On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:55:10 +0100 "Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2007 3:30 PM, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What benefit does use.xml have over use.desc? > [...] > > No need to change the format of use.desc > > Anything that would enable us to document with more than a few words, > which is what we're practically limited to with the current format of > use.desc, would help. The currently available documentation on USE > flags is clearly insufficient, maybe not for you and me and other > devs, but for the majority of our users. Note that this is not the > same as optionally adding more specific documentation on a global flag > in the metadata.xml of a package. Most of the time when I see complaints about the description of USE flags (I'm fully aware of those) the issue isn't the format, just that noone else has come up with a better description. And technically use.desc isn't limited to "a few words", unless you want to add multiple paragraphs with formatting, just the (current) presentation would get a bit ugly with longer descriptions. Of course the format could be changed if needed, but that needs a more specific description about the requirements. > > and get rid of the stupid separation of "local" and "global" flags > > Good idea. How do you plan to cope with the (currently) local USE flag > conflicts though ? You mean different descriptions? Just use a placeholder in use.desc (like some global flags already have) and move the actual description in metadata.xml if there isn't any common base. Marius -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
