| 1 |
On 12/30/07, Mark Loeser <halcy0n@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> This is a very very rough draft/question about how we should move |
| 3 |
> forward with USE flag documentation and specification. The entire idea |
| 4 |
> of a single USE flag having different meanings will need to be revisted |
| 5 |
> later. I just want to get an idea of how we can document these |
| 6 |
> different meanings. Please read my ideas here: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/gleps/glep-0054.html |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Let me know if you like any of those ideas, or if they all suck (and if |
| 11 |
> they do, you better tell me why). I'm not sure which is the best way |
| 12 |
> forward, which is why I want everyone to contribute towards the best |
| 13 |
> solution moving forward. I really don't want to be stuck with something |
| 14 |
> that is going to end up being a pain a year down the road. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Thanks, |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
One of the GLEP's primary goals is to provide a global use flag |
| 20 |
definition and over-ride |
| 21 |
it with a local definition. How does putting all flags in use.desc |
| 22 |
and over-riding local flags in |
| 23 |
use.local.desc not accomplish this? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
How does the glep intend to handle USE_EXPAND? |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives