Summary: | dedicated use flag on games-simulation/openttd is misleading | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <bss03> |
Component: | New packages | Assignee: | Gentoo Games <games> |
Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
Severity: | minor | ||
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: |
openttd-0.4.0.1.ebuild.diff
use.local.desc.diff openttd-0.4.0.ebuild.diff openttd-0.3.6-r1.ebuild.diff |
Description
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
2005-05-30 00:43:27 UTC
Created attachment 60166 [details, diff]
openttd-0.4.0.1.ebuild.diff
Not sure if this change would require a version bump, so I'm providing patches
to all the ebuilds and use.local.desc.
If it does require a version bump, you'll only need the 0.4.0.1 and
use.local.desc patches.
Created attachment 60167 [details, diff]
use.local.desc.diff
Created attachment 60168 [details, diff]
openttd-0.4.0.ebuild.diff
Created attachment 60169 [details, diff]
openttd-0.3.6-r1.ebuild.diff
Darn it, I was hoping the filename I used (<original name>.diff) would show through at some level. Rather than spamming bugzilla simply changing the descriptions (esp. since I don't know if the patches will be used) I'll post the file names here: 60166 - openttd-0.4.0.1.ebuild.diff 60167 - use.local.desc.diff 60168 - openttd-0.4.0.ebuild.diff 60169 - openttd-0.3.6-r1.ebuild.diff I'm sure an actual bug-wrangler can change the description, or at least drop me an email saying I should, if it really has to be done. Hmm, you use dedicated, get dedicated game server and complain that it Hmm, you use dedicated, get dedicated game server and complain that it´s not what you want? I don´t understand what´s to be patched here... > Hmm, you use dedicated, get dedicated game server and complain that it
> Hmm, you use dedicated, get dedicated game server and complain that it´s not
> what you want? I don´t understand what´s to be patched here...
Dedicated /adds/ support for dedicated servers. (See use.desc or read my exerpt
in the original description.)
It *should not* /remove/ support for local play. In this case, that's exactly
what it does. (See the ebuild, particularly the message I quoted in my original
description.)
In fact, you can run a dedicated server even if you don't build with +dedicated!
It's simply use flag abuse / overuse. My patches change the flag to be
something other than dedicated (so the flag doesn't get abused / overused). The
new flag, dedicatedonly, is also more descriptive / accurate.
It is like this with a lot of ebuilds, why make a problem of it? that's what dedicated means. +1 to Mr_Bones_ for keeping current behavior > It is like this with a lot of ebuilds, why make a problem of it? Because, at the very least, it IS a documenation problem. I think problems should be fixed. The dedicated use flag does not say it will remove local client functionality, therefore it shouldn't. > that's what dedicated means. Well, then change use.desc to reflect that. The current description says nothing about preventing local play. It reads like it adds to the package, not takes away. This is a bug. I guess I just saw the wrong part as broken. > +1 to Mr_Bones_ for keeping current behavior -2 to SpanKY for hitting bugzilla (and all of our inboxes) with a content-less post. Anyway, the bug is not invalid, the fix I've provided is. ah muffin, i didnt realize you'd bitch over something so small i'll change the desc to read 'some packages are unable to sanely provide both the server and client at the same time' > i'll change the desc to read
> 'some packages are unable to sanely provide both the server and client at the
> same time'
I don't think that's the case here; is it?
I just looked though the ebuild and it looks like I'd have to delve into the
Makefile to actually tell.
However, an excerpt from the ebuild messages sounds like it addresses the issue:
"...if you don't pass this flag [dedicated] you can still use it as a server..."
so this package can apparently give a dedicated server and a local client with
no problems.
I'm still not convinced the dedicated use flag is entirely appropriate here.
This ebuild needs a flag that says, out loud: "By turning me on, you are
removing functionality and gaining none." We have such flags portage already.
One example is nptlonly. Others, like moznomail or moznoxft, exist as well.
Dedicated, both as written and as ammended, doesn't fit this role. In both
cases, it reads like you get something extra and, with this ebuild, you don't.
I have proposed "dedicatedonly" (and provided patches to that ends), which is
clear and correct. An alternative could be "ottdnoclient" or simply "noclient",
but I have a reflexive dislike for negative flags.
|