag probably does. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 03/08/15 07:14, NP-Hardass wrote: >> ^^ has the pleasant side effect of being easier to read, as a user. The >> user receives a message saying "at-most-one-of" instead of some >> convoluted other expression that they don't understand. >> >> I am all for the use of ^^ add the default for this reason. > This introduces a usability nightmare for anyone with both qt4 and qt5 > in their global USE flags (a common configuration). > > > As a Gentoo user. This is what I have set and what I hope to get because of the settings. I have both qt4 and qt5 set in make.conf for my USE flags. I expect qt5 for whatever packages can work with qt5 and qt4 for whatever isn't ready for qt5 but requires qt. If for some reason a package isn't quite ready for qt5 and won't function correctly for me, I can always set that in package.use until it is. My current entries for this: media-libs/phonon-vlc qt5 media-video/mkvtoolnix -qt5 I don't have notes on that so not sure what was ran into to require those. I may comment those out and give them another try. Point of this post, provide a little user info about expectations and settings. Y'all sort out the best way forward and let us know if we need to change something. :-) Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 21:23:37 +1000 Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 03/08/15 07:14, NP-Hardass wrote: > > ^^ has the pleasant side effect of being easier to read, as a user. > > The user receives a message saying "at-most-one-of" instead of some > > convoluted other expression that they don't understand. > > > > I am all for the use of ^^ add the default for this reason. > > This introduces a usability nightmare for anyone with both qt4 and qt5 > in their global USE flags (a common configuration). What if we had something like this? REQUIRED_IUSE="^^qt ( qt5 qt4 )" Users who don't care would set just qt rather than qt4 or qt5 and this mechanism would automatically enable whichever one appears first in the brackets. If qt4 or qt5 (or both) are set then the behaviour would remain as it is now. Or perhaps some variation on this? I'm not declaring this to be a great idea, just throwing it out there for consideration. :) -- James Le Cuirot (chewi) Gentoo Linux Developer
[gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies
On 03/08/15 07:14, NP-Hardass wrote: > ^^ has the pleasant side effect of being easier to read, as a user. The > user receives a message saying "at-most-one-of" instead of some > convoluted other expression that they don't understand. > > I am all for the use of ^^ add the default for this reason. This introduces a usability nightmare for anyone with both qt4 and qt5 in their global USE flags (a common configuration).
