On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Duncan <[email protected]> wrote: > Thomas Sachau posted on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:45:16 +0100 as excerpted: > >> Ben de Groot schrieb: >>> On 14 November 2012 05:13, Thomas Sachau <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Alexis Ballier schrieb: >>>>> - considering gentoo generally uses e-prefixed names (econf, emake, >>>>> etc.) maybe its wiser to name the variables E17_* instead of only >>>>> E_*, or ENLIGHTENMENT_*, so that it makes the "confusion" harder. >>>>> >>>> Those functions are internal ebuild functions, while the USE_EXPANDed >>>> var is exposed to and may be used by the user, so i dont see a high >>>> risk of people mixing them. Maybe some other people can also comment >>>> on this? >>> >>> I agree that E_* is more confusing than it needs to be. Please use >>> something that is unmistakeably clearer. >>> >> ok, so what about ENLIGHTENMENT_MODULES as USE_EXPANDED var? > > That's certainly clear enough. Alternatively, something like ENL_* would > be shorter if somewhat more cryptic, but should eliminate any possible > E_* confusion. > > Because as a user I recently noted some package with a use-expand that > gets REALLY long in portage's emerge --verbose --pretend output, which > lists ALL variants on or off, with the prefix repeated for each one. > ENLIGHTENMENT_MODULES is certainly clear enough, but when it's repeated a > dozen or more times, once for each expansion, that's a VERY long > emerge --pretend --verbose output! > > So as a user I'd prefer the shorter if more cryptic ENL_*, which does at > least eliminate the potential confusion of the originally proposed E_*, > while still being short enough to not be horribly annoying when repeated > a dozen times.
As a user, I'd prefer the full ENLIGHTENMENT_MODULES, as I prefer verbosity over cryptocity in configuration and debugging output. But then, I don't use E... -- :wq
