| 1 |
Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> [snip] |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
>> Like I said, it would only have to ask for information that wasn't |
| 6 |
>> available from the cache of answers. Provided there was a tool to pre-edit |
| 7 |
>> the cache - something I suggested earlier - then your scenarios would work. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> I agree with such a setup. Have a way in which - optionally - the ebuild can |
| 10 |
> be preconfigured. This configuration would need to be selfcontained in such a |
| 11 |
> way that the configuration files can be copied and created at any |
| 12 |
> time. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I much prefer requiring pre-configuration. I don't like the idea of |
| 15 |
emerge being interactive under any circumstance. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> ps. Besides this I feel the need to allow per-ebuild descriptions on useflags. |
| 18 |
> Those descriptions would describe what the consequences of the useflags are. |
| 19 |
> Like for subversion the berkdb useflag signifies whether the server part gets |
| 20 |
> build (because berkdb is needed for that), it would be very usefull to have |
| 21 |
> some easilly accessible description for it. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
In this case, a "server" use flag would be more appropriate. It is the |
| 24 |
same reason that the X use flag should control whether x-chat builds |
| 25 |
with X support or text support, rather than the gtk use flag. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives