1 |
Marius Mauch wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:01:00 -0400 |
3 |
> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> |
6 |
>> Marius Mauch wrote: |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:42:24 -0400 |
9 |
>>> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> wrote: |
10 |
>>> |
11 |
>>> |
12 |
>>> |
13 |
>>>> All, |
14 |
>>>> |
15 |
>>>> Here's a GLEP for the addition of USE flag descriptions to package |
16 |
>>>> metadata. It does not address any future ideas that others may have |
17 |
>>>> had or suggested. It merely gives developers the necessary "tools" |
18 |
>>>> to document their USE flag usage it better detail on a per package |
19 |
>>>> basis. |
20 |
>>>> |
21 |
>>>> An clearly motivation explanation that I didn't add, which I'm |
22 |
>>>> going to add once I send this is the fact that as per the QA |
23 |
>>>> Project, use.local.desc can not contain a USE flag that already |
24 |
>>>> appears globally in use.desc. This would allow a description for |
25 |
>>>> that USE flag to be contained in the metadata. |
26 |
>>>> |
27 |
>>>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0056.html |
28 |
>>>> |
29 |
>>>> I encourage any and all _technical_ feedback. |
30 |
>>>> |
31 |
>>>> |
32 |
>>> Doesn't include any statement about compability with existing tools |
33 |
>>> or how it's related to use.local.desc (replacement, extension, ...) |
34 |
>>> |
35 |
>>> Marius |
36 |
>>> |
37 |
>>> |
38 |
>> It purposefully does not. XML is an extensible language that allows |
39 |
>> for this type of expandability. Current tools should be able to |
40 |
>> validate that adding these tags are valid if they appear in the DTD. |
41 |
>> However, if those tools do not handle those tags they should not do |
42 |
>> anything with them, hence the nature of XML. |
43 |
>> |
44 |
> |
45 |
> I was more talking about tools that process use flag information |
46 |
> (equery, euse, ufed, ...). |
47 |
> |
48 |
> |
49 |
>> The replacement of use.local.desc would necessitate a change to any |
50 |
>> and all tools which use that file and require them to support the new |
51 |
>> XML data. This of course introduces a chicken/egg issue. I have |
52 |
>> mentioned to infra the possibility of having a pre-rsync process that |
53 |
>> condensed all metadata.xml's into a use.local.desc that would be part |
54 |
>> of rsync data but not part of CVS. This could be written as a CVS |
55 |
>> hook to see when a metadata.xml was touched and run the utility |
56 |
>> appropriately. |
57 |
>> |
58 |
>> But again, this is outside the scope of this GLEP, whose purpose |
59 |
>> merely is to provide a way to document this. |
60 |
>> |
61 |
> |
62 |
> I disagree. At the very least state that the GLEP does not replace |
63 |
> use.local.desc if that's the intention, and which location is |
64 |
> supposed to take priority if a flag is defined in both. Otherwise |
65 |
> different tools will use different rules and generating inconsistent |
66 |
> results. And there are many tools affected by this ... |
67 |
> |
68 |
> Marius |
69 |
> |
70 |
> PS: I like the general idea, but as long as compability issues are |
71 |
> completely ignored by the GLEP I have to oppose it. |
72 |
> |
73 |
Considering Portage and repoman currently require any and all USE flags |
74 |
appearing in IUSE to be present in use.local.desc, there should be no |
75 |
ambiguity to the compatibility issues currently. I 100% expect different |
76 |
tools to provide different results. Writing a GLEP stating that one file |
77 |
is preferred over another will not cause those tools to magically |
78 |
choose. The tools and their maintainers should be pushed by the |
79 |
community to use the best data available. If use.local.desc provides |
80 |
this data, then so be it. The initial goal of this GLEP is really to |
81 |
allow per-package descriptions of global USE flags [*]. There by |
82 |
different tools will provide more detailed information about USE flags |
83 |
and some will simply not. That will result in a community push to make |
84 |
these tools use newer data available and as such will result in one day |
85 |
use.local.desc becoming deprecated. But, we're speaking about something |
86 |
which may never happen. Or may happen in another GLEP in the future. |
87 |
|
88 |
[*] As decided by the Gentoo QA Team, any USE flag that appears in |
89 |
use.desc CAN NOT appear in use.local.desc. There by, there is no way for |
90 |
a descriptive variation of a global USE flag to officially appear in any |
91 |
medium. |
92 |
-- |
93 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |