| 1 |
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 16:28:49 +0000 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0029.html |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> We need to decide upon a solution to the -flags problem. The proposed |
| 7 |
> solutions are: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> 1) Disallow all negatives. Disadvantages: we don't tend to disallow |
| 10 |
> things just because users could shoot themselves in the foot with |
| 11 |
> them. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> 2) Allow negatives, and document how to use them correctly. |
| 14 |
> Disadvantages: sooner or later, some developer isn't going to read the |
| 15 |
> docs, and will really really screw things up with a misunderstanding. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> 3) Reorder USE flags. Disadvantages: can't disable flags set by a |
| 18 |
> group. Breaks existing USE lines. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> 4) Have portage warn on dodgy USE flag lines. Disadvantages: tricky, |
| 21 |
> hard for the end user to figure out. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> 5) Use some weird tristate notation. Disadvantages: not everyone has |
| 24 |
> the slightest clue what set theory is. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I'm in favour of 2) personally, but others disagree. I'd like a proper |
| 27 |
> discussion on this before trying to get the GLEP through. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Hmm, are talking about what should be technically possible or what |
| 30 |
should be supported? Personally I'd like to have negatives available |
| 31 |
but label them as unsupported ("if you play with this it's all your |
| 32 |
fault"), that would also mean that predefined groups don't use them. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Marius |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
| 40 |
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |
Archives