| 1 |
On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 18:07 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Tom Fredrik Blenning Klaussen wrote: |
| 6 |
> > On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 20:01 +0100, John Mylchreest wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >>For the record, there is a bug open for this. (#64009) |
| 9 |
> >>Personally, I'm not keen on the idea. |
| 10 |
> >>the only way which we can do this is by detecting which arch we are |
| 11 |
> >>installing the sources, for, which immediately means many installs of |
| 12 |
> >>USE=minimal are not the same. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > I'm the reporter of the above mentioned bug (which for the record |
| 16 |
> > was /only 1 year old/ September 14. I love the response time :-) ) |
| 17 |
> > I was just made aware of this discussion, so sorry about the late |
| 18 |
> > response. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > I really can't see the problem with several installs being dissimilar. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> >>There are plenty of other reasons I can go into, but if anyone feels |
| 24 |
> >>strongly to push this change, then feel free to reply with justification |
| 25 |
> >>as to why. Technical info to back it up as well please :) |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > The only real difficulty I can see is that the kernel-devs sometimes |
| 29 |
> > pull includes from other arcs. This will cause compile errors, and under |
| 30 |
> > no circumstances any runtime problems. If the use flag also comes with a |
| 31 |
> > warning that use is on your own peril, and support is not given. Too bad |
| 32 |
> > for the people ignoring the warning. |
| 33 |
> I could see some sort of pmasked ebuild that did this. Other than that |
| 34 |
> though, I wouldn't want users to be able to touch it. It's well known |
| 35 |
> that pmasked stuff isn't supported. One can't add a use flag to an |
| 36 |
> ebuild and then turn around and say oh that use flag isn't supported. |
| 37 |
> If it's not supported it shouldn't be there. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Actually a method for masking USE flags could be a good idea. Now, as |
| 40 |
said earlier the natural way to do this is in the kernel-2.eclass. So I |
| 41 |
don't see how one could pmask that. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Why are you afraid of users coming near this. I don't expect this to |
| 44 |
break anything at all, but even if the errors generated are straight |
| 45 |
forward. The average gentoo users are not stupid. In fact if you have |
| 46 |
come so far as to adjust something beyond the most basic USE flags at |
| 47 |
all, you're probably advanced enough to deciphre such a message. (It |
| 48 |
would be nice to have some knowledge of who the average gentoo user is |
| 49 |
though.) |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Now as for the USE flag system. It has actually become so big that it's |
| 52 |
difficult to use it effectively. I would actually suggest that a two |
| 53 |
level system of USE flags could be employed. Something like |
| 54 |
wtk/gtk (Windowing Toolkit / gtk) |
| 55 |
wtk/kde (Windowing Toolkit / kde) |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
There could also be another category |
| 58 |
experimental/minimal |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Using a flag from experimental would add a warning to the pacakge that |
| 61 |
uses it, and an implicit understanding that tweaking of the experimental |
| 62 |
use flags is strongly discouraged. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
> Also might want to submit the ebuild to breakmygentoo or some other |
| 65 |
> overlay. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
I'll consider it, but as mentioned above it's really a change to an |
| 68 |
eclass. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
Sincerely |
| 71 |
-- |
| 72 |
Tom Fredrik Klaussen |
| 73 |
-- |
| 74 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives