| 1 |
On Feb 6, 2004, at 7:14 pm, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> One other thing to this respect. What do you (multiple) think about |
| 4 |
> allowing |
| 5 |
> the description of the useflags in the metadata.xml file? (or in the |
| 6 |
> ebuild |
| 7 |
> itself) That would allow specification of what the consequenses are for |
| 8 |
> choosing that flag for this ebuild. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Mmmmm... I *like* that. It's be really nice to `emerge -pvv someapp` |
| 11 |
and see exactly what each USE flag does, relevant to the ebuild that's |
| 12 |
depending on it. Y'know like "+gtk " builds GUI as well as default |
| 13 |
console app" would be perfect. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
There's a little bit of me that's saying "But that might encourage |
| 16 |
diversion in the use of USE flags for different ebuilds", but I suspect |
| 17 |
that may be happening already. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I don't recall enough of the discussion of the -vim-with-x USE flag... |
| 20 |
I seem to have an idea that (with the same USE flag) some ebuilds will |
| 21 |
pull in extra dependencies and others will only change the `make` |
| 22 |
options without pulling any other packages. Is this the case..? I don't |
| 23 |
really think that necessarily needs separate kinds of USE flags, but it |
| 24 |
would help if one could see the difference at a glance. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Stroller. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives