Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Thomas de Grenier de Latour <degrenier@×××××××××××.fr>
To: gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Flags
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:22:25
Message-Id: 20050320232139.7eea3df7@eusebe
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Flags by Paul de Vrieze
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:01:18 +0100
Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote:

> I'll add some nice tag to support this.
I'm sorry to insist, but is there something wrong with using use.local.desc, as i've proposed in bug #84884? I don't understand the rational for choosing metadata.xml. In my opinion, it makes this detailed description less likely to be written (more complex syntax, whereas the one of .desc file is already well-known), and less likely to be read (lack of user tools whereas there are plently for use.local.desc, which would need at most small trivial changes, if any). Also, take the following scenario: - use.local.desc has: "cat/pkgA:foo - adds support for libfoo as a replacement of \ libbar. Do not enable it but if you really know what you do." - then comes cat/pkgB, which also support libfoo: "cat/pkgB:foo - adds support for libfoo, for playing .foo files" - And more packages start supporting libfoo, thus "foo" becomes a global flag: "foo - adds support for libfoo" With the "metadata.xml" approach, that will require moving the existing descriptions from use.local.desc to the various xml files. At the contrary, with the "keep it in use.local.desc" approach, no additional work is required... So could someone explain me that choice? Thanks, -- TGL. -- gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Flags Marius Mauch <genone@g.o>