| 1 |
On Ter, 2011-03-29 at 17:08 +0200, Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: |
| 2 |
> Excerpts from justin's message of Tue Mar 29 16:24:57 +0200 2011: |
| 3 |
> > the descriptions of USE flags should explain what the USE is good for. |
| 4 |
> > In my opinion some thing like |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Enables foo intergration |
| 7 |
> > or |
| 8 |
> > Enables support for foo |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > if it isn't totally clear what "foo" is, sucks!! There are many, many |
| 11 |
> > description which do not tell me as a user without googling what I |
| 12 |
> > could enable or not. That doesn't make gentoo very user friendly! |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > So please enhance you descriptions!! |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I 100% agree with you! This is something what is always pissing me off |
| 17 |
> when reading equery uses foo to find out how to set flags. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I'm actually describing even global USE flags in my package's |
| 20 |
> metadata.xml if their purpose might not be clear and I'd like to expect |
| 21 |
> that from others. It is not a problem to write one sentence for each |
| 22 |
> flag while you already know what flag does. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Maybe it should even become our policy and not just recommendation? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Why do we have to turn everything into policies? This case would be |
| 27 |
easily solved by making a list of use flags that we find poorly |
| 28 |
described, then improving the description of each. |
| 29 |
- Angelo |
Archives