| 1 |
On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 02:10 +0200, Daniel Stiefelmaier wrote: |
| 2 |
> >We've discussed adding this to metadata.xml a few times in the past, |
| 3 |
> >but every time there was opposition from a vocal minority of one who |
| 4 |
> >claimed that USE flags should always do exactly the same thing for |
| 5 |
> >every package. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> why do minorities rule? |
| 9 |
> Actually i agree that in general use flags should have a consistent meaning. |
| 10 |
> But anyway, if "perl" adds support for perl, the user might want to know |
| 11 |
> what it is good for in this package. or "plugins" could list the plugins |
| 12 |
> that would be added. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> What tool ever would display the use flags description, it could use |
| 15 |
> those from |
| 16 |
> /usr/portage/profiles/use.desc by default, which may be overwriten in |
| 17 |
> metadata.xml |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Well, I think that it may be easier to simply add this information to |
| 20 |
use.local.desc, as it already defines local USE flags. The idea would |
| 21 |
be that use.local.desc overrides use.desc when there is a conflict. |
| 22 |
Then portage could, via a flag, show the use descriptions for each USE |
| 23 |
flag per package. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 27 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager |
| 28 |
Games - Developer |
| 29 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives