Could we use *the* standard USE flag here? media-video/makemkv-1.15.4 (gui ? dev-qt/qtwidgets:5) Reproducible: Always
I'm not too happy when ebuilds sneak QT/KDE bloat onto my systems **despite** USE='-qt5 -qt4 -qt3 -qt -kde' in /etc/portage/make.conf... I _may_ want a GUI (so, setting USE='-gui' globally is not an option), but decidedly NOT if it's QT-based... Of course, I _can_ set individual USE flags per package (which is what I'm forced to do here as well), but that feels like an unnecessary chore, hence my request.
May want to read: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/cf3f5a59ac918335766632bd02438722 Individual USE=<toolkit> is (now) more for when there's multiple toolkit options, but with only one I believe USE=gui is sufficient and preferred. Many other packages already do this (for either gtk and qt where applicable)
I guess I should link QA instead of the ML: https://projects.gentoo.org/qa/policy-guide/use-flags.html#pg0802
I appreciate having both links, since the ML post clarifies the intention behind the nonsense that's formulated in the FAQ. I fully agree with the general sentiment for GUI/no-GUI selection, but completely disagree with omitting the toolkit even if it's the only option, since that's quite a polarizing choice akin to emacs vs vi... ;^) Gentoo is (or used to be?) about customization and control. I don't think using a single USE flag makes sense. I don't want several toolkits on my systems, but may still want a GUI, when available for my toolkit of choice. I'd fully expect USE='gui -qt5' to only ever merge non-QT GUIs... Isn't that reasonable? What would be your expectation? How would I go about proposing to change this behavior globally? BTW, the same might apply to the cited USE='ssl' case as well.
BTW, I just happened to read the very first item in the QA document on 'Versioned USE flags', and I completely disagree with that change as well. Could you link me to the discussion on that one? Albeit, I'm guessing there wasn't much of a discussion on that either... The whole point with the non-versioned USE flags was the _exact same_ simplicity and "pleasantness" argument that seems to motivate the global `gui` USE flag: why should I bother with all the different versions of a toolkit if I don't want _any_ of it. Why should I have to keep track of new versions of a toolkit I don't use, just to be able to block that one, too? I saw a withdrawn GLEP on USE flag groups, which seems to address a similar concern, but apparently got muddied up by mixing different concerns in the same group (e.g. @GTK or @KDE should never _include_ X, but the individual ebuilds should have rules that _imply_ X if either of those groups is se2lected). BTW, these issues should've been raised and discussed on gentoo-user not gentoo-dev, since it's the convenience to **users** that matters. Developers can easily adapt to whichever option gains majority. The ebuild syntax is rich enough to allow for alternatives.
I'm closing this because I'm just following established convention and this is now clearly about more than just this package. You're certainly entitled to have this discussion but this is not the right place for it. However, I would warn that this has already been discussed to death and I highly doubt there is much appetite for changing it. For what it's worth, I also agree with this convention. I do understand how USE flags could be interpreted in the way that you suggest but that is not how we've chosen to do it. I believe we have chosen the most convenient approach overall. MakeMKV has no alternative so if I really want the GUI then I don't care what framework it uses. Chances are something else will need Qt anyway. I think this is true for most users. You could set USE="-gui" in your make.conf. If you're that concerned about bloat then blindly enabling GUIs doesn't seem like a great start. You could also mask the Qt packages to prevent them from being pulled in by accident. I will also add that you should not conflate KDE with Qt. Sure, KDE is big, but I don't have any KDE packages installed. Qt may have been relatively big compared to GTK back in the day but this gap has certainly narrowed and it may have even swung the other way. It's almost impossible to make a direct comparison but the best example I can think of is that LXQt's memory usage has been shown to be on par with LXDE. Bear in mind that LXDE uses GTK 2, not 3! LXQt also uses less memory than Xfce.
