| 1 |
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 11:00:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> Apparently, though unproven, at 18:01 on Saturday 14 May 2011, Indi did opine |
| 3 |
> thusly: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Sounds like the old "6 of one, a half-dozen of the other" to me... |
| 7 |
> > What makes the subtractive method better? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> It's not subtractive as disabling a flag globally and enabling it when needed |
| 10 |
> is the same thing negated. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I'm pointing out that by their nature, most global USE flags are exactly that |
| 13 |
> - intended to be global, especially those in use.desc. For the most part the |
| 14 |
> user will want the support they provide to be global. When that is not the |
| 15 |
> case (the lesser case), an option exists to override the global setting in |
| 16 |
> package.use |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> What you proposed is that one never use global flags and always enable/disable |
| 19 |
> them package by package. That gets really tedious with flags used in many |
| 20 |
> ebuilds, such as USE=gtk. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Abstaction is good, leverage it to gain the benefits when it works in your |
| 23 |
> favour. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
No, I do not propose that one never use global use flags. I just employ |
| 27 |
them very selectively, which is best for my needs. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
caveat utilitor |
| 31 |
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ |
Archives