Dnia 2014-01-11, o godz. 18:15:09 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> A far better method from a user point of view is to install the linguas > the user explicitly asked for. Your proposal as worded will be taken at > first glance to mean "install all linguas, but not XX" as most users > won't see the MASK portion and forget to flip the logic around in their > head. As said on the other mail, I think we could just make portage implicitly convert LINGUAS into INSTALL_MASK. That is, use the old variable and give it a bit of new behavior. > How much work is it to get native support for LINGUAS into all ebuilds? > That would be the intuitive place considering there is already USE flags > for LINGUAS. Honestly? I'm all limbs against LINGUAS in its current form. It's just extra dumb. We have basically two cases: 1. packages that make LINGUAS into USE flags and use them to control l10n. It's just useless extra work and extra rebuilds for locale change. 2. packages that respect LINGUAS implicitly. That is, install only some of the files silently and you don't even know which were enabled. install-mask provides a clean framework to strip linguas with binpackage friendliness potential. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
