Le Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:39:22 -0600,
R Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
TGL did some work on this under bug #84884, though his changes are
more invasive than what i had in mind. I don't see the need for
portage to dig through use.*desc when euse already works and equery
can pretty easily be
R Hill wrote:
a global USE flag duplicated in use.local.desc could be used to give specific
information about exactly what effect the flag has on a certain package, or if
for some reason it does differ slightly from the global meaning.
global use flags (searching: doc)
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:49:26 +0100
Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
R Hill wrote:
a global USE flag duplicated in use.local.desc could be used to
give specific information about exactly what effect the flag has on
a certain package, or if for some reason it does differ slightly
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
IIRC the idea behind duplication was not to use a flag for different
purposes, but have a generic description in use.desc (like doc: build
additional docs) and give a more detailed description in
use.local.desc (like doc: build API docs and manual as pdf
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:49:55 -0500
Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
IIRC the idea behind duplication was not to use a flag for different
purposes, but have a generic description in use.desc (like doc:
build additional docs) and give a more detailed
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Yeah, unfortunately none of the people proposing the idea ever wrote a
glep or even filed a bug regarding this (AFAIK), also as the quoted
threads show there are a number of possible solutions for this.
It doesn't seem that too many people feel strongly in
R Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Anyways I just like anything that makes use.desc more useful than
foo - adds support for foo
That's really a completely separate issue. By allowing duplicate entries we
just allow people to put useless information in two places instead of one.
--
Mark Loeser
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 22:19:29 -0500 Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I don't see this as a groundbreaking change that requires a GLEP or
| anything, especially since I eliminated most of the duplicates today,
| after talking with the respective maintainers. There are probably
| only 3 or 4
