[gobolinux-devel] Generic useflags

[Jonas Karlsson]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:18:56 +0200, Isaac Dupree <isaacdupree at charter.net> wrote:

> Michael Homer wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Isaac Dupree <isaacdupree at charter.net> wrote:
>>> Michael Homer wrote:
>>>> On Sunday 06 July 2008 12:59:55 Isaac Dupree wrote:
>>>>> Michael Homer wrote:
>>>>>> Now, here comes your part in all this: tear the preceding to pieces and
>>>>>> show us why it's wrong.
>>>>> I'll try, even though it looks pretty enticing to me :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where one of the flags encompassed by the generic flag was enabled
>>>>>> explicitly, the generic flag would do nothing. If a program had qt, gtk,
>>>>>> and tk interfaces, +gui +gtk would not enable qt. This means you can use
>>>>>> program-specific flags to choose a specific interface as usual. If
>>>>>> multiple component flags are specifically enabled, they all remain
>>>>>> enabled.
>>>>> what is "explicitly"?  is there a clear distinction between
>>>>> user-specified (commandline? config-file?) and automatically (somehow)
>>>>> added useflags?
>>>> "Explicitly" is "you explicitly enabled the flag". Probably in UseFlags.conf,
>>>> perhaps in the system flags or the environment.
>>> Where "you" is the user/admin, not the distributor?  It's expected for
>>> systems to come with configurations that can be specified only with this
>>> generic mechanism, none "explicitly enabled"?  Sounds like that might
>>> actually work reasonably, but I'm not sure...
>> "You" is anybody. I'm not sure where the miscommunication is in "the
>> flag is explicitly enabled"; if the flag is specifically enabled, it's
>> on no matter what. If it isn't, we see what's available from the
>> generic. Perhaps I just wrote that part badly, could you explain more
>> clearly what your question is (from the beginning)?
>
> I was trying to figure out what the meaning of enabled "explicit" versus
> "implicit" is... because obviously if we take into account all the code
> in Scripts (and anything that humans wrote everywhere else too), as
> being an explicit specification, then everything in the world is
> explicit?

If you're an objectivist, then yes. :)

>  I misinterpreted something, then?

Not a native speaker, but I think I can help out anyway. Explicit means
"direct, spoken out". So putting "+gtk" in use flags means that it is
explicitly enabled.
Implicit otoh means the opposite "inderect, implied". An example would be
that if "gui" is set, but none of the toolkit flags are set, the first
toolkit flag, e.g. "qt" or "gtk", available in the recipe will be
implicitly set.

To clear things out: explicitly setting "gtk" in use flags will override
any ordering in the "gui" flags, meaning that even if the order is
"gui: qt gtk", "qt" will not be set (unless explicitly set).

-- 
/Jonas

Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/