[gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

There's a frequent irritation I experience with the revolving door of REQUIRED_USE -> auto-unmask: There's no mechanism in place to automatically stop using a "REQUIRED" use flag when it ceases to be necessary. So you find yourself doing things like: - I want X - X only supports python 2.7 - X t

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/09/2016 04:27 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > There's a frequent irritation I experience with the revolving door > of REQUIRED_USE -> auto-unmask: > > There's no mechanism in place to automatically stop using a > "REQUIRED" use flag when it ceases t

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 10 February 2016 at 02:14, Daniel Campbell wrote: > Another concern, though, is it'd result in something similar. Instead > of "cat/foo bar baz" and later removing 'baz', you'd have "cat/foo bar > ~baz" (with '~baz' as 'enable this if you need to'). You'd still have > cruft left in your p.use f

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/09/2016 05:19 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 10 February 2016 at 02:14, Daniel Campbell > wrote: >> Another concern, though, is it'd result in something similar. >> Instead of "cat/foo bar baz" and later removing 'baz', you'd have >> "cat/foo ba

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 10 February 2016 at 02:22, Daniel Campbell wrote: > I can certainly see the benefit here, but wouldn't that still result > in (arguably) unnecessary (re)builds? If implemented well it'd also > result in depcleaning them when they're later unneeded, too, so I > guess it's a wash in that sense.

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 02:19:54 +1300 Kent Fredric wrote: > On 10 February 2016 at 02:14, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > Another concern, though, is it'd result in something similar. > > Instead of "cat/foo bar baz" and later removing 'baz', you'd have > > "cat/foo bar ~baz" (with '~baz' as 'enable thi

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 2016-02-09 15:35, Róbert Čerňanský wrote: BTW, what you are describing is essentially the same as in this bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=258371. It was also discussed on this list couple of times. I too would very much like to see it in portage. pkgcore's current resolver has

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 10 February 2016 at 09:35, Róbert Čerňanský wrote: > > The question is whether you really need to specify the lazy use flag > explicitly. I would say that any flag which user did not set > explicitly to -baz or baz could be considered as lazy use flag. > > So if I'd have 'baz' set in /etc/port

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > I'd personally rather the list of "automatically turn this on if > required" be something I had the power to restrict than have a blanket > "autodostuff", because in the event some USE can't be satisfied, the > first time that USE flag was deem

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 10 February 2016 at 14:12, Rich Freeman wrote: >> I'd personally rather the list of "automatically turn this on if >> required" be something I had the power to restrict than have a blanket >> "autodostuff", because in the event some USE can't be satisfied, the >> first time that USE flag was de

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 10 February 2016 at 02:14, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > Another concern, though, is it'd result in something similar. Instead > > of "cat/foo bar baz" and later removing 'baz', you'd have "cat/foo bar > > ~baz" (with '~baz' as 'enable this i

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/09/2016 07:08 PM, Gordon Pettey wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Kent Fredric > mailto:kentfred...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On 10 February 2016 at 02:14, Daniel Campbell > wrote: >> Another concern, though, is

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:23:27 +1300 Kent Fredric wrote: > >> I'd personally rather the list of "automatically turn this on if > >> required" be something I had the power to restrict than have a > >> blanket "autodostuff", because in the event some USE can't be Although I prefer non-explicit auto/

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

I suppose we could consider it as a hard vs soft configuration? hard enable = Enable no matter what, and cause an error soft enable = Enable, unless it would break dependency soft disable = Disable, unless it would break a dependency hard disable = Disable no matter what, and cause an error On We

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote: > > soft enable = Enable, unless it would break dependency > soft disable = Disable, unless it would break a dependency I don't really see why these are needed. Just do what we are already doing - use the settings in the profile and packag

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 11 February 2016 at 13:42, Rich Freeman wrote: > I'm not sure why I'd want to set a preference and then just have the > system ignore it without telling me. If I tell it I want a flag > on/off then yell at me if it is a problem. I "prefer" not to pull in python packages and build python supp

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 11 February 2016 at 13:42, Rich Freeman wrote: >> soft disable = Disable, unless it would break a dependency > > I don't really see why these are needed. Just do what we are already > doing - use the settings in the profile and package defaults. And soft-disable would be for things where IU

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > Hence, this requires me to lie to portage about what my preferences > are to get it to play ball, constantly going "Hey portage, I actually > want python 2.7 shit, please install it". > In this case you just wouldn't enable python 2.7 suppo

