1 |
On Saturday 14 of August 2010 18:28:19 Peter Hjalmarsson wrote: |
2 |
> lör 2010-08-14 klockan 13:45 +0200 skrev Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn: |
3 |
> > Peter Hjalmarsson schrieb: |
4 |
> > > This is about my beloved USE="ssl". A bit long and ranty, but if you |
5 |
> > > want the consensus, just read the last part. |
6 |
> > > |
7 |
> > > |
8 |
> > > Today a new snapshot of gnash was uploaded where the old USE="ssl" was |
9 |
> > > renamed to USE="openssl". |
10 |
> > > |
11 |
> > > So yet another package where if you want ssl support you have to |
12 |
> > > _personally_ audit what function this useflag has (i.e. does it enable |
13 |
> > > ssl or tune the ssl implementation?). |
14 |
> > > |
15 |
> > > So I wanted to figure it out, does gnash provide ssl itself and the |
16 |
> > > USE="openssl" only tunes how it is implemented or does USE="openssl" |
17 |
> > > enable ssl? |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > The USE flag was renamed after discussion with upstream. Gnash does not |
20 |
> > provide any SSL implementation itself and (when invoked as NPAPI plugin) |
21 |
> > uses the browser's facilities. Possibly I could make more explicit that |
22 |
> > users only interested in the plugin don't need it. |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > |
25 |
> > Best regards, |
26 |
> > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
27 |
> |
28 |
> Well if that is the use of the use flag the description is to be honest |
29 |
> really bad. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> And still, why openssl instead of ssl? Even if most people are out to |
32 |
> only get the plugin the meaning of use flag for the rest of the package |
33 |
> is still the same. So is there a special reson why upstream do want ssl |
34 |
> disabled for people only out to get the plugin (and why not EAPI=1 and |
35 |
> IUSE="-ssl")? |
36 |
|
37 |
Because it won't work. Take a look at make.conf(5) manual page - |
38 |
USE_ORDER="env:pkg:conf:defaults:pkginternal:env.d" - USE defaults in profile |
39 |
will override pkginternal (IUSE defaults in ebuild). |
40 |
That being said IUSE="-foo" is no-op. |
41 |
|
42 |
Otherwise I agree with you wrt naming inconsistencies. |
43 |
|
44 |
I would also like to see some USE defaults from make.defaults moved to |
45 |
package.use, and some package.use defaults moved to IUSE defaults (and some |
46 |
make.defaults dropped completely, like freaking python and perl USE flags - |
47 |
bug 250179) |
48 |
|
49 |
-- |
50 |
regards |
51 |
MM |