| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
| What are the exact reasons for not wanting to put the expanded flags |
| 6 |
directly |
| 7 |
| into IUSE? If it's just a matter of the horrid display existing tools |
| 8 |
would |
| 9 |
| give, the functionality can go in and IUSE updated after the functional |
| 10 |
| versions are stabled. Are there any reasons beyond that? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It's useful to group things logically like this. You don't need to worry |
| 13 |
about forgetting to add in variables like: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
IUSE_VIDEO_CARDS="foo bar" |
| 16 |
IUSE="${IUSE_VIDEO_CARDS} baz bop" |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Particularly when you start doing things in eclasses as well as ebuilds, |
| 19 |
this gets worrisome. It's also more aesthetically pleasing. And it |
| 20 |
creates a logical parallel with the user-set variables in make.conf. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
In addition, it saves IUSE from having super-long flags: |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
IUSE="video_cards_foo video_cards_bar video_cards_baz ... " -- picture |
| 25 |
that repeated 10 times. It's just plain ugly and overly long. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Most importantly IMHO, it suggests that users should set |
| 28 |
USE="video_cards_foo" instead of VIDEO_CARDS="foo". |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Thanks, |
| 31 |
Donnie |
| 32 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 33 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
iD8DBQFDOhnaXVaO67S1rtsRAvT2AJoDRphFhWJaPc1G0OuISixe1jE9AgCeIZnQ |
| 36 |
YS1fBH92GQOG6tDreeP93sw= |
| 37 |
=XK5J |
| 38 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives