| 1 |
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:55:10 +0100 |
| 2 |
"Denis Dupeyron" <calchan@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Dec 31, 2007 3:30 PM, Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > What benefit does use.xml have over use.desc? |
| 6 |
> [...] |
| 7 |
> > No need to change the format of use.desc |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Anything that would enable us to document with more than a few words, |
| 10 |
> which is what we're practically limited to with the current format of |
| 11 |
> use.desc, would help. The currently available documentation on USE |
| 12 |
> flags is clearly insufficient, maybe not for you and me and other |
| 13 |
> devs, but for the majority of our users. Note that this is not the |
| 14 |
> same as optionally adding more specific documentation on a global flag |
| 15 |
> in the metadata.xml of a package. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Most of the time when I see complaints about the description of USE |
| 18 |
flags (I'm fully aware of those) the issue isn't the format, just that |
| 19 |
noone else has come up with a better description. And technically |
| 20 |
use.desc isn't limited to "a few words", unless you want to add |
| 21 |
multiple paragraphs with formatting, just the (current) presentation |
| 22 |
would get a bit ugly with longer descriptions. Of course the format |
| 23 |
could be changed if needed, but that needs a more specific description |
| 24 |
about the requirements. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> > and get rid of the stupid separation of "local" and "global" flags |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Good idea. How do you plan to cope with the (currently) local USE flag |
| 29 |
> conflicts though ? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
You mean different descriptions? Just use a placeholder in use.desc |
| 32 |
(like some global flags already have) and move the actual description |
| 33 |
in metadata.xml if there isn't any common base. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Marius |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives