| 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 |
Archives