| 1 |
Daniel Stiefelmaier wrote: |
| 2 |
> A new tool, lets say einfo, that prints info from metadata.xml. The link |
| 3 |
> could be read from metadata.xml or, if desired, generated automatiacally |
| 4 |
> in the form "http://gentoo-wiki.com/Ebuild:www-client/mozilla-firefox" |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Why do you need a new funky tool called einfo when 'cat' already exists? XML is |
| 7 |
such a great format because it is readable for humans, not because it is just |
| 8 |
sexy ;) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
>> So... nail it down, instead of the vague "eix/emerge should do this". |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> im getting vague because if i am precise, everybody just tells me that |
| 14 |
> it will not work that way. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Sure, but some people here know much more than you and me about portage's |
| 17 |
internals, and so they know whether something works or not, and what the |
| 18 |
problems might be. Instead of feeling ignored you should probably try to |
| 19 |
understand WHY people think it's not a good idea. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> i did not yet get constructive feedback and i don't know portage and its |
| 22 |
> developers well enough to make a pleasing plan. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
That's probably the biggest issue. You don't know portage well enough to make a |
| 25 |
pleasing plan, but you ask people who didn't asked for your feature to make one. |
| 26 |
I hope you got the 'free' in 'free software' the right way. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> To be honest i just discovered use.local.desc, i didn't know this |
| 29 |
> already exists. (only use.desc) Sorry for my lack of knowledge. |
| 30 |
> Constructive feedback would have been to tell me the information i want |
| 31 |
> already exists. Nobody wondered, why i want to add information to |
| 32 |
> ebuilds that already exists. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I hate to tell people, but I have to: please, RTFM. use.local.desc is mentioned |
| 35 |
on line 60 of 'man portage' and it is explained briefly later on, additionally, |
| 36 |
the handbook even shows a snipplet from use.desc in 'Working with Gentoo -> USE |
| 37 |
flags', so one should think that users actually READ documentation carefully. |
| 38 |
Documentation is there to be read and understood, not to be ignored. |
| 39 |
At least I wondered why you wanted to add so much redundant data to the tree, as |
| 40 |
it was absolutely evident to me that use.[local.]desc exists and that you know |
| 41 |
of it too. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> Well, that's fine. :) |
| 44 |
> Just that some flags could be explained more comprehensive, not only |
| 45 |
> telling the obvious. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
That's surely something that could be improved, but you have to explain which |
| 48 |
descriptions you find not helpful. A list would be very useful. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> Now i understand Jason and agree, that missused global flags should be |
| 51 |
> renamed. (but still believe there is a small chance they will) |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
File a bug for every package, wait some time, and if the maintainer refuses and |
| 54 |
you still think the use flags violate the policy, involve QA. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
> all the responses i got were so declining that i thought |
| 57 |
> "even if you would code it, we will never include it, even if you'll |
| 58 |
> edit all the 10k metadata.xml files, we just don't WANT it, it's useless |
| 59 |
> for us and everybody else" |
| 60 |
> wrong conclusion? |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
wrong. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Friendly regards, |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
-- |
| 67 |
Simon Stelling |
| 68 |
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead |
| 69 |
blubb@g.o |
| 70 |
-- |
| 71 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives