Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-pms
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-pms: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-pms@g.o
From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Subject: Re: The "Feature Availability by EAPI" table is ugly
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 22:19:03 +0200
[Subject slightly adjusted.]

>>>>> On Sun, 6 May 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> The "Feature Availability by EAPI" table looks nasty. Once we add
> EAPI 5 in there, it won't properly fit on the page.

I never liked that the table is rotated, in the first place. While
we're at it, can we get rid of that, too? For example, we could use
the dpfloat package and place the table on a double page.

> Here are some ideas:

> Left align the 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 column headers.

+1

> For "default_ phase functions" and "econf arguments", there's too
> much column text. We could either replace this with "see text", or
> put a quick summary into a different table and say "see table D.2".

+1 (for either solution)

> We could nuke the first column.

The "feature" column? That would leave us only with the "reference"
column which is rather cryptic. Also several features share the same
reference, e.g., "! blockers" and "!! blockers" are both mapped to
bang-strength.

> We could put in some "light" lines on the table. Then for features that
> are shared across EAPIs, we can do this:

>                          | 0    1     | 2    3       | 4    5      |
>   +----------------------+------------+--------------+-------------+
>   |Use Dependencies      | No         | 2-style      | 4-style     |
>   +----------------------+----+-------+--------------+-------------+
>   |src_compile           | 0  | 1     | 2                          |

> possibly with multi-column text centred.

That doesn't look like it would improve the clarity of the table. And
you'd have to add lines to separate the columns, which will even take
away some of the available space.

> Or we could do it using some kind of background shading on cells
> instead?

I fear that whatever of the above we do, we will be discussing this
table again for EAPI 6 or 7. It doesn't scale for an arbitrary number
of EAPIs.

Ulrich


References:
The "Feature Availability by EAPI" table is uglier than Portage code
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-pms: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
The "Feature Availability by EAPI" table is uglier than Portage code
Next by thread:
Should epatch be moved into EAPI 5?
Previous by date:
Re: [PATCH] How about a \ChangeWhenAddingAnEAPI marker?
Next by date:
EAPI 5 development branch


Updated Jul 18, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-pms mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.