On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:23:17 +0000, Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 14 January 2005 19:41, Carsten Lohrke wrote: > > Use flags are not the solution for all and everything > > They *are* the solution for including/removing optional functionality from the > package. Love it or hate it, it is one of the cornerstones of Gentoo. > Arent use flags designed to enable optional functionality that is either an optional part of package itself, or an optional patch for the package?
Here we are talking about automating a trivial task that I'm sure isnt anything to do with the kernel itself. If thats what use flags are for, why not 1) Add a revdep-rebuild use flag to automate revdep-rebuilds (where asked for by portage) 2) Add an auto-updater use flag to automate perl and python update scripts 3) Add a rebuild-dicts use flag to rebuild all dictionaries after dict update 5) Add a fix_libtool_files use flag to run fix_libtool_files.sh after a gcc update (damn those libstdc++.la bugs) For the record, I'm all in favor of this kind of atomisation (as long as its optional). Just not sure if use flags is really the right place for it. Are there any official guidelines for what you should and shouldnt use, use flags for? -- just seems this symlink use flag doesnt quite fit. Feel free to correct me though. > > and I absolutely dislike the use flag hell. > > Use flags additions (even local ones) should be handled more restrictive. > > This tune is starting to sound like a stuck record to be honest. > > I'm not saying that there isn't a problem, but honestly, what would you > prefer? Would you rather that packages on Gentoo were just like other > distros, where you get what you're given, rather than what you want? Well, debian handle USE flag's functionality by separating packages. Not that I like their way, its just its unfair to generalise since there are so many debian based distributions out there that many argue make the majority of linux users. > I'm sorry for the critical tone here, but USE flags are one of Gentoo's killer > features, and I don't understand the mindset of the camp who see them as > something that Gentoo can do without. They need improving to make them scale > easier, sure, but the idea behind them is a GoodThing(tm). Yes, I couldnt think of a better way to handle optional functionality myself. I still question using USE flags to automate trivial tasks though. But again, feel free to correct me. > If you don't want to enjoy the choice that USE flags bring, why not simply ask > Ciaran to define a special @ALL group in his USE-flags-groups GLEP, so that > this feature no longer troubles you? > > Or better yet, come up with something better than USE flags. And some code to > make it happen. > > Best regards, > Stu > -- > Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/ > http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/ > > GnuPG key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu > Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C > -- Kindest Regards, Roman Gaufman -- [email protected] mailing list
