Marius Mauch wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:54:04 -0500
Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Let me know if you like any of those ideas, or if they all suck (and if
they do, you better tell me why).  I'm not sure which is the best way
forward, which is why I want everyone to contribute towards the best
solution moving forward.  I really don't want to be stuck with something
that is going to end up being a pain a year down the road.

What benefit does use.xml have over use.desc?

My opinion is that we should use use.desc for a complete list of use
flags, including a generic description, allow a more verbose
description in metadata.xml and get rid of the stupid separation of
"local" and "global" flags. No need to change the format of use.desc

I completely agree with this. This allows each individual package to provide more insight to what a USE flag does.

The only benefit use.local.desc gives us is a fast way to list packages
using some flags, but that's unreliable at best. If needed such a list
could be autogenerated.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Reply via email to