| 1 |
(P.S. I'm trying to keep from splitting this thread between -doc and -dev) |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Quoting Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o>: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:47:16AM -0600, Joel Konkle-Parker wrote: |
| 6 |
> > I'd like to propose that we add per-package USE flag descriptions to |
| 7 |
> the |
| 8 |
> > package pages on http://packages.gentoo.org. I can't tell you how |
| 9 |
> many |
| 10 |
> > times I've sat and wondered what effect a particular flag has on a |
| 11 |
> > particular package, and the use.desc descriptions are much too brief |
| 12 |
> to |
| 13 |
> > give any kind of useful detail (and the use.local.desc descriptions |
| 14 |
> are |
| 15 |
> > just for local flags, not global ones). For example: |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > "What effect does USE="xml2" have on xfree?" |
| 18 |
> > "Why does w3m need USE="imlib"? |
| 19 |
> > "Why should I keep USE="berkdb"? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I wouldn't mind that packages.gentoo.org views the used USE flags at |
| 22 |
> all, but |
| 23 |
> describing what effect a USE-flag has is almost impossible. To know |
| 24 |
> this, you |
| 25 |
> must read the ebuild. Auto-generated information will probably be as |
| 26 |
> cryptic |
| 27 |
> as it would by just reading the ebuild and would therefore not provide |
| 28 |
> any |
| 29 |
> useful information. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> From reading the xfree ebuild, I can tell that xml2 activates support |
| 32 |
> for |
| 33 |
> Libxml2. If you want to parse this automatically, you would probably |
| 34 |
> have |
| 35 |
> something like "Adds HasLibxml2 YES to config/cf/host.def". |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Well, let's not generated it automatically, then. See below. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> > I see the need to have some sort of USE listing on each package page |
| 42 |
> that |
| 43 |
> > gives human-readable descriptions that can be used to tell whether |
| 44 |
> someone |
| 45 |
> > would want a particular USE flag for a particular package. An |
| 46 |
> extended |
| 47 |
> > package description may by helpful as well. |
| 48 |
> > |
| 49 |
> > While yes, this would take a lot of grunt-work, I think the value to |
| 50 |
> Gentoo |
| 51 |
> > users would be immeasurable. I'd also be more than happy to help. |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> grunt-work? I believe it is an endless job with the possibility that |
| 54 |
> wrong |
| 55 |
> information is provided (as the meanings of USE-flags can differ from |
| 56 |
> version |
| 57 |
> to version). I'd personally rather have no info than wrong info. |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> Providing a list of used USE-flags is a good thing. Manually describing what |
| 60 |
> a USE-flag does on a package is imho impossible. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
I guess the obvious place for this information would be inside the ebuild |
| 63 |
itself. It could get be parsed out for the packages page. An example ebuild |
| 64 |
(gcc) would have: |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
USE_DESC="java: compiles the gcj java compiler and associated support files; not |
| 67 |
needed if you're not using gcj" |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
That would put a small additional load on ebuild creators, yes, but who knows |
| 70 |
their USE flags better than the ebuilders themselves? That short one-liner would |
| 71 |
be extremely helpful on my (the user's) end as well. I'd see that (either by |
| 72 |
looking at packages.gentoo.org, or in the ebuild, or with etcat, or similar) and |
| 73 |
say "Ok, I don't think I've ever going to use gcj, so I'll set USE="-java" |
| 74 |
without worrying about unintended consequences |
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
-- |
| 78 |
Joel Konkle-Parker |
| 79 |
Webmaster [Ballsome.com] |
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
Phone [662-518-1636] |
| 82 |
E-mail [jjk3@×××××××.edu] |
| 83 |
|
| 84 |
-- |
| 85 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives