| 1 |
On Thursday 15 of January 2009 09:12:12 Christian Faulhammer wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> "Heath Caldwell (hncaldwell)" <hncaldwell@g.o>: |
| 5 |
> > + <flag name="latex"> |
| 6 |
> > + Enable support for LaTeX |
| 7 |
> > + </flag> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> You only have to add flags to metadata.xml, that are not in |
| 10 |
> use.desc...and USE=latex is there with a similar description as yours. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I would disagree here. I found considerable amount of packages in portage with |
| 13 |
less than specific "Add support for XML files" as USE=xml description. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
While it may be by someone considered *similar* to "Enable XML support via |
| 16 |
libxml library", I found it more than confusing, as XML support is enabled in |
| 17 |
some packages anyway (as those packages just use only XML files for |
| 18 |
configuration), in some cases if may not be even remotely related to libxml. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
That being said, I would rather suggest adding always *precise* and *non- |
| 21 |
general* USE flags descriptions even for global USE flags (actually especially |
| 22 |
for them) as I usually found it pretty much necessary to look up ebuilds to |
| 23 |
get to know what does particular USE flag actually do, and I guess this should |
| 24 |
be avoided at all cost, especially when it does not cost a penny as maintainer |
| 25 |
actually already knows what's all about with those USE flags for particular |
| 26 |
package. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
regards |
| 30 |
MM |
Archives