Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 29 (USE groups) and negatives

[Maurice van der Pot]

On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 04:28:49PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0029.html
>
> We need to decide upon a solution to the -flags problem. The proposed
> solutions are:
>
> 1) Disallow all negatives. Disadvantages: we don't tend to disallow
> things just because users could shoot themselves in the foot with them.
>
> 2) Allow negatives, and document how to use them correctly.
> Disadvantages: sooner or later, some developer isn't going to read the
> docs, and will really really screw things up with a misunderstanding.
>
...
>
> 5) Use some weird tristate notation. Disadvantages: not everyone has the
> slightest clue what set theory is.

'some weird tristate notation' must be what I proposed previously. =)

I'm still convinced that the use of it would be easy, both for
developers and for users, but I do acknowledge some (minor) issues like
finding another usable character for the new notation.

The last time I tried to explain my proposal, everybody except myself
seemed to think it was complicated, so I will not try to promote it
anymore, it's in the archives already.

> I'm in favour of 2) personally, but others disagree. I'd like a proper
> discussion on this before trying to get the GLEP through.

What I am still missing is a good argument _FOR_ negatives. We are
talking about negatives within groups, right? I agree with you that if
we choose 2, sooner or later it's going to get screwed up. We must have
a better reason for allowing them than just the off chance that negatives 
might be useful in a way we cannot forsee yet.

If there is such a reason, I'd also pick 2.

Maurice.

-- 
Maurice van der Pot

Gentoo Linux Developer   griffon26@g.o     http://www.gentoo.org
Creator of BiteMe!       griffon26@××××××××.com   http://www.kfk4ever.com