On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:15:45 -0600
Ryan Hill <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:05:46 -0300
> Alexis Ballier <email@example.com> wrote:
> > imho it doesnt hurt anyone to have fine-grained control
> > what could be discussed is to put these into a use expand variable,
> > to better distinguish between important useflags and less important
> > ones
> > is that what you mean by 'putting these under "tools" or
> > something?' ?
> No, I meant one USE flag, called "tools", that builds and installs
> all or none of them. Unless they have external dependencies, or
> extraordinary build times, or licensing issues, then I can't see a
> situation where someone would want or need to pick and choose like
> this. If you disagree then I suppose an expanded variable is an
> improvement, though I don't like them myself.
> Kudos on the USE flag descriptions in any case. Very informative.
well, there's no extra dep nor licensing issue, and its not that they
are big either, problem is with a merged useflag to rule them all we'll
lose all the descriptions; i can imagine:
tools - install random extra tools
vs. a per tool useflag describing what it is for
i clearly prefer the latter, even if it requires me 5 more minutes to
decide the fate of the useflags i'll build the package with
personally i dont like the tools useflag, the same i dont like the
server one or the minimal one. they're too generic and, for this reason,
if we want to make it a use expand, the only thing we need to agree on
is the prefix i think: what about fftools ? ffmpegtools ?