| 1 |
Excerpts from Angelo Arrifano's message of Tue Mar 29 17:14:48 +0200 2011: |
| 2 |
> On Ter, 2011-03-29 at 17:08 +0200, Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I'm actually describing even global USE flags in my package's |
| 4 |
> > metadata.xml if their purpose might not be clear and I'd like to |
| 5 |
> > expect that from others. It is not a problem to write one sentence |
| 6 |
> > for each flag while you already know what flag does. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Maybe it should even become our policy and not just recommendation? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Why do we have to turn everything into policies? This case would be |
| 11 |
> easily solved by making a list of use flags that we find poorly |
| 12 |
> described, then improving the description of each. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
It would be hard to find good descriptions. The problem is that even if |
| 15 |
flag has similar meaning in few packages, it usually adds a bit |
| 16 |
different functionality and that difference matters. User would like to |
| 17 |
know what he/she benefits or looses with enabling/disabling the flag. |
| 18 |
It's not just a matter of one click, it at least minutes of compilation. |
| 19 |
I think it's a task to package maintainers to review if current |
| 20 |
descriptions explain what flags in their packages bring to user. |
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Amadeusz Żołnowski |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
PGP key fpr: C700 CEDE 0C18 212E 49DA 4653 F013 4531 E1DB FAB5 |
Archives