Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Noack
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: AW: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:08:29
Message-Id: 7B97065F451A23458ED0C63B4CA5A2EA7C4A6F@SRV-EXCHANGE.AUTOonline.local
1 > > > Well, I don't consider reducing complexity "frivolous" ;-o
2 > >
3 > > Which reduction for which complexity? Do you want to bring
4 everyone's
5 > > systems to a grinding halt, just because you can't understand the
6 > > "complexity" of useflags.
7 >
8 > I just want to keep things simple. We're talking about introducing
9 > new (additional) logic.
11 Is a need to have dozens of lines in your /etc/portage/package.use a
12 simple approach? Maybe it is, if for you, simplicity means only "less
13 number of lines of code in the core of the application". But wasn't you
14 the one who told me that quantity isn't the same like complexity? Well
15 you could say that only source code and scripts contain logic and
16 therefore numbers of lines in the config files doesn't means complexity,
17 but what do I do by the config files of portage actually? I use them for
18 example to instruct portage to enable useflag A but not for ebuild and
19 useflag B but just for ebuild b. Do you claim that this is no logic?
22 > Rember: we started with the thesis, "grandma wants graphical
23 > frontends whereever possible". This is in fact not an technical
24 > issue, instead a matter of personal taste, or lets say, an individual
25 > system configuration. Grandma wants to click, okay, so she should
26 > use graphical applications. She's not interested what sits behind,
27 > she just wants to have a buch of applications. And she also doesn't
28 > wann have anything to do with emerge and useflags. She just wants
29 > to have a choice between a bunch of end-user applications.
30 > That's the job of an Grandma-(sub-)distro.
32 That was never the point where "we" started. That was just the point,
33 you used to confuse this discussion. The grandma scenario should just be
34 a funny example for a requirement of such a advanced portage syntax I
35 could really need on my own systems and I'm not female, but male and not
36 80 but 18 years old. ;)
39 I know that my proposed syntax isn't a perfect solution. But I think the
40 current state of portage isn't a perfect solution, too. And I hoped when
41 I started this thread, that we will find together a good solution.
43 Best Regards
44 Sebastian Noack
46 --
47 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: AW: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@×××××.de>