On 11/01/2014 18:52, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2014-01-11, o godz. 18:15:09 > Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> 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.
Do you mean retain LINGUAS in make.conf and remove it from "emerge -p" output? I don't know much about how LINGUAS works behind the scenes, but you seem to be proposing a scheme that works something like this: 1. User specifics what LINGUAS they want in make.conf 2. Portage magically and invisibly installs files only for that LINGUA That seems a good approach, it unclutters emerge -p output [the amount of clutter that causes, together with APACHE2_MODULES, CAMERAS, PHP_MODULES etc is quite unbelievable] and gives the user what they asked for. If you hide the negative logic in the implementation that is double bonus > >> 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. > -- Alan McKinnon [email protected]
