Ryan Hill wrote:
What do people think of this?
a) Keep use.desc as it is: a list of common flags and a short general
description of their meaning.
Good.
b) Keep use.local.desc as it is: a list of per-package flags that are
specific to one to a few ebuilds (i think 5 is the number though i think
10 is more appropriate, but that's not relevant to this discussion).
Again, each has a short description.
c) Allow flags from use.desc to also exist in use.local.desc. In the
case that a flag for a package exists in both, the use.local.desc
description overrides the use.desc one. This allows a more specific
per-package description of global flags.
Good.
d) Allow long descriptions in a package's metadata.xml, as some have
begun to do already, for cases where more info is needed. For example
I'd like to explain exactly what the bindist flag on freetype does and
what legal implications disabling it can have.
Right. Also why not also add short descriptions there, and deprecate
use.local.desc when tools are converted? Placing package-local info to
global files (when not needed to distinguish profiles as with
package.use.mask etc) is icky.
Note that the metadata.xml should be able to record per-version
differences somehow.
On the other hand, if there are any far-reaching changes we need made to
the USE flag system - any features we wish we had or misfeatures we wish
we didn't - now would be a good time to address them.
I wish for use deps :P
Well, addressing conflicts and implications between flags at ebuild/PM
level would be also nice, but really shouldn't affect the way
documentation is handled, IMHO.
VB
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
