Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: USE flag documentation

[Vlastimil Babka]

Ryan Hill wrote:
> What do people think of this?
>
> a) Keep use.desc as it is:  a list of common flags and a short general
> description of their meaning.

Good.

> b) Keep use.local.desc as it is: a list of per-package flags that are
> specific to one to a few ebuilds (i think 5 is the number though i think
> 10 is more appropriate, but that's not relevant to this discussion).
> Again, each has a short description.
>
> c) Allow flags from use.desc to also exist in use.local.desc.  In the
> case that a flag for a package exists in both, the use.local.desc
> description overrides the use.desc one.  This allows a more specific
> per-package description of global flags.

Good.

> d) Allow long descriptions in a package's metadata.xml, as some have
> begun to do already, for cases where more info is needed.  For example
> I'd like to explain exactly what the bindist flag on freetype does and
> what legal implications disabling it can have.

Right. Also why not also add short descriptions there, and deprecate 
use.local.desc when tools are converted? Placing package-local info to 
global files (when not needed to distinguish profiles as with 
package.use.mask etc) is icky.
Note that the metadata.xml should be able to record per-version 
differences somehow.

> On the other hand, if there are any far-reaching changes we need made to
> the USE flag system - any features we wish we had or misfeatures we wish
> we didn't - now would be a good time to address them.

I wish for use deps :P
Well, addressing conflicts and implications between flags at ebuild/PM 
level would be also nice, but really shouldn't affect the way 
documentation is handled, IMHO.

VB
-- 
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list