[Exherbo-dev] Alternatives descriptions

Bo Ørsted Andresen zlin at exherbo.org
Wed Sep 20 17:02:31 UTC 2017


On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 09:31:14PM +0200, Benedikt Morbach wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Bo Ørsted Andresen <zlin at exherbo.org> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Couple years ago support for descriptions for alternatives was introduced. E.g.:
> >
> > ALTERNATIVES_cc_DESCRIPTION="System-wide C compiler"
> > ALTERNATIVES_vi_DESCRIPTION="Default provider for the vi text editor"
> >
> > in the bottom of alternatives.exlib. More alternatives need to start using this
> > but it's a start. If you run `eclectic` these descriptions are shown. If you
> > run `eclectic vi help` the vi alternative description is also shown.
> >
> > If you run `eclectic vi` it is, however, not shown. That's dumb. Attached in
> > 0001-Show-description-by-default-in-eclectic-alternative-.patch for ::arbor is
> > a solution to that. The normal default action is usage. Help prints the
> > description and then usage. So seems okay.
> 
> Agreed.
> Additionally I would change the formatting a bit because I for one would
> never have seen that description in this:
> 
> Default provider for the vi text editor
> Usage: eclectic vi <action> <options>
> 
> At least a newline before the "Usage:..." bit, maybe some color or
> underline as well?
> 
> But we can bikeshed that separately afterwards.

If someone else writes the patch. ;)

> > been discussed. Attached in
> > 0001-Show-contents-of-_description-file-if-it-exists-in-e.patch for ::eclectic
> > and 0002-Add-alternatives_for_with_description-which-allows-s.patch for ::arbor
> > is a way to show provider descriptions in `eclectic ${alternative} list`
> > output.
> 
> That seems sensible. Though I'd make the first loop start at 0 as well and do
> $((n+1)) for the list index instead of n-1 everywhere else, if only to
> be consistent
> with the second loop

Alright, done.

> > To specify provider description has been added a new
> > `alternatives_for_with_descriptions` function which takes a fourth description
> > argument and puts it in
> > /etc/env.d/alternatives/${alternative}/${provider}/_description similar to how
> > importance is stored.
> >
> > Does anybody have suggestions for a better name for
> > `alternatives_for_with_description`? Comments?
> 
> I'd just add another argument to alternatives_for. It can/should be empty for
> many things, like python3 versions, but it would be more consistent and more
> people would know that it exists, compared to a rarely used
> _with_description version.

I'd like to get more comments on whether to break stuff to get wider adoption
or make it opt in at the risk of noone using it.. ;)

--
Bo Ørsted Andresen



More information about the Exherbo-dev mailing list