| 1 |
Le vendredi 06 mai 2011 à 15:18 +0200, Marijn a écrit : |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On 05/06/11 14:25, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: |
| 6 |
> > Le vendredi 06 mai 2011 à 10:40 +0200, Marijn a écrit : |
| 7 |
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 8 |
> >> Hash: SHA1 |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >> Dear all, |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> I was just looking into the meaning of the introspection use-flag and |
| 13 |
> >> there are many ebuilds that use it so perhaps it should be globalized, |
| 14 |
> >> which would also give us a chance to improve the naming/description. |
| 15 |
> >> Current descriptions are: |
| 16 |
> >> |
| 17 |
> >> Use dev-libs/gobject-introspection for introspection |
| 18 |
> >> Enable GObject introspection. |
| 19 |
> >> |
| 20 |
> >> Currently it is hard to tell which functionality is enabled through this |
| 21 |
> >> flag and the meaning of the descriptions for when the flag is off are |
| 22 |
> >> even more unclear. Does it mean that introspection will not be used or |
| 23 |
> >> will some other way of introspection be used? Either way, perhaps the |
| 24 |
> >> people in the know could shed some light on this issue? |
| 25 |
> >> |
| 26 |
> >> Thanks, |
| 27 |
> >> |
| 28 |
> >> Marijn |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> > See original thread on this mailing list: |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> > From: Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@g.o> |
| 33 |
> > Subject: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: introspection |
| 34 |
> > Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:12:58 +0530 (20/06/2010 16:42:58) |
| 35 |
> > Message-ID: |
| 36 |
> > <AANLkTimjJIGW6k5vQCX-wryeYy_FPUTQpRN7jmW4xRKN@××××××××××.com> |
| 37 |
> > |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> Thanks for the pointer![1] Having just read that discussion it seems |
| 40 |
> that even back then many developers found that the name "introspection" |
| 41 |
> is too broad/imprecise. Several alternatives were proposed, like |
| 42 |
> gintrospection, gobject-introspection, gir, api-introspection. I think |
| 43 |
> any of these would have been better than the current name. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
The gnome team agreed to disagree. There is no point in renaming a flag |
| 46 |
that is widely used across gnome packages for a single common purpose |
| 47 |
and not anywhere else in the tree. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
All alternatives are based on a what-if but months later, what-ifs are |
| 50 |
still nowhere to be found. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> And what happened to the proposed description: |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> introspection: Add gobject-introspection support, allowing for the |
| 55 |
> dynamic generation of bindings for various languages |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> which at least contains a hint of what the purpose is of this flag? But |
| 58 |
> maybe someone can do even better than that now that this technology has |
| 59 |
> been in use for a while? |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
That can be applied, it would of course be easier to manage if the flag |
| 62 |
was global. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
-- |
| 65 |
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> |
| 66 |
Gentoo |
Archives