I just wanted to add my vote for this. I agree, it's one of the most annoying things about portage.
However, while I don't know the motivations behind metadata.xml, I'd think it's better to have the USE flag info in the ebuild. /John On lÃr, 2005-02-05 at 17:16 +0100, Fabian Zeindl wrote: > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Mmm, I suggested extending metadata.xml to allow this a while back, but > > it looked like it was going to turn into another one of those huge "me > > vs foser" flamewars so I dropped the idea. > > Hm, why? IMHO it's one of the most annoying things in portage that I > don't know whether I need a specific useflag or not... > > > Of course, extending the metadata.xml DTD and equery to support it is an > > entirely different thing from going through every package in the tree > > and adding in extra USE descriptions. But then, hopefully most of the > > time it's fairly obvious what USE flags do. > > But that can be done by the package maintainers. If they had the > possibility to add this information to their packages, sooner or later > more and more package maintainers will use that, i think... > > > greetings > fabian >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
