| 1 |
Dnia 2014-01-11, o godz. 18:15:09 |
| 2 |
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> napisał(a): |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> A far better method from a user point of view is to install the linguas |
| 5 |
> the user explicitly asked for. Your proposal as worded will be taken at |
| 6 |
> first glance to mean "install all linguas, but not XX" as most users |
| 7 |
> won't see the MASK portion and forget to flip the logic around in their |
| 8 |
> head. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
As said on the other mail, I think we could just make portage |
| 11 |
implicitly convert LINGUAS into INSTALL_MASK. That is, use the old |
| 12 |
variable and give it a bit of new behavior. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> How much work is it to get native support for LINGUAS into all ebuilds? |
| 15 |
> That would be the intuitive place considering there is already USE flags |
| 16 |
> for LINGUAS. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Honestly? I'm all limbs against LINGUAS in its current form. It's just |
| 19 |
extra dumb. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
We have basically two cases: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
1. packages that make LINGUAS into USE flags and use them to control |
| 24 |
l10n. It's just useless extra work and extra rebuilds for locale |
| 25 |
change. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
2. packages that respect LINGUAS implicitly. That is, install only some |
| 28 |
of the files silently and you don't even know which were enabled. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
install-mask provides a clean framework to strip linguas with |
| 31 |
binpackage friendliness potential. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Best regards, |
| 35 |
Michał Górny |
Archives