On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Isaac Dupree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Homer wrote:
>> On Sunday 06 July 2008 12:59:55 Isaac Dupree wrote:
>>> Michael Homer wrote:
>>>> Now, here comes your part in all this: tear the preceding to pieces and
>>>> show us why it's wrong.
>>> I'll try, even though it looks pretty enticing to me :-)
>>>
>>>> Where one of the flags encompassed by the generic flag was enabled
>>>> explicitly, the generic flag would do nothing. If a program had qt, gtk,
>>>> and tk interfaces, +gui +gtk would not enable qt. This means you can use
>>>> program-specific flags to choose a specific interface as usual. If
>>>> multiple component flags are specifically enabled, they all remain
>>>> enabled.
>>> what is "explicitly"? is there a clear distinction between
>>> user-specified (commandline? config-file?) and automatically (somehow)
>>> added useflags?
>> "Explicitly" is "you explicitly enabled the flag". Probably in UseFlags.conf,
>> perhaps in the system flags or the environment.
>
> Where "you" is the user/admin, not the distributor? It's expected for
> systems to come with configurations that can be specified only with this
> generic mechanism, none "explicitly enabled"? Sounds like that might
> actually work reasonably, but I'm not sure...
"You" is anybody. I'm not sure where the miscommunication is in "the
flag is explicitly enabled"; if the flag is specifically enabled, it's
on no matter what. If it isn't, we see what's available from the
generic. Perhaps I just wrote that part badly, could you explain more
clearly what your question is (from the beginning)?
>>> Is it really hierarchical e.g. if there was "gui" already then I could
>>> hypothetically define something like "interface: cli gui" that says I
>>> prefer command-line interfaces, but I'd rather have a GUI interface than
>>> no interface at all, for example? (maybe not all the choices would be
>>> generic, e.g. "interface: gui ncurses ...")
>> They are unlikely to be hierarchical (just not worth the trouble to
>> implement), and they're not really usefully user-created. There's a fairly
>> slim set of flags where it makes sense. SSL library and GUI toolkit were the
>> two big examples we came up with.
>
> also, trivial to get the effect of, by expanding in your config-file if
> you really want them:
But, again, not really useful. And it's quite possible that the sets
of generics will be coded into Scripts; otherwise you end up with a
really bad complexity by having to search on each flag. They'll be
introduced so seldom that working it into a tools release won't be
much of a burden.
-Michael
_______________________________________________
gobolinux-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
