1 |
Donnie Berkholz posted <42AF9765.8090800@g.o>, excerpted below, on |
2 |
Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:50:13 -0700: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Sven Wegener wrote: |
5 |
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:56:43PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>>>I'm in favor of this. Would you mind calling it package.autouse, |
8 |
>>>package.use.auto or are you set on .force? |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> As Mike already wrote those names are too confusing with the automatic |
11 |
>> activated USE flags. We already had some suggestions in this thread, but |
12 |
>> none of them actually matched the purpose of the file. At least in my |
13 |
>> opinion. use.force matches it best, but the "force" part is a quite hard |
14 |
>> term. How about use.profile? Because these USE flags are activated or |
15 |
>> needed by the profile. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> How about use.required, since they're required by the profile? |
18 |
|
19 |
Watching the debate so far, I'd say use.lock sounds simplest and most |
20 |
descriptive to me, with use.required a close second, only because of the |
21 |
longer extension (.lock is simpler/shorter than .required). |
22 |
|
23 |
This from the perspective of one who regularly finds himself posting |
24 |
explanations of various portage workings, both on the amd64 list, and on |
25 |
my ISP's own list (there's a guy who's just trying out Gentoo, coming from |
26 |
FreeBSD -- he has some dev experience on FBSD, so he's potentially an |
27 |
asset to both the FreeBSD herd and the amd64 arch, some time down the |
28 |
road, tho he's so far not seemed to interested in the Gentoo on FBSD |
29 |
stuff). From an explainer's perspective, I agree that .force sounds a bit |
30 |
harsh, but use.lock is a simple concept to explain, as is use.required, |
31 |
tho the .required disturbs my aesthetic sense simply because it's too long |
32 |
to be "short and simple". |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
36 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
37 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in |
38 |
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html |
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
-- |
42 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |