On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 16:19:06 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would be happy to add it to metadata.xml. I think it would be > easier to do so, and the tools might come with the possibility. As an occasional ebuild contributor, i would prefer this directly in ebuilds rather than in metadata. I mean, if in ebuilds, that's just one more line to write and i know i will do it when i feel the info from use.desc are not enough/relevant/meaningful. But if in metadata.xml, i probably won't, i don't even have a single metadata.xml file in my overlays (why should i btw?). Another argument is that this USE flags descriptions would often be relevant only for a few versions of the package (I'm thinking of messages like "Support for libfoo is still a bit experimental, so use this flag with care. Libbar is still prefered."). Adding that in metadata.xml would require some kind of per-version tags, that start to be a bit complex... And I think that for devs, it would be rather natural to add that kind of temporary notes in ebuilds (they currently use shell comments anyway), but easy to forget if in a separate file. Maybe that's worth a gentoo-dev@ discussion? After all, it's not just about portage code. > Direct portage support is not needed. Hmm, maybe yes. I would not be against an "emerge -p -vv" mode which would display this USE flag desriptions (not the standard ones sure, only the ones redefined per-package). That sounds like the easier way to know that some of them are highly encouraged, or discouraged, or a bit different from what they mean in general, etc. -- TGL. -- [email protected] mailing list
