| 1 |
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 13:01:25 +0100 |
| 2 |
Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
[...] |
| 4 |
> The problem I have with it is that, as a user, it's yet another |
| 5 |
> concept to grasp and configure. Instead of just working with USE flags |
| 6 |
> (e.g. looking at use.desc or using ufed to review, configuring USE |
| 7 |
> flags in make.conf or package.use), I now have to find/learn a bunch |
| 8 |
> of new stuff. What packages use what USE_EXPAND things (e.g. apache |
| 9 |
> has two), what are valid values for all of these. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
They're just useflags, equery properly displays their description, and |
| 12 |
you can set them in pacakge.use equally well, so you don't have to |
| 13 |
learn anything new. You get a new way to set them via variables in |
| 14 |
make.conf, which I agree is debatable, but doesn't add complexity. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
[...] |
| 17 |
> So if this cosmetic expansion is the only advantage, that seems like a |
| 18 |
> relatively limited one (e.g. it could be improved a lot just by |
| 19 |
> formatting), and the trade-off of introducing all this extra |
| 20 |
> complexity doesn't make that much sense to me. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Well, categorizing useflags, esp. for packages with a lot of them, |
| 23 |
certainly helps me when I need to review what to enable and what not. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Alexis. |
Archives