| 1 |
Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:54:04 -0500 |
| 3 |
> Mark Loeser <halcy0n@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Let me know if you like any of those ideas, or if they all suck (and if |
| 6 |
>> they do, you better tell me why). I'm not sure which is the best way |
| 7 |
>> forward, which is why I want everyone to contribute towards the best |
| 8 |
>> solution moving forward. I really don't want to be stuck with something |
| 9 |
>> that is going to end up being a pain a year down the road. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> What benefit does use.xml have over use.desc? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> My opinion is that we should use use.desc for a complete list of use |
| 14 |
> flags, including a generic description, allow a more verbose |
| 15 |
> description in metadata.xml and get rid of the stupid separation of |
| 16 |
> "local" and "global" flags. No need to change the format of use.desc |
| 17 |
> though. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I completely agree with this. This allows each individual package to |
| 20 |
provide more insight to what a USE flag does. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> The only benefit use.local.desc gives us is a fast way to list packages |
| 23 |
> using some flags, but that's unreliable at best. If needed such a list |
| 24 |
> could be autogenerated. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Marius |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Doug Klima <cardoe@g.o> |
| 31 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/ |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives