On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 3:58 AM, Daniele Maccari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael Homer wrote: > > It would be silly to write that, since the flag definitely won't be > > enabled by default. -gtk1 won't do anything unless you've already > > enabled it yourself earlier in the file. > > -Michael > That's an interesting point. They're not *real* use flags then, since > choosing to disable something doesn't actually disable anything, am I > right here?
If they're not "real" in the sense that they are not Gentoo-equivalent use flags, then yes, they're not. But if they're not use flags, then what are they? I find it better to keep the name than to just invent a name and have to explain it to people like "well, they're basically like use-flags" every time. Keeping the name is also a way of giving credit to Gentoo. I don't consider the name misleading because of these implementation details. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to: * disallow global negative flags in configuration files altogether. * have the "+" to be an implicit operator. The difference in syntax would make the difference in semantics clearer. -- Hisham _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
