Keywords Proposal: Need netter clarity

InfoManiac · n00b Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 53

Current Topic on this, spun-off by circular dependencies thread.

Please see this topic as the current descriptions for keywords are too vague and we *need* to be able to look at a keyword and know *for sure* if we need it or not.

In this thread I propose a few ways in which the descriptions could be better serve people.

It would make this distribution just that much better, and would make life easier on all of us.

Also we would not be blindly guessing if we need to use certain keywords, and I am VERY sure most people are adding in keywords becuase it sounds like "yeah, I want that....it _look_ like what I want" when the very thing you think you need may turn out to be something entirely different that what you thought it was.
_________________
GIT-RRRR-DOOOONE!

sugar · Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:59 pm Post subject:

I could be wrong, but isn't it more up to the development teams of the individual packages to say what the USE flags actually control?
_________________
He who calls for full employment calls for war!

wah · Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:19 pm Post subject:

beandog

Drysh · Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:20 pm Post subject:

IMO, one thing that could be improved is to create groups of keywords. One example would be something like file_format -- A list of file formats to support: mp3, jpeg, xls... Or even using more descritive keywords like snd_mp3, img_jpeg. This will give us 2 things:

1. It will be easier to know what a keyword is.

2. It will be easier to set a system that, for instance, has support to all sound formats.

InfoManiac · n00b Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 53

What Drysh suggested is another *good* idea.

However it could be accomplished, it doesn't matter.

This would be a very good thing.

@beandog:

I wouldn't be asking for clarity on this topic if I *knew* this information already, but I do not. I would know that most do not, becuase they only repeat the current vague info out there on this that there currently is.

@all:

Things need to be more straightforward and clear, as it stands now they aren't. Gentoo should not be a pain in the arse to use. The other distributions aren't and DO NOT tell me to use the other distributions because it works better for me, etc., etc that is a common technique used in *any* Gentoo forum to avoid fixing the problem and give the person the three finger salute becuase they don't "fit in" or whatever the deal is. I read see this over and over so many countless times when someone is legitimately trying to get a resolution to an issue.

I say this becuase I am sticking with Gentoo, and that type answer is not a solution.

These problems can't be SO hard they are not fixable, if so Gentoo needs an overhaul and it's long over do.
_________________
GIT-RRRR-DOOOONE!

beandog · Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:02 pm Post subject:

InfoManiac · n00b Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 53

I am asking for clarity on these becuase I myself have no clue what exactly these keywords do or even if I need half of then.

So, no I don't becuase I am requesting this feature, not creating it.

My thought was that the developers that created these keywords and / or work with then and totally understand them 100% and do not repeat the current vague info available and can *truly* say what _exactly_ they do how, why, what, where, dev, non-dev.

a.k.a - info that is not currently available.

I am having trouble _understanding_ them to even grasp what the keywords mean, do, what effect they have, etc.

Things like

InfoManiac · n00b Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 53

OK, so it isn't all just moaning on my end, I stepped up to the plate and filed a bug "feature request" on this:

Bug 171743
_________________
GIT-RRRR-DOOOONE!

timeBandit · Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:28 am Post subject:

FYI, you'd be well served as you pursue this to keep your terms straight:

A keyword on Gentoo refers to a particular hardware architecture, possibly prefixed with "~" to indicate the testing branch of the Portage tree when building packages for that architecture. Examples: x86 (Intel 80x86 architecture, stable branch), ~ppc (Power PC, testing branch), amd64 (AMD 64-bit arch., stable).
A USE flag (or use variable, or simply flag, when we're not being pedantic ) selects optional features when compiling packages. Most apply to all architectures, but some are valid only in combination with certain architecture keywords. Examples: doc (installs optional documentation for many packages), cups (adds support for the CUPS printing subsystem), etc.

The two are not interchangeable. Use of proper terminology gives your ideas a bit more weight with some people (or the converse, but either way, it's helpful).

While filing a bug is laudable, please don't take offense when I say that as written, my money is on "rejected" as a final disposition. It covers too much ground: AFAIK there isn't just one person who documents all USE flags, so a feature request to "clarify the USE flag descriptions" could circulate, unresolved, forever. Bugs targeting the particular obtuse flags are more likely to be addressed. (In general, specific bugs are easier to understand, assign and resolve.)

beandog twice asked for examples, but perhaps it wasn't clear that all you need to provide are examples of incomprehensible USE flags--not examples of how to do it right!

Here is a list of every USE flag in Gentoo. Pick a few that illustrate your complaint, and let's discuss what would constitute "good" descriptions. No, let me restate that: let's begin by understanding exactly how they're unclear--what questions are raised when you read them.
_________________
Plants are pithy, brooks tend to babble--I'm content to lie between them.
Super-short f.g.o checklist: Search first, strip comments, mark solved, help others.

InfoManiac · n00b Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 53

So this is your solution.

This entire organization is full of you-know-what

You couldn't solve anything so save your lives! I cannot believe this!

I predicted this would happen and it did.

Why not FIX the problem, this is aggravating as HELL!

The keywords are NOT understandable and it's not all relative to each person how they see this and that!

Good lord! A GOOD organization will have GOOD documentation, which this one does not!

This pisses me off BEYOND belief and go figure why....I have seen and been apart of this non-sense for some time. God's SAKE people ---- FIX something for once, make BETTER documetation.

OH ---- MY --- GOD....you all claim you want to fix things and then when it comes down to it......"well....it's all relative, and not really an 'issue' per-se"

You people amaze me, just when I thought you've stopped hitting rock bottom....nope, you still have a ways to fall just yet.

You bet I am quitting this distribution, becuase BS and lies are your foundation currently.

You all can continue this topic all you like I am out. I am going to a distribution that doesn't just TALK about solving problem they ACTUALLY DO!! Which one, OH wait, all but this one!

You are an amazement! I am quite surprised that you have lasted this long, distrowatch weekly IS right, why don't you wake the hell up?!

I'm out, I know you don't care, just like anyone who left you don't care. Well, good-riddance! But it REALLY is too bad you make it this way. You seem to have a long way to fall just yet.
_________________
GIT-RRRR-DOOOONE!

Drysh · Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:19 pm Post subject:

@InfoManiac: Where to? Do you know any source based linux distribution that is better than Gentoo?

amne · Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject:

Locked since InfoManiac is gone anyway.
_________________
Dinosaur week! (Ok, this thread is so last week)