| 1 |
On Saturday 07 February 2004 11:51, foser wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2004-02-06 at 20:14, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 3 |
> > One other thing to this respect. What do you (multiple) think about |
| 4 |
> > allowing the description of the useflags in the metadata.xml file? (or in |
| 5 |
> > the ebuild itself) That would allow specification of what the |
| 6 |
> > consequenses are for choosing that flag for this ebuild. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> A USE flag should have the same meaning for every pack. In that sense |
| 9 |
> the basic description should suffice anywhere, any local information |
| 10 |
> should only extend the common description. Defining descriptions in |
| 11 |
> every ebuild would mostly be a duplication effort and be a source of |
| 12 |
> confusion. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I know, but reality is that it doesn't. Many useflags have sideeffects. Like |
| 15 |
with subversion the berkdb useflag has as a result that the server part will |
| 16 |
be build. With apache it will allow authentication against a berkdb |
| 17 |
repository. Let alone that without the berkdb flag the python useflag will |
| 18 |
not have any effect in subversion because it will not work. It would be nice |
| 19 |
to be able to tell these things to users. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Paul |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 25 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 26 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 27 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives