On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 10:08:45AM -0500, Alec Warner wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 02:05:37AM -0500, Alec Warner wrote: > > > >>Could we by chance, mandate some sort of comment field in that file not > >>unlike package.mask? > > > > > > what really needs explanation ? i mean, why do you need a comment for say: > > aalib media-libs/aalib > > canna app-i18n/canna > > and every package in there is the same way > > Because I want to know WHY this flag is required to be in use.defaults > vs a normal flag? Because maybe flags were added in the past to cover > situation X and now that situation is fixed another way and we can pull > the flag out of use.defaults
i think you're confusing use.defaults with the USE in profile make.defaults use.defaults is there to simply automatically enable USE flags if a package is installled, nothing more and nothing less > >>I'm also a bit worried that things were placed in there a while ago and > >>are no longer needed, may also be a good idea to date the entries. > > > > > > like what ? dating is pointless imo, use `cvs ann` :P > > Right..cvs ann...how do I do that from viewCVS again? :) well, if i had to guess, i'd say try clicking the link that says '(annotate)' > In the end I just wonder at the use of these things. They are both > helpful and bad. if you want to start a thread about punting use.defaults, then do it ... trying to slowly bleed the file of entries is dumb -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
