On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 08:05:35AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2015-06-23, o godz. 01:48:58 > Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetrom...@gentoo.org> 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 <ja...@perfinion.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 <perfin...@gentoo.org> 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
