| 1 |
Noack, Sebastian wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Is a need to have dozens of lines in your /etc/portage/package.use a |
| 4 |
> simple approach? Maybe it is, if for you, simplicity means only "less |
| 5 |
> number of lines of code in the core of the application". But wasn't you |
| 6 |
> the one who told me that quantity isn't the same like complexity? Well |
| 7 |
> you could say that only source code and scripts contain logic and |
| 8 |
> therefore numbers of lines in the config files doesn't means complexity, |
| 9 |
> but what do I do by the config files of portage actually? I use them for |
| 10 |
> example to instruct portage to enable useflag A but not for ebuild and |
| 11 |
> useflag B but just for ebuild b. Do you claim that this is no logic? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I claim that is simple and you should wait at least 24 h before posting |
| 14 |
on -dev. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> That was never the point where "we" started. That was just the point, |
| 18 |
> you used to confuse this discussion. The grandma scenario should just be |
| 19 |
> a funny example for a requirement of such a advanced portage syntax I |
| 20 |
> could really need on my own systems and I'm not female, but male and not |
| 21 |
> 80 but 18 years old. ;) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Poor you. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> I know that my proposed syntax isn't a perfect solution. But I think the |
| 26 |
> current state of portage isn't a perfect solution, too. And I hoped when |
| 27 |
> I started this thread, that we will find together a good solution. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
You can just write something like flagedit for your extreme uses. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
lu |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Luca Barbato |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC |
| 38 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives