1 |
On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 11:57:01PM +0200, Daniel Stiefelmaier wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> >>man emerge provides information on possible options, why should there |
4 |
> >>not be a way to get information on an ebuilds option??? |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> >because emerge is the tool, not the object. You wouldn't expect the |
8 |
> >openoffice documentation to cover examples for different kinds of |
9 |
> >letters, would you? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> err.. i think you got me wrong... i do not expect emerge to have a |
12 |
> built-in list of use flags. |
13 |
> The description should be in the .ebuilds or metadata.xml |
14 |
> But i hope you do agree, that eix or emerge are the appropriate tools to |
15 |
> dig such information. |
16 |
|
17 |
Nope, I don't agree. |
18 |
|
19 |
> (maybe eix more than emerge) |
20 |
> Just like "emerge -vv" will print information about the ebuild |
21 |
> maintainers in future release, if i got that right. |
22 |
|
23 |
Lifted from metadata.xml . |
24 |
|
25 |
Jamming a 'built-in list of use flags' into ebuilds/metadata.xml first |
26 |
of all is vague, second of all is going to jack up the tree's size, |
27 |
third of all will lead to a buttload of redundant information across |
28 |
the tree. |
29 |
|
30 |
So... nail it down, instead of the vague "eix/emerge should do this". |
31 |
If you're suggesting it read use.* info from profiles/use.*, state so. |
32 |
|
33 |
> >>The useflag "xprint" sounds like printing support, but doesn't tell |
34 |
> >>if you need it if you use cups or the kde-printing system or... |
35 |
> >>whatever. |
36 |
> > |
37 |
> > |
38 |
> >~ $ grep xprint /usr/portage/profiles/use.desc |
39 |
> >xprint - Support for xprint, http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xprint/ |
40 |
> > |
41 |
> >what do you need more? |
42 |
> |
43 |
> - ease of use |
44 |
> - elegance |
45 |
Eye of the beholder, not an objective point |
46 |
> - not need to know about every portage file (especially if new to gentoo) |
47 |
> - time efficiency (for dozens of flags) |
48 |
for x in flag1 flag2 flag3; do grep /usr/portage/profiles/use.*; done |
49 |
> - non-global flags |
50 |
See above. |
51 |
|
52 |
> eix also provides only information that you could grep in a more or less |
53 |
> elegant way. |
54 |
> or using google... |
55 |
|
56 |
Portage does you mean, since eix is just a tool that read directly |
57 |
from portage underlying files (and is going to get boned by portage |
58 |
changes to the underlying cache at some point). |
59 |
|
60 |
Use ufed, is my opinion on this, or write a tool/extension of existing |
61 |
tools. |
62 |
|
63 |
|
64 |
> >>Why do you think just because YOU don't need it, noone will? |
65 |
> > |
66 |
> > |
67 |
> >This is not a personal debate. The most important reason I see against |
68 |
> >this idea is that portage is a package manager, not a documentation |
69 |
> >center. |
70 |
|
71 |
What you're not groking here is that people work on |
72 |
A) what they find interesting |
73 |
B) what they think *needs* to be done. |
74 |
|
75 |
Via that ordering, the subjective bit you're throwing out is nulled; |
76 |
use flag display is minor compared to fixing portage's screwups from |
77 |
where I sit. |
78 |
|
79 |
Additionally turning the question, |
80 |
Why do you think just because YOU think it's needed, others will? |
81 |
|
82 |
> most programs, even those for gurus, print information about their |
83 |
> option or AT LEAST how to GET information. still, these programs are |
84 |
> "not a documentation center". |
85 |
|
86 |
This makes no sense. |
87 |
|
88 |
|
89 |
> >Why should the ebuild contain links to documentation? To be honest, |
90 |
> >not even the HOMEPAGE info is needed, it's just for the user's |
91 |
> >convenience. |
92 |
> |
93 |
> even emerge is "just for the user's convenience" |
94 |
> even distributions are "just for the user's convenience", who needs them? |
95 |
> i never heard someone argueing that a feature is needless because it is |
96 |
> convenient. |
97 |
> features are there to be convenient. |
98 |
|
99 |
Stretching the example to the extreme doesn't prove your point (don't |
100 |
do it if you want people to actually respond). |
101 |
|
102 |
|
103 |
> >I tend to refer to the UNIX principle: The right tool for the right |
