Noack, Sebastian wrote: > > Is a need to have dozens of lines in your /etc/portage/package.use a > simple approach? Maybe it is, if for you, simplicity means only "less > number of lines of code in the core of the application". But wasn't you > the one who told me that quantity isn't the same like complexity? Well > you could say that only source code and scripts contain logic and > therefore numbers of lines in the config files doesn't means complexity, > but what do I do by the config files of portage actually? I use them for > example to instruct portage to enable useflag A but not for ebuild and > useflag B but just for ebuild b. Do you claim that this is no logic?
I claim that is simple and you should wait at least 24 h before posting on -dev. > > That was never the point where "we" started. That was just the point, > you used to confuse this discussion. The grandma scenario should just be > a funny example for a requirement of such a advanced portage syntax I > could really need on my own systems and I'm not female, but male and not > 80 but 18 years old. ;) Poor you. > I know that my proposed syntax isn't a perfect solution. But I think the > current state of portage isn't a perfect solution, too. And I hoped when > I started this thread, that we will find together a good solution. You can just write something like flagedit for your extreme uses. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
