On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 15:13 -0600, R Hill wrote: > Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 21:22 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >> We've discussed adding this to metadata.xml a few times in the past, > >> but every time there was opposition from a vocal minority of one who > >> claimed that USE flags should always do exactly the same thing for > >> every package. > >> > > > > I guess I am one of this 'minority'. The question I just want to have > > answered, is how the hell are you going to get a system up sanely (and > > without tweaking /etc/portage/package.use) if besides the 350 global USE > > flags, and the 1200 local USE flags, you now have to worry about global > > USE flags meaning different things for every package? > > By using package specific USE flag descriptions stored in metadata.xml > to overlay those in use.desc and use.local.desc. This info would be > output by the currently existing utilities that provide USE flag info > (euse, equery, ufed/used, etc). I don't think any changes to portage > would be needed. This would be an opt-in feature - only those > maintainers who want this support would need to implement it. If no > metadata descriptions exist then they're pulled from use.desc and > use.local.desc just as they are now.
Here's my question... use.local.desc is already package-specific, so why would we need yet *another* place to put package-specific definitions? Would it not be enough to have use.local.desc overlay on use.desc? If package foo uses global USE flag bar in a way different from the description in use.desc, then it should list the USE flag in use.local.desc with the correct description for that package. > Global USE flags already do mean different things for every package. > Just look at 'debug' or 'doc' ;). Having more information available > just makes administration easier. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
