On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:55:10 +0100
"Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Dec 31, 2007 3:30 PM, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What benefit does use.xml have over use.desc?
> [...]
> > No need to change the format of use.desc
> Anything that would enable us to document with more than a few words,
> which is what we're practically limited to with the current format of
> use.desc, would help. The currently available documentation on USE
> flags is clearly insufficient, maybe not for you and me and other
> devs, but for the majority of our users. Note that this is not the
> same as optionally adding more specific documentation on a global flag
> in the metadata.xml of a package.

Most of the time when I see complaints about the description of USE
flags (I'm fully aware of those) the issue isn't the format, just that
noone else has come up with a better description. And technically
use.desc isn't limited to "a few words", unless you want to add
multiple paragraphs with formatting, just the (current) presentation
would get a bit ugly with longer descriptions. Of course the format
could be changed if needed, but that needs a more specific description
about the requirements.

> > and get rid of the stupid separation of "local" and "global" flags
> Good idea. How do you plan to cope with the (currently) local USE flag
> conflicts though ?

You mean different descriptions? Just use a placeholder in use.desc
(like some global flags already have) and move the actual description
in metadata.xml if there isn't any common base.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Reply via email to