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/10/2016 06:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Kent Fredric > wrote: >> >> Hence, this requires me to lie to portage about what my >> preferences are to get it to play ball, constantly going "Hey >> portage, I actual

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 11 February 2016 at 15:51, Rich Freeman wrote: > In this case you just wouldn't enable python 2.7 support, but you > wouldn't disable it either. Portage would just pull it in where it is > needed. But you still need a mechanism in place if you *dont* want that to happen. I might choose to f

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

Yeah the "soft" thing was meant as "do this unless something breaks, then do it otherwise" On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 11 February 2016 at 15:51, Rich Freeman wrote: > > In this case you just wouldn't enable python 2.7 support, but you > > wouldn't disable it eithe

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 11 February 2016 at 15:51, Rich Freeman wrote: >> In this case you just wouldn't enable python 2.7 support, but you >> wouldn't disable it either. Portage would just pull it in where it is >> needed. > > But you still need a mechanism in

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > On 02/10/2016 06:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> Ditto for stuff like 32-bit support for half the libraries on your >> system when you're using something like wine. Just don't set the >> flag except explicitly if you actually need it s

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/11/2016 07:59 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Daniel Campbell > wrote: >> >> On 02/10/2016 06:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> >>> Ditto for stuff like 32-bit support for half the libraries on >>> your system when y

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 11/02/16 12:55, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: >> On 11 February 2016 at 15:51, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> In this case you just wouldn't enable python 2.7 support, but you >>> wouldn't disable it either. Portage would just pull it in where it is >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 12 February 2016 at 02:54, NP-Hardass wrote: > Just a slightly OT side note... Quite, these are the *sorts* of things I've been mulling over for a bit without coming to a concrete implementation idea. > I split mine off into a separate file (using a directory for package.use > ). > I proposed

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 12 February 2016 at 03:19, M. J. Everitt wrote: > I would avoid complicating the USE flag system .. it's straightforward > as it is, and has already been 'tweaked' by the auto-unmask feature, > leading to large package.use files and has no support of per-category > files (that I know of). Aut

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 11/02/16 14:32, Kent Fredric wrote: >> and has no support of per-category files (that I know of). > # /etc/portage/package.use/dev-qt > dev-qt/* qt3support > > ^ Legal, works > > Portage does, auto-unmask has a very inconsistent, unstable way of working with a package.use folder not file ...

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 11/02/16 14:46, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 12 February 2016 at 03:43, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> auto-unmask has a very inconsistent, unstable way of >> working with a package.use folder not file ... > > auto-unmask consistently adds items to the file with the highest > dictionary sort. > > So if yo

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 12 February 2016 at 03:48, M. J. Everitt wrote: > Well, that's obvious Makes more sense if you read this: > Any file in this directory, directories of other profiles or top-level > "profiles" directory that begins with "package." or "use." > can be more than just a flat file. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On 12 February 2016 at 03:43, M. J. Everitt wrote: > auto-unmask has a very inconsistent, unstable way of > working with a package.use folder not file ... auto-unmask consistently adds items to the file with the highest dictionary sort. So if you name all the files with numerical prefixes, 00 .

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 07:55:52 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Kent Fredric > wrote: > > On 11 February 2016 at 15:51, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> In this case you just wouldn't enable python 2.7 support, but you > >> wouldn't disable it either. Portage would just pull

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/11/2016 04:59 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Daniel Campbell > wrote: >> >> On 02/10/2016 06:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> >>> Ditto for stuff like 32-bit support for half the libraries on >>> your system when

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

I'm just picking a random message in the thread to reply to. In the past, we had a feature, I think it was called "auto use", that would automatically turn on a use flag if the package that was needed to support it was installed. As an example, if we still had this, python_targets_2_7 would be au

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/11/2016 04:01 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > I'm just picking a random message in the thread to reply to. > > In the past, we had a feature, I think it was called "auto use", > that would automatically turn on a use flag if the package that was >

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > No, lazy USE in this discussion is akin to installing, say, Steam. > That requires a lot of packages that must be rebuilt with abi_x86_32. > In such a situation, if there was something like USE="~abi_x86_32" > (the ~ is just a symbol, it

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/11/2016 05:23 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Daniel Campbell > wrote: >> >> No, lazy USE in this discussion is akin to installing, say, >> Steam. That requires a lot of packages that must be rebuilt with >> abi_x86

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > Ah, I think I see what you mean now. That's actually a bit more > predictable and requires less action on behalf of the user. I'd like > to add that, if we do this, could Portage output which USE flags were > being automatically added? We a