| 1 |
[2019-08-11 14:53:34+0200] Michał Górny: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 2019-08-11 at 14:46 +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The USE flag naming feels a bit to be desired by me. |
| 4 |
> > That's because I don't believe in USE flags having to be named by the |
| 5 |
> > external dep they introduce, but by functionality. USE=magic sounds |
| 6 |
> > like a USE flag that adds some wizards into your application, automagic |
| 7 |
> > behavior or who knows (until you read the description). |
| 8 |
> > Not that I have a much better suggestion. USE=auto-mimetypes? |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> The use of term 'magic' for file type recognition by magic bytes is well |
| 12 |
> established. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Yes, but `magic` doesn't really gives much of an idea on the feature |
| 15 |
and could get a bit of confusion, I think `libmagic` is better on this |
| 16 |
regard as it's closer to what would be used without much context and |
| 17 |
it's clear that it's about a dependency on sys-apps/file and not some |
| 18 |
kind of magic feature (which is a quite overloaded word in computing). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
(auto-mimetype doesn't works at all btw, file/libmagic is much more |
| 21 |
precise than mimetypes) |
Archives