| 1 |
Excerpts from Olivier Crête's message of Wed Mar 30 22:14:30 +0200 2011: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 21:56 +0200, Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The main problem is that user might not know what kind of “foo” support |
| 4 |
> > it is. For example I have “pango” USE flag in sys-boot/plymouth. What |
| 5 |
> > would explain to you something like: “Enables support for |
| 6 |
> > x11-libs/pango”? And how you would compare it with “Adds support for |
| 7 |
> > printing text on splash screen and text prompts, e.g. for password”? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I'm sorry, but that's a terrible example.. In this case, it shouldn't be |
| 10 |
> a use flag at all. We shoudl avoid having use flag where the description |
| 11 |
> is "Adds support for not being completely broken" |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Please… We're not actually discussing about what should be flagged or |
| 14 |
not, but about descriptions, where I think I have made the point more or |
| 15 |
less. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Justin has pointed problem which is worth our attention. It is not just |
| 18 |
me being pissed off when reading „Enable support for foo”, there are |
| 19 |
many users complaining about that. |
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Amadeusz Żołnowski |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
PGP key fpr: C700 CEDE 0C18 212E 49DA 4653 F013 4531 E1DB FAB5 |
Archives