1 |
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 22:39, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> On Tuesday 31 January 2006 06:31, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
3 |
> > On Monday 30 January 2006 20:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
4 |
> > > 1. Because for things like LINGUAS, there are arbitrarily many legal |
5 |
> > > values, and documenting them all and keeping the list up to date would |
6 |
> > > be extremely difficult. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > "More precisely, how should they be documented if not via use.desc?" |
9 |
> |
10 |
> considering there's a ton more LINGUAS values than we have USE flags (just run |
11 |
> `wc` on use.desc and lang.desc), bloating use.desc with LINGUAS settings |
12 |
> benefits *noone* |
13 |
> |
14 |
> we have lang.desc, it is quite populated, what's wrong with having portage |
15 |
> read that |
16 |
|
17 |
Absolutely nothing. I am in no way suggesting that use.desc is the possible |
18 |
fix. I wasn't even suggesting that each individual flag need be documented. |
19 |
However, if lang.desc already exists (and it does) and can be renamed to |
20 |
linguas.desc, it is probably a better way to manage it than use.desc. Is |
21 |
having INPUT_DEVICES and the like following the same scheme |
22 |
(ie, input_devices.desc) acceptable? |
23 |
|
24 |
-- |
25 |
Jason Stubbs |
26 |
-- |
27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |