Re: Variants handling: my $0.02.
2008/2/4, N_Ox [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Le 4 févr. 08 à 18:13, Rainer Müller a écrit :
N_Ox wrote:
These two sugar syntaxes would make the variant writing process
cleaner.
But maybe they could help us more...
Let's say the variants which do something only when they are
disabled (variant -some_variant) are always enabled by default.
In this setup, `sudo port install some_port +another_variant`
would install some_port @some_version+another_variant+some_variant.
In the registry, we would save some_variant another_variant as
the list of selected variants.
Now, let's explicitely disable the variant: sudo port install
some_port -some_variant +another_variant.
In the registry, we would save -some_variant another_variant.
Should the selection of -some_variant be user visible or just
stored internal?
port installed some_port
1) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shown to the user
The main problem about default_variants in it's current
implementation is that we don't store disabled variants and re-
select them on upgrade...
AFAIK, default_variants is just a procedure that append any argument
to the list of enabled variants in the registry.
This syntax remove the need to use default_variants.
No need to use default_variants.
So how would I tell that a +variant is default? E.g. the lynx port
provides support for OpenSSL (+ssl) and GNU TLS (+gnutls). They are
conflicting variants, with +ssl in default_variants. But the user
has the choice to install it with GNU TLS by using -ssl +gnutls.
But how would I write that in the new syntax?
No more Why the hell this variant is enabled when I upgrade this
port? whining.
No more no_x11 variant:
variant -x11 {
# no x11
} else {
# x11
}
And which of those will be the default...? You said -some_variant
will be enabled by default, or did I understand that wrong? In
which cases will -some_variant be enabled by defaul? If it got no
else-block?
I think that will end up more complex than it currently is...
Not complex, at least that's not what I think.
The algorithm would be:
foreach {name} ${variants} {
# Foreach variant defined in the portfile
if {[lindex ${selected_variants} ${name}] -1} {
# If this variant is selected.
eval_variant ${name} # The first block.
} elseif {[variant_has_else_block ${name}]} {
eval_else_variant ${name} # The else block
}
}
If a -variant hasn't been SELECTED (through the command line), it is
ENABLED, it did NOT show up in `port installed` and the else block
will be evaluated.
If a (+)variant hasn't been SELECTED (through the command line), it
is DISABLED, it did NOT show up in `port installed` and the else
block will be evaluated.
So the behaviour is in fact the very same for both of them.
Also, what is the difference between these and which one is a
default variant?
variant foo {
# do something
}
A normal variant:
port install- @... (nothing evaluated)
port install +foo - @...+foo (first block evaluated)
port install -foo - @... (nothing evaluated)
variant -bar {
# do something
} else {
# do something
}
A negative variant which does something else when it's not enabled:
port install- @... (else block evaluated)
port install +bar - @... (else block evaluated)
port install -bar - @...-bar (first block evaluated)
variant -baz {
# do something
}
A negative variant:
port install- @... (nothing evaluated)
port install +baz - @... (nothing evaluated)
port install -baz - @...-baz (first block evaluated)
What if we add some new flag? I like the idea of variant -
some_variant, but maybe we could also add a default keyword which
says if this variant is going to be installed by default.
Like this:
variant x11 description {Install X11 support} default {
# x11
} else {
# no x11
}
Sure. The -variant syntax just sounds more intuitive to me, but one
could say I'm strange.
I like the overall idea to simplify the default variants handling!
I like it. If there is some kind of poll here, I'm in =)
--
Thomas de Grivel
___
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
Re: Variants handling: my $0.02.
Thomas de Grivel wrote: I like it. If there is some kind of poll here, I'm in =) Hm, I don't think we found final options for a voting yet, do we? Rainer ___ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
Re: Variants handling: my $0.02.
Ryan Schmidt wrote: Having to specify -ssl +gnutls is stupid. The way I see it, ssl and gnutls are two radio buttons. To select the radio button you want, you shouldn't also have to manually deselect the radio button you don't want. It should be automatic. Fixed the lynx port so it behaves this way, in r33752. (No new portfile syntax needed. :)) Well, I just wanted to say how it is done until now. Indeed, your fix is a good thing as it also fixes the issues with upgrading. Anyways, I was just talking about how we would write this radio button choice in a new syntax where default_variants will be gone. Rainer ___ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
Re: Variants handling: my $0.02.
N_Ox wrote:
These two sugar syntaxes would make the variant writing process cleaner.
But maybe they could help us more...
Let's say the variants which do something only when they are disabled
(variant -some_variant) are always enabled by default.
In this setup, `sudo port install some_port +another_variant` would
install some_port @some_version+another_variant+some_variant.
In the registry, we would save some_variant another_variant as the
list of selected variants.
Now, let's explicitely disable the variant: sudo port install some_port
-some_variant +another_variant.
In the registry, we would save -some_variant another_variant.
Should the selection of -some_variant be user visible or just stored
internal?
port installed some_port
1) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The main problem about default_variants in it's current implementation
is that we don't store disabled variants and re-select them on upgrade...
No need to use default_variants.
So how would I tell that a +variant is default? E.g. the lynx port
provides support for OpenSSL (+ssl) and GNU TLS (+gnutls). They are
conflicting variants, with +ssl in default_variants. But the user has
the choice to install it with GNU TLS by using -ssl +gnutls.
But how would I write that in the new syntax?
No more Why the hell this variant is enabled when I upgrade this port?
whining.
No more no_x11 variant:
variant -x11 {
# no x11
} else {
# x11
}
And which of those will be the default...? You said -some_variant will
be enabled by default, or did I understand that wrong? In which cases
will -some_variant be enabled by defaul? If it got no else-block?
I think that will end up more complex than it currently is...
Also, what is the difference between these and which one is a default
variant?
variant foo {
# do something
}
variant -bar {
# do something
} else {
# do something
}
variant -baz {
# do something
}
What if we add some new flag? I like the idea of variant -some_variant,
but maybe we could also add a default keyword which says if this variant
is going to be installed by default.
Like this:
variant x11 description {Install X11 support} default {
# x11
} else {
# no x11
}
I like the overall idea to simplify the default variants handling!
Rainer
___
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
Re: Variants handling: my $0.02.
Le 4 févr. 08 à 18:32, Ryan Schmidt a écrit :
On Feb 4, 2008, at 11:13, Rainer Müller wrote:
So how would I tell that a +variant is default? E.g. the lynx port
provides support for OpenSSL (+ssl) and GNU TLS (+gnutls). They
are conflicting variants, with +ssl in default_variants. But the
user has the choice to install it with GNU TLS by using -ssl +gnutls.
Having to specify -ssl +gnutls is stupid. The way I see it, ssl
and gnutls are two radio buttons. To select the radio button you
want, you shouldn't also have to manually deselect the radio button
you don't want. It should be automatic. Fixed the lynx port so it
behaves this way, in r33752. (No new portfile syntax needed. :))
I had another idea for this one sometimes ago:
variant_group cypher {
choice ssl { ... }
choice gnutls { ... }
}
We could have attributes for the group like unique and required
to say we need one and only one choice in the group.
Regards,
--
Anthony Ramine, the Ports tree cleaning Maestro.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
Re: Variants handling: my $0.02.
On Feb 4, 2008, at 11:23 AM, N_Ox wrote:
[ ... description of new variant syntax ...]
First, let me just say how happy I am to see people revisiting the
topic of variants and how to better express them. I think variants
are one of the more powerful features of MacPorts (that no other port
systems, to my knowledge, share), but also the most likely to cause
confusion and mayhem if misapplied across the collection (I think
Landon went through periods of both pride and remorse over variants
for just this reason).
Second, given that the platform procedure also feeds directly into
variants, I hope that cleaning up variants will include cleaning up
the platform syntax and general mechanism. More specifically, as I
pointed out a couple of weeks ago, we're starting to see a lot of
duplicated code across platform clauses because it's not possible to
have wildcards in platform clauses or even just be able to do platform
includes, e.g.:
platform darwin 8 i386 {
platform darwin 7; # include the generic platform code for darwin 7
... code specific to darwin 8/i386 here ...
}
Given how frequently the platform clauses are being used, and the fact
that they're only going to get more prolific as further releases of
MacOSX come out, I'd say cleaning them up is at least as important as
cleaning up variants (which, again, they just use at the back-end
anyway).
- Jordan
Le 4 févr. 08 à 18:13, Rainer Müller a écrit :
N_Ox wrote:
These two sugar syntaxes would make the variant writing process
cleaner.
But maybe they could help us more...
Let's say the variants which do something only when they are
disabled (variant -some_variant) are always enabled by default.
In this setup, `sudo port install some_port +another_variant`
would install some_port @some_version+another_variant+some_variant.
In the registry, we would save some_variant another_variant as
the list of selected variants.
Now, let's explicitely disable the variant: sudo port install
some_port -some_variant +another_variant.
In the registry, we would save -some_variant another_variant.
Should the selection of -some_variant be user visible or just
stored internal?
port installed some_port
1) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shown to the user
The main problem about default_variants in it's current
implementation is that we don't store disabled variants and re-
select them on upgrade...
AFAIK, default_variants is just a procedure that append any argument
to the list of enabled variants in the registry.
This syntax remove the need to use default_variants.
No need to use default_variants.
So how would I tell that a +variant is default? E.g. the lynx port
provides support for OpenSSL (+ssl) and GNU TLS (+gnutls). They are
conflicting variants, with +ssl in default_variants. But the user
has the choice to install it with GNU TLS by using -ssl +gnutls.
But how would I write that in the new syntax?
No more Why the hell this variant is enabled when I upgrade this
port? whining.
No more no_x11 variant:
variant -x11 {
# no x11
} else {
# x11
}
And which of those will be the default...? You said -some_variant
will be enabled by default, or did I understand that wrong? In
which cases will -some_variant be enabled by defaul? If it got no
else-block?
I think that will end up more complex than it currently is...
Not complex, at least that's not what I think.
The algorithm would be:
foreach {name} ${variants} {
# Foreach variant defined in the portfile
if {[lindex ${selected_variants} ${name}] -1} {
# If this variant is selected.
eval_variant ${name} # The first block.
} elseif {[variant_has_else_block ${name}]} {
eval_else_variant ${name} # The else block
}
}
If a -variant hasn't been SELECTED (through the command line), it is
ENABLED, it did NOT show up in `port installed` and the else block
will be evaluated.
If a (+)variant hasn't been SELECTED (through the command line), it
is DISABLED, it did NOT show up in `port installed` and the else
block will be evaluated.
So the behaviour is in fact the very same for both of them.
Also, what is the difference between these and which one is a
default variant?
variant foo {
# do something
}
A normal variant:
port install- @... (nothing evaluated)
port install +foo - @...+foo (first block evaluated)
port install -foo - @... (nothing evaluated)
variant -bar {
# do something
} else {
# do something
}
A negative variant which does something else when it's not enabled:
port install- @... (else block evaluated)
port install +bar - @... (else block evaluated)
port install -bar - @...-bar (first block evaluated)
variant -baz {
# do something
}
A negative variant:
port install- @...
Re: Variants handling: my $0.02.
Le 4 févr. 08 à 18:13, Rainer Müller a écrit :
N_Ox wrote:
These two sugar syntaxes would make the variant writing process
cleaner.
But maybe they could help us more...
Let's say the variants which do something only when they are
disabled (variant -some_variant) are always enabled by default.
In this setup, `sudo port install some_port +another_variant`
would install some_port @some_version+another_variant+some_variant.
In the registry, we would save some_variant another_variant as
the list of selected variants.
Now, let's explicitely disable the variant: sudo port install
some_port -some_variant +another_variant.
In the registry, we would save -some_variant another_variant.
Should the selection of -some_variant be user visible or just
stored internal?
port installed some_port
1) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shown to the user
The main problem about default_variants in it's current
implementation is that we don't store disabled variants and re-
select them on upgrade...
AFAIK, default_variants is just a procedure that append any argument
to the list of enabled variants in the registry.
This syntax remove the need to use default_variants.
No need to use default_variants.
So how would I tell that a +variant is default? E.g. the lynx port
provides support for OpenSSL (+ssl) and GNU TLS (+gnutls). They are
conflicting variants, with +ssl in default_variants. But the user
has the choice to install it with GNU TLS by using -ssl +gnutls.
But how would I write that in the new syntax?
No more Why the hell this variant is enabled when I upgrade this
port? whining.
No more no_x11 variant:
variant -x11 {
# no x11
} else {
# x11
}
And which of those will be the default...? You said -some_variant
will be enabled by default, or did I understand that wrong? In
which cases will -some_variant be enabled by defaul? If it got no
else-block?
I think that will end up more complex than it currently is...
Not complex, at least that's not what I think.
The algorithm would be:
foreach {name} ${variants} {
# Foreach variant defined in the portfile
if {[lindex ${selected_variants} ${name}] -1} {
# If this variant is selected.
eval_variant ${name} # The first block.
} elseif {[variant_has_else_block ${name}]} {
eval_else_variant ${name} # The else block
}
}
If a -variant hasn't been SELECTED (through the command line), it is
ENABLED, it did NOT show up in `port installed` and the else block
will be evaluated.
If a (+)variant hasn't been SELECTED (through the command line), it
is DISABLED, it did NOT show up in `port installed` and the else
block will be evaluated.
So the behaviour is in fact the very same for both of them.
Also, what is the difference between these and which one is a
default variant?
variant foo {
# do something
}
A normal variant:
port install- @... (nothing evaluated)
port install +foo - @...+foo (first block evaluated)
port install -foo - @... (nothing evaluated)
variant -bar {
# do something
} else {
# do something
}
A negative variant which does something else when it's not enabled:
port install- @... (else block evaluated)
port install +bar - @... (else block evaluated)
port install -bar - @...-bar (first block evaluated)
variant -baz {
# do something
}
A negative variant:
port install- @... (nothing evaluated)
port install +baz - @... (nothing evaluated)
port install -baz - @...-baz (first block evaluated)
What if we add some new flag? I like the idea of variant -
some_variant, but maybe we could also add a default keyword which
says if this variant is going to be installed by default.
Like this:
variant x11 description {Install X11 support} default {
# x11
} else {
# no x11
}
Sure. The -variant syntax just sounds more intuitive to me, but one
could say I'm strange.
I like the overall idea to simplify the default variants handling!
Rainer
--
Anthony Ramine, the Ports tree cleaning Maestro.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
Re: Variants handling: my $0.02.
On Feb 4, 2008, at 11:13, Rainer Müller wrote: So how would I tell that a +variant is default? E.g. the lynx port provides support for OpenSSL (+ssl) and GNU TLS (+gnutls). They are conflicting variants, with +ssl in default_variants. But the user has the choice to install it with GNU TLS by using -ssl +gnutls. Having to specify -ssl +gnutls is stupid. The way I see it, ssl and gnutls are two radio buttons. To select the radio button you want, you shouldn't also have to manually deselect the radio button you don't want. It should be automatic. Fixed the lynx port so it behaves this way, in r33752. (No new portfile syntax needed. :)) ___ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
Re: Variants handling: my $0.02.
On Feb 4, 2008, at 11:46, Rainer Müller wrote: Ryan Schmidt wrote: Having to specify -ssl +gnutls is stupid. The way I see it, ssl and gnutls are two radio buttons. To select the radio button you want, you shouldn't also have to manually deselect the radio button you don't want. It should be automatic. Fixed the lynx port so it behaves this way, in r33752. (No new portfile syntax needed. :)) Well, I just wanted to say how it is done until now. Indeed, your fix is a good thing as it also fixes the issues with upgrading. Anyways, I was just talking about how we would write this radio button choice in a new syntax where default_variants will be gone. default_variants functionality should not be removed. It is necessary. When there are two or more conflicting options, one of which must be selected, it is more intuitive for the user if these are both expressed as variants, one of which is enabled by default. See lynx, minivmac, pdftk, etc. ___ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
