Re: [gentoo-dev] net-misc/strongswan USE_EXPAND

[Jason Zaman]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 08:05:35AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2015-06-23, o godz. 01:48:58
> Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@g.o> napisał(a):
>
> > On Tue, 2015-06-23 at 07:06 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Dnia 2015-06-23, o godz. 01:23:13
> > > Jason Zaman <jason@×××××××××.com> napisał(a):
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:55:45PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > Dnia 2015-06-22, o godz. 16:38:30
> > > > > Jason Zaman <perfinion@g.o> napisał(a):
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I want to add STRONGSWAN_PLUGINS to USE_EXPAND. This is related
> > > > > > to bug
> > > > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=504942
> > > > > > "net-misc/strongswan missing USE flags for plugins"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Patrick said to fix it myself, the ebuilds with the plugins
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > been in the tree for a fair while now and only the USE_EXPAND
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > missing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If there are no objections, I will commit the following patch
> > > > > > on friday:
> > > > >
> > > > > USE_EXPAND is global by its nature. USE flags used by a single
> > > > > package
> > > > > are not appropriate for making global.
> > > >
> > > > Since when? There are so many things in USE_EXPAND that are only
> > > > for a
> > > > single package.
> > >
> > > Not sure when. But the policies about USE flags were in the devmanual
> > > long before I came here.
> > >
> > > > APACHE2_MODULES, NGINX_MODULES_HTTP, COLLECTD_PLUGINS, QEMU_*, etc.
> > > > Easily half of the things in USE_EXPAND are for only a single
> > > > package.
> > >
> > > Past screwups don't justify future screwups.
> >
> > I don't see it as a screwup personally.
> >
> > It is often useful to have different namespaces for the few general
> > flags that control a package's general features and the >9000 flags
> > that enable/disable >9000 highly specific plugins.
> >
> > And if violation of the rules is useful, perhaps the rules are wrong?
>
> Then perhaps you go and fix the rules instead of ignoring them?
>
> But please also remember to provide the ability to describe those flags
> per-package rather than globally, like they are done now. Would be good
> to also avoid declaring them globally, like having >50 groups listed in
> USE_EXPAND.
>
> When you're done with that, and get all package managers to support it
> in a reasonably long stable version, then we can discuss about changing
> the rules.

I dont quite follow, the useflags are described in the packages
metadata.xml, are not conflicting and are supported by everything.

Is there a rule that everything that is USE_EXPAND'd is a global
useflag? I see no such rule and I dont understand why it would even make
sense. USE_EXPAND arnt useflags, it is just a variable to make useflags
look nicer, they shouldnt all have to be global. What if one and only
one package supports a specific video_card? Should that use-flag be made
global?

Adding use_expand's for foo_plugins makes things a lot easier to manage
and understand tho. The only possible downside I can see is that there
are a lot of entries in it, but we have a lot of useflags so thats hardly
an issue.

-- Jason