| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 16:19:16 +0200 |
| 3 |
> hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> I find it a bit silly to require discussing global useflags on dev-ML. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> The purpose of the discussion is to come up with a description that is general |
| 8 |
> enough to apply to most ebuilds that use that flag. It's a throwback to when |
| 9 |
> global and local flags had to be exclusive so you had to be careful about the |
| 10 |
> wording. Nowadays where you can have a local description override a global |
| 11 |
> one it's less important, but not completely so. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
It isn't a bad idea to still post on -dev. Maintainers should be |
| 14 |
removing the local definitions, and just because a decision seems like |
| 15 |
the obviously-correct one doesn't mean that it is. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Usually when a decision is obviously-correct there isn't a great deal |
| 18 |
of bikeshedding. There weren't any replies at all to the original |
| 19 |
email beyond the discussion on whether it needs discussion. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
There have been cases where proposals have been made to globalize a |
| 22 |
use flag only to have it come up that the meaning of the flag really |
| 23 |
wasn't consistent. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Rich |
Archives