| 1 |
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 07 of May 2011 01:18:57 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> > On Friday 06 of May 2011 15:18:20 Marijn wrote: |
| 6 |
>> >> And what happened to the proposed description: |
| 7 |
>> >> |
| 8 |
>> >> introspection: Add gobject-introspection support, allowing for the |
| 9 |
>> >> dynamic generation of bindings for various languages |
| 10 |
>> > |
| 11 |
>> > No. |
| 12 |
>> > |
| 13 |
>> > http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@l.g.o/msg40069.html |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> It's things like this that convinced us that there's no real advantage |
| 16 |
>> in having it as a global use-flag. Maybe 3 years later when there is |
| 17 |
>> *still* nothing else in the tree that uses "introspection" besides |
| 18 |
>> gobject-introspection, we'll revisit this and finally make it a global |
| 19 |
>> use-flag. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Nirbheek... and what's particularly wrong with 'introspection' global USE flag |
| 22 |
> having implementation-agnostic "Enable runtime API introspection" description? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The reasoning I had in mind was as follows: |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
* I prefer use-flag descriptions to give the required information to |
| 28 |
the user as far as possible in one sentence (or two if necessary). |
| 29 |
* metadata.xml must be used for this if the global use-flag |
| 30 |
description is too generic. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Following these two, it would mean that the global USE-flag |
| 33 |
description you are proposing would be too generic, and would require |
| 34 |
local use-flag descriptions for all the current uses of |
| 35 |
USE=introspection in the tree. This would not change the status quo. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
This will of course change if/when some other tool comes up which does |
| 38 |
a similar job, and is toggleable in a similar way. One of our |
| 39 |
proposals (back then) was that we add the specific description now, |
| 40 |
and switch over to the generic one when that situation comes to be. |
| 41 |
However, that was rejected, and we ended up going with the local |
| 42 |
use-flag descriptions. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
At this point, adding a global use-flag with that generic description |
| 45 |
would only mean that some packages (whose maintainers are a bit lazy) |
| 46 |
will have inconsistent use-flag descriptions, which will cause |
| 47 |
confusion to users. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
So, I see no point adding a generic global use-flag description right |
| 50 |
now. It can either be added when another such tool comes up, or the |
| 51 |
current description can be made global when it looks like |
| 52 |
gobject-introspection will be the only such tool. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
PS: Apologies if I sounded harsh in my earlier mail. I felt like I was |
| 56 |
reliving the old discussion, and it sort of heated me up. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
> Nobody sees anything wrong with overly vague 'xml' global USE flag and my |
| 59 |
> proposition isn't worse ('Add support for XML files' ... you mean what |
| 60 |
> support? import/export or just expat vs libxml2?) |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
> -- |
| 63 |
> regards |
| 64 |
> MM |
| 65 |
> |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
-- |
| 70 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team |
Archives