| 1 |
On Saturday 07 of May 2011 01:18:57 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com> |
| 3 |
wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Friday 06 of May 2011 15:18:20 Marijn wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> And what happened to the proposed description: |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> introspection: Add gobject-introspection support, allowing for the |
| 8 |
> >> dynamic generation of bindings for various languages |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > No. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@l.g.o/msg40069.html |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> It's things like this that convinced us that there's no real advantage |
| 15 |
> in having it as a global use-flag. Maybe 3 years later when there is |
| 16 |
> *still* nothing else in the tree that uses "introspection" besides |
| 17 |
> gobject-introspection, we'll revisit this and finally make it a global |
| 18 |
> use-flag. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Nirbheek... and what's particularly wrong with 'introspection' global USE flag |
| 21 |
having implementation-agnostic "Enable runtime API introspection" description? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Nobody sees anything wrong with overly vague 'xml' global USE flag and my |
| 24 |
proposition isn't worse ('Add support for XML files' ... you mean what |
| 25 |
support? import/export or just expat vs libxml2?) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
regards |
| 29 |
MM |
Archives