| 1 |
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:15:45 -0600 |
| 2 |
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:05:46 -0300 |
| 5 |
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > imho it doesnt hurt anyone to have fine-grained control |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > what could be discussed is to put these into a use expand variable, |
| 10 |
> > to better distinguish between important useflags and less important |
| 11 |
> > ones |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > is that what you mean by 'putting these under "tools" or |
| 14 |
> > something?' ? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> No, I meant one USE flag, called "tools", that builds and installs |
| 17 |
> all or none of them. Unless they have external dependencies, or |
| 18 |
> extraordinary build times, or licensing issues, then I can't see a |
| 19 |
> situation where someone would want or need to pick and choose like |
| 20 |
> this. If you disagree then I suppose an expanded variable is an |
| 21 |
> improvement, though I don't like them myself. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Kudos on the USE flag descriptions in any case. Very informative. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
well, there's no extra dep nor licensing issue, and its not that they |
| 27 |
are big either, problem is with a merged useflag to rule them all we'll |
| 28 |
lose all the descriptions; i can imagine: |
| 29 |
tools - install random extra tools |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
vs. a per tool useflag describing what it is for |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
i clearly prefer the latter, even if it requires me 5 more minutes to |
| 34 |
decide the fate of the useflags i'll build the package with |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
personally i dont like the tools useflag, the same i dont like the |
| 37 |
server one or the minimal one. they're too generic and, for this reason, |
| 38 |
useless |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
if we want to make it a use expand, the only thing we need to agree on |
| 42 |
is the prefix i think: what about fftools ? ffmpegtools ? |
Archives