I'm not all that surprised. The problem extends way beyond this ebuild, indeed. > I do understand how USE flags could be interpreted in the way that you suggest but that is not how we've chosen to do it. I suppose the rules are set by those who care to spend enough time to set and maintain them, without much effort spent on soliciting input from vanilla users. Luckily, the system is sufficiently robust and configurable that what I might consider nonsense can be worked around with relative ease. > I believe we have chosen the most convenient approach overall. For developers, perhaps; for users who generally care about customizability (which used to be one of the main advantages of this distribution), I don't think so. > MakeMKV has no alternative so if I really want the GUI then I don't care what framework it uses. Sure. And THEN, you'd _add_ +gui ***in your _own_ configuration NOT in the ebuild**. I _never_ did that! What I have is -qt (and -qt5 since the unversioned flag is not respected anymore). This ebuild ignores that and adds QT5 stuff anyway. That boggles the mind... Should I create a separate request for changing IUSE=+gui to IUSE=gui in the ebuild? Personally, I find that default offensive. > Chances are something else will need Qt anyway. Now, that is the strangest argument I've heard in a while. I make _very_ sure that the chance of QT on my systems is exactly zero. Until ebuilds like this come along and cause havoc... ;^) > If you're that concerned about bloat then blindly enabling GUIs doesn't seem like a great start. Exactly! > You could also mask the Qt packages to prevent them from being pulled in by accident. Yes, I could; and, maybe I should. I haven't bothered, since -qt was supposed to have essentially the same effect when I first installed Gentoo a million years ago, but times change. > I will also add that you should not conflate KDE with Qt. Cool. I was mainly referring to the bloat of having different UI toolkits installed on the same system, but it's nice to hear that QT is improving on the bloat front. Did it also become more visually pleasing and less backwards in its UI logic? For a UI toolkit those tend to be equally important factors.
(In reply to Another Mortal from comment #7) > I suppose the rules are set by those who care to spend enough time to set > and maintain them, without much effort spent on soliciting input from > vanilla users. Luckily, the system is sufficiently robust and configurable > that what I might consider nonsense can be worked around with relative ease. So do that then? > For developers, perhaps; for users who generally care about customizability > (which used to be one of the main advantages of this distribution), I don't > think so. Not every user is like you. You are what I'd call a power user and we've given you the tools to do what you want. For everyone else, we try to provide safe, unsurprising (USE="gui" gives you a GUI) defaults. > Sure. And THEN, you'd _add_ +gui ***in your _own_ configuration NOT in the > ebuild**. I _never_ did that! What I have is -qt (and -qt5 since the > unversioned flag is not respected anymore). This ebuild ignores that and > adds QT5 stuff anyway. That boggles the mind... > > Should I create a separate request for changing IUSE=+gui to IUSE=gui in the > ebuild? Personally, I find that default offensive. MakeMKV is designed to be used with a GUI. If you purely use the wrapper library to play directly from disc (as I do) then you don't need it but this is not MakeMKV's primary focus and I believe most users prefer to rip discs instead. You can rip discs from the command line but if you don't want to waste space with all the additional languages and audio formats then it is very tedious. > Now, that is the strangest argument I've heard in a while. > I make _very_ sure that the chance of QT on my systems is exactly zero. > Until ebuilds like this come along and cause havoc... ;^) Good for you. Again, you are not most users. I have an Xfce desktop and have traditionally favoured GTK applications but I count at least 8 Qt-based applications on my system with no suitable alternative. > > If you're that concerned about bloat then blindly enabling GUIs doesn't seem like a great start. I meant by not have USE="-gui" in your make.conf. This seems like the best option for you but you didn't say why you have not chosen it. Many users wanting to avoid extra packages start with USE="-*" so I'm surprised you haven't done that, although I know we don't recommend it. > Cool. I was mainly referring to the bloat of having different UI toolkits > installed on the same system, but it's nice to hear that QT is improving on > the bloat front. Did it also become more visually pleasing and less > backwards in its UI logic? For a UI toolkit those tend to be equally > important factors. You can install dev-qt/qtstyleplugins to make Qt use a GTK2 theme. I have done this for a long time. Please do not reopen this again. I already said this is not the place to discuss this and you yourself said it should be discussed on gentoo-user. You're wasting your time here as I do not make the rules and I happen to agree with them anyway.