104 |
> >job. For your problem, google (or any other search engine of course) |
105 |
> >is the right tool. |
106 |
> |
107 |
> what should i say? don't you have bookmarks of good sites? do you always |
108 |
> google for them? |
109 |
> of course you will get what you want in many cases but not always. |
110 |
> |
111 |
> another unix principle is that everybody can do everything the way he |
112 |
> likes. in this case, i prefer to have a "readers choice" instead of |
113 |
> googling and digging the perls. |
114 |
|
115 |
You've got the unix principle slightly wrong there- implicit is that |
116 |
if no alternative exists, the person persuing the alternative |
117 |
*implements* it themselves rather then riding others to do it. |
118 |
|
119 |
|
120 |
> also, i agree that emerge may not be the right tool for that. may be |
121 |
> "eix" or a new one. |
122 |
> what this is about, is including additional information (only one link |
123 |
> that will not hurt you) in the ebuilds or metadata.xml |
124 |
|
125 |
Guessing you're not aware of the cache, nor the dtd for metadata.xml |
126 |
Slapping stuff into the cache requires portage modifications, both for |
127 |
the package and for the rsync cache generation. |
128 |
|
129 |
It can be done, but the question before doing it is exactly what this |
130 |
is going to yield, is it really the right route, and what is going to |
131 |
be broken by this (since tools *do* read directly from cache entries |
132 |
even if it's daft to do so). |
133 |
|
134 |
|
135 |
> >Do you think we're all sadists? |
136 |
> |
137 |
> No, but hard to believe that you are not ignorant against people |
138 |
> - that like to have features you personally find useless |
139 |
> - that may be not using linux since 1992 and need more good |
140 |
> documentation to install and maintain their system |
141 |
> - that (therefore) do not know the linux/gentoo/portage file structure |
142 |
> by heart |
143 |
> |
144 |
> >Sorry, but such statements don't help your argumentation. |
145 |
> |
146 |
> Did you think the statements in Jasons first reply were all helping the |
147 |
> discussion? |
148 |
|
149 |
Play nice, or go play somewhere else, bluntly. |
150 |
|
151 |
You're not convincing anybody that *your* personal opinion of how it |
152 |
should be done is the correct way, further you're *not* going to pull |
153 |
that off if you're being agressive/insulting about it (I'll give you |
154 |
the benfit of the doubt and assume you're not intentionally trying to |
155 |
insult people). |
156 |
|
157 |
Others pissing you off is no reason to respond in kind, nor any way to |
158 |
get anything productive out of this discussion beyond it descending to |
159 |
a flamewar. |
160 |
|
161 |
|
162 |
> >>BTW, if "This is out of the domain of a package in any package |
163 |
> >>management system", then why do some packages print additional |
164 |
> >>information after emerging, like what files should be updated manually? |
165 |
> > |
166 |
> >For the user's convenience of course. |
167 |
> |
168 |
> This sounds like they are needless. |
169 |
|
170 |
Eh? |
171 |
|
172 |
> >Introducing documentation links in ebuilds however is a massive |
173 |
> >effort, and I don't think that effort is worth it. I'd rather fix a |
174 |
> >broken package than googling for documentation. |
175 |
> |
176 |
> I did not yet dive into portage, but why is it such a big effort? For |
177 |
> the ebuilds themselves it is adding one more line on the next regular |
178 |
> update. (This would be for the wiki. If the help on the useflags would |
179 |
> be included in the ebuild and not in the wiki, yes, then it would be a |
180 |
> bit more effort. But i guess the maintainers know their flags and could |
181 |
> add some lines that describe them quickly) |
182 |
|
183 |
I suggest you jump into portage internals. |
184 |
|
185 |
Additionally... you're proposing a retrofit of metadata into the entire |
186 |
tree, which is a *lot* of work (that's fact), leaving the question of |
187 |
what really is gained, if there was a better way, etc. |
188 |
|
189 |
Not trying to be overly harsh here, but people have pointed out why |
190 |
there are issues with it. Address the issues, don't fall back to |
191 |
rhetoric or "it should be". Check the code, look into it rather then |
192 |
telling others they should do it. |
193 |
|
194 |
my slightly flamey 2 cents. |
195 |
~harring |