Donnie Berkholz posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:50:13 -0700:
> Sven Wegener wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:56:43PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: >> >>>I'm in favor of this. Would you mind calling it package.autouse, >>>package.use.auto or are you set on .force? >> >> As Mike already wrote those names are too confusing with the automatic >> activated USE flags. We already had some suggestions in this thread, but >> none of them actually matched the purpose of the file. At least in my >> opinion. use.force matches it best, but the "force" part is a quite hard >> term. How about use.profile? Because these USE flags are activated or >> needed by the profile. > > How about use.required, since they're required by the profile? Watching the debate so far, I'd say use.lock sounds simplest and most descriptive to me, with use.required a close second, only because of the longer extension (.lock is simpler/shorter than .required). This from the perspective of one who regularly finds himself posting explanations of various portage workings, both on the amd64 list, and on my ISP's own list (there's a guy who's just trying out Gentoo, coming from FreeBSD -- he has some dev experience on FBSD, so he's potentially an asset to both the FreeBSD herd and the amd64 arch, some time down the road, tho he's so far not seemed to interested in the Gentoo on FBSD stuff). From an explainer's perspective, I agree that .force sounds a bit harsh, but use.lock is a simple concept to explain, as is use.required, tho the .required disturbs my aesthetic sense simply because it's too long to be "short and simple". -